►
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
North
and
east
plant
panel
deals
with
applications
from
North,
East
and
the
east
of
the
city.
The
aim
of
the
panel
is
to
hear
all
the
information
from
applicants-
members
of
public
and
Council
offices
to
help
members
of
panel
to
make
the
decision
and
I
also
wish
you
a
happy
New
Year.
This
is
our
first
2023
plans
panel
meeting
and
it's
good
to
see.
Council
Lam
also
joining
us
after
some
time,
while
he
has
been
also
speedy
recovery
alone.
A
We
missed
you
and
we
missed
your
contribution
over
the
last
few
months
and
it's
good
to
see
you
could
I
now
invite
members
and
the
officers
to
introduce
themselves
and
mute
your
microphone
once
you
have
introduced
yourselves.
I
will
start
from
the
left.
Stuart.
E
Councilor
Hannah
Bethel
from
kirkstall.
A
M
Then
try
to
number
one.
There
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
gender
item
two.
There
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
or
the
public
a
gender
item.
Three,
there
are
no
late
items
of
business
and
regener
item
four.
Could
I
ask
members
to
declare
any
interests
I'm
going
to
take
counselor
sharp
greatly.
F
Thank
you
just
to
say
a
gender
item.
Eight
Richard
Bergen
MP
supporting
that
application
and
I
actually
worked
for
Richard
Bergen
as
a
caseworker,
but
I
have
not
dealt
with
this
case,
so
I'm
coming
with
an
open
mind
today.
Thank
you.
A
K
Yeah.
Thank
you
chair
on
item.
Seven
I've
declared
this
previous
when
it
comes
to
panel
as
well
I'm
a
director
and
Steering
group
member
of
better
Weatherby,
who
have
obviously
been
commenting
on
this
application
throughout,
but
I
haven't
taken
any
part
in
their
discussions
or
deliberations.
M
Under
a
gender
item,
five
we've
received
no
apologies.
We
have
been
informed
that
Council
array
is
actually
on
his
way.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
item
six
minutes
of
previous
meeting
held
on
the
17th
of
November
2022.
Do
member,
except
these
minutes
are
true
and
correct.
Record
I'll,
assume
correct
and
less
indicate
otherwise
Our
member
happy
to
move
this
and
are
there
any
matters
arising
some
can
someone
move
it?
A
B
Excuse
me
I'll
get
used
to
the
technology.
Thank
you.
Chai
scheme
relates
to
the
reserve
maths
application
for
762
dwellings
at
land
off
race,
cars
approach
in
Weatherby
and
was
visited
by
members
this
morning.
The
whole
site
is
allocated
for
housing
within
the
sap
and
with
outline
approval
granted
in
2021
for
information
land
to
the
north
west
and
a
small
pass
of
land
to
the
southwest
and
not
do
not
form
part
of
this
application
and
will
be
brought
forward
by
separate
landowners
individually.
B
This
particular
slide
shows
the
sighting
context
with
surrounding
features
with
the
A1
located
to
the
West,
the
young
offenders
Institute
to
the
South,
with
the
application
site
wrapping
around
and
the
Weatherby
race
cars
is
located
further.
South
Central
Weatherby
is
located
to
the
west
across
the
A1
Motorway.
B
So
members
may
recall
the
application
was
subject
to
a
position
statement
last
year
in
March
of
last
year,
and
at
that
point,
both
officers
and
members
raised
a
number
of
concerns
with
the
proposals
with
the
main
issue
set
out
at
chapter
11
review
report.
Since
then,
officers
have
been
working
with
the
applicants
and
their
representatives
in
order
to
address
these
concerns
with
the
following
slides,
providing
more
details
as
to
the
changes.
B
In
addition,
a
number
of
discussions
have
also
taken
place
with
local
community
groups.
Excuse
me,
including
better
Weatherby
partnership,
the
Weatherby
Civic
Society,
the
Town
Council
and
local
Ward
members,
all
of
which
are
now
supportive
of
the
Amendments
made
to
the
proposals
with
regard
to
Innovation,
layout
and
Design.
Regarding
layout.
There
are
large
areas
of
Green.
B
Levels
of
Frontage
parking
have
also
been
significantly
reduced
with
their
locations
now,
in
very
short,
runs
with
well-designed
landscaped
areas,
interspersing
them,
so
this
next
slide
shows
the
locations
of
affordable
housing
plots
which
have
been
better
spread
throughout
the
site
within
the
split
of
units
between
houses
and
apartments,
in
line
with
policy
and
the
neighborhood
plan.
In
addition,
10
n43
compliant
fully
accessible
bunglers
are
now
also
proposed
and
are
located
centrally
within
the
development
within
the
cars
character
area.
B
This
particular
slide
sorry
shows
the
relationship
of
the
development
to
the
adjacent
A1
Motorway
on
the
left
of
the
image
is
the
existing
dwellings,
which
have
a
20
meter
buffer
to
the
motorway,
with
the
proposed
development
on
the
right
having
a
60
meter
buffer,
which
is
made
up
of
existing
planted
embankment
the
bridal
way
and
a
20
meter
wide
five
meter
high
Bund
and,
as
you
can
see,
you've
got
the
frontage
of
the
houses.
Beyond
that,
it's
important
to
note
that
this
was
dealt
with
these.
B
B
So
this
next
slide
shows
movement
hierarchy
in
the
highway
Network.
So
what
we
now
have
is
primary
and
secondary
routes
indicated
in
pink
and
brown,
with
primary
Roots,
also
indicating
the
bus
routes
for
the
development
throughout
the
site
and
how
it
would
Interlink
the
developments
further
north
and
south.
B
In
addition,
these
primary
secondary
routes
will
also
be
fully
tree-lined
in
accordance
with
guidance
in
the
mppf,
which
will
significantly
enhance
the
visual
immunity
of
the
development
and
add
to
the
overall
green
credentials
of
the
scheme.
In
addition,
a
4.5
meter
wide
cycleway,
which
would
run
east
to
west
along
the
main
primary
route,
passes
in
front
of
this
proposed
school
and
the
retail
unit.
B
So
this
slide
shows
that
the
development,
the
developer,
has
also
committed
to
providing
a
pedestrian
Crossing
on
York
Road
and
it's
located
roughly
within
the
center
of
the
screen.
So
if
I
try
and
sure
it
is
there
with
obviously
with
the
development
site
there,
so
that's
where
the
development
Crossing
is
proposed.
B
B
So
turning
to
design.
This
is
where
the
most
changes
have
been
made.
The
development
still
proposes
character
areas,
but
these
are
being
reduced
to
four.
Previously,
it
was
five
the
is
in
order
to
better
reflect
the
nature
of
the
sky
of
the
site.
These
character
areas
would
be
as
follows:
we
have
the
cars
which
contains
the
greatest
number
of
dwellings
and
will
be
spread
across
six
areas
of
the
site
indicated
in
purple.
These
lungs
will
become
generally
constructed
out
of
red,
brick
and
gray,
concrete
roof
tiles.
B
B
B
Materials
would
generally
be,
of
course,
done
with
concrete
roof
tiles
and
storm
tuners
are
also
proposed,
and
then
finally,
some
Beck.
So
this
was
previously
The
Innovation
Zone
and
it's
been
essentially
located
within
the
development
shown
in
Orange.
This
area
comprises
of
innovative
and
modern
style
apartment
and
houses.
Materials
proposed
with
consist
of
both
brick
with
contrasting
white
render
and
Timber
would
also
feature
heavily
within
the
plots
to
provide
a
contemporary
and
Innovative
appearance.
C
Thank
you
stewies,
so
I'm
going
to
quickly
whip
through
the
individual
house
types
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
and
Stuart,
provided
what
I
would
say,
however,
is
before
before
we
start.
Is
that
remember
the
context
in
which
these
images
have
been
produced?
In
reality,
the
majority
would
have
boundaries
of
some
kind,
whether
they're,
stone
walls
or
sorry,
solid
masonry,
Wars
along
the
main
route
or
or
vegetative
Hedges
or
softer
planted
boundaries.
C
So
you
wouldn't
see
the
full
exposure
that
you
have
here
and
also,
while
we're
looking
at
four
different
character
areas,
what
which
is
less
about
the
individuality
of
the
architecture
and
more
about
how
everything
hangs
together
to
create
a
real
sense
of
place,
and
that's
what's
really
driven
the
discussions
over
the
last
few
months.
So
initially
we
have
the
cars.
So
this
makes
up
the
majority
of
the
houses
within
the
site
and,
as
you
can
see,
it's
a
relatively
simple,
robust
form
in
accordance
with
local
architectural
forms.
C
C
They've
started
with
as
you'd
expect
a
standard
house
type,
and
then
we've
worked
extensively
with
the
development
team
to
amend
it
so
and
modify
it
and
develop
actually
a
bespoke
response
to
the
site
so
that
we've
got
things
like
much
larger
Windows,
which
affect
the
appearance,
gives
you
more
a
number
of
the
the
house
types
more
contemporary
form.
They
allow
much
more
natural
light
into
the
properties
and
we've
We've
regulated
realized
the
windows.
We
have
much
more
windows
on
Gables,
for
example,
so
that
we've
got
quite
a
fairly
different
product.
C
So
the
one
that
we
started
with
the
next
is
the
Avenue
house
type,
and
this
is
these-
will
form
primarily
the
edges,
so
they're
in
a
a
an
artificial
stone
finish
with
a
pantal
roof
and
cream
windows
in
a
much
more
traditional
style.
C
You
will
note-
and
it's
worth
pointing
at
this
out
at
this
stage-
that
this
single
house
type
character
type
employs
chimneys
and
the
hat
there
that
has
been
raised
as
an
issue
by
I
think
it
was
a
whether
it
be
Civic
Society
as
a
criticism,
because
they're
non-functioning
chimneys
are
there
for
aesthetic
purposes.
The
office
officer's
view
is
that
there
are
pros
and
cons
on
both
sides.
C
Obviously,
it's
disappointing
to
have
an
element
that
doesn't
have
a
clear
function.
However,
they
do
add
to
the
character
of
the
building.
They
do
help
bed,
this
particular
character
type
within
the
local
context,
and
they
give
interest
to
the
roof
form
the
rescape
on
what
would
be
the
external
envelope
for
the
majority
of
the
site.
C
So
to
have
another
quick
example:
there
we
go
of
sorry
of
the
of
the
Avenue
there's
the
most
traditional
form
of
housing
on
the
site.
C
C
Okay,
finally,
we'll
come
to
the
sandbag,
and
this
occupies
the
central
area
and
the
central
area
of
the
site.
Is
you
know
we?
These
were
a
lot
of
the
effort's
been
focused
in
terms
of
creating
character
in
a
sense
of
a
unique
sense
of
identity
to
to
what
is
a
substantial
new
neighborhood
working
with
the
inherent
characteristics
of
the
context.
C
The
quality
of
the
landscape
in
particular,
so
here
there's
been
an
attempt
to
marry
the
the
desire
for
contemporary
design
forms
with
the
really
strong
green
character
and
this
green
framework
that
you
can
see
that
com
that
converges
at
the
Central
Point
within
the
scheme
and
then
provides
links
through
out
to
the
surrounding
rural
context.
C
So
you
you'll
note
the
apartment
blocks.
I
apologies
I
will
try
the
the
pointer.
Oh
there,
we
are
yeah
which
have
been
amended
throughout
throughout
the
development
process.
So
what
we
now
end
up
with
are
three
main
blocks
with
significant
space
between
them
and
the
idea
is
to
provide
views
through
to
the
landscape
Beyond
into
the
to
the
nature
areas
in
the
Wetland
and
it's
a
combination
of
these
views
through
the
landscape
setting
with
the
Contemporary
architecture,
which
takes
again
that
kind
of
simple,
robust
form.
C
That's
that's
the
inherent
characteristic
of
of
of
of
local
buildings
and
exaggerates
it
in
the
case
of
the
block
on
to
my
left,
to
really
make
a
statement
piece
using
a
a
rendered
elevation
and
the
framing
of
the
Gable,
which
you
will
then
be
able
to
see
across
the
landscape
and
the
the
water
in
the
open
space.
So
this
will
help
to
define
the
center
of
the
scheme
and
create
a
real
sense
of
unique
identity.
It's
in
a
very
contemporary
manner.
C
The
remain
with
the
building
uses,
subtle,
earthy
tones,
so
in
terms
of
its
brick
work
and
Roofing,
and
some
of
the
cladding.
So
the
penalized
cladding
it
Incorporated,
which
will
blend
into
the
landscape
setting,
and
it
also
incorporates
inboard
bin
and
cycle
stores,
so
that
you
know
to
minimize
the
amount
of
peripheral
material
and
retain
these
kind
of
these
key
views
through
within
the
spread,
the
fingers
of
green
space
between
and
along
with
the
apartment
blocks.
C
There's
there
are
a
a
series
of
streets
using
a
much
more
contemporary
design
standard
than
the
majority
of
than
the
other
three
house
types,
sorry
character,
types.
B
C
B
Thank
you
John,
so
the
developer
is
also
committed
to
a
no
gas
development
from
day
one
with
alternative
alternative
energy
sources
proposed.
So
for
this
scheme
it's
proposed
to
introduce
a
community
energy
heat
Hub
details
of
how
this
will
work.
You're
in
your
report,
paragraphs,
119
and
120..
B
So
this
particular
slide
is
it's
just
a
visual
representation
of
what
the
heat
Hub
would
look
like
it's
important
to
note
that
this
is
truly
Innovative
technique.
It's
not
been
done
before,
so,
if
we
want
Innovation,
this
is
of
how
to
provide
no
gas.
This
is
this
is
truly
it
so
officers.
Welcome
this.
B
Consequently,
we
welcome
the
formation
of
the
design
workshops
set
up
and
chair
by
Matt
Johnson
on
behalf
of
Taylor
wimpy.
These
workshops
covering
all
aspects
affected
by
the
50
or
so
planning
conditions
of
the
outline
consent
worked
at
despite
the
pandemic
and
given
their
different
subject
matter
of
each
allowing
better
weather
bait
and
others
to
tailor
their
presence
and
contribution,
the
common
goal
of
which
was
to
achieve
an
Exemplar
scheme
throughout
the
process.
B
Better
Weatherby
has
noted
that
last
week,
over
two
years
down
the
line
from
the
design
Workshop
process,
Minister
Michael
Gove
is
advocating
just
such
processes
better.
Whether
we
will
be
drawing
his
attention
to
our
experiences
with
Taylor,
wimpit
and
LCC,
and
strongly
suggesting
that
this
is
something
he
should
study
on
behalf
of
a
better
Weatherby
I
wish
to
record
our
most
and
say,
thanks
to
all
those
people
who,
at
most
times,
have
been
responsive
to
our
views.
B
Even
when
opinions
have
differed
and
the
elected
members
should
know
the
value
that
which
this
format
has
added
to
the
process.
It
cannot
be
understated,
not
all
aspects
have
sat
happily,
for
example,
the
signing
off
of
conditions
relating
to
noise
and
air
pollution
and
and
I
understand
some
commitment
today
regards
with
regarding
production
emissions
from
materials
such
as
in
chimney
pots
better
Weatherby
supports
that,
but
will
accept
the
outcome.
We
are
where
we
are
one
final
Advance
word:
there
will
be
a
further
application
for
the
balance
of
the
sites
on
300
dwellings.
B
Better
weather
be
urges
you
to
toughen
conditions
relating
to
noise
and
air
pollution
when
the
time
comes,
Roger,
Owen,
chair,
better
Weatherby
partnership,
so,
finally,
to
conclude,
officers
consider
that
the
changes
made
to
the
proposal
are
significant
and
address
the
concerns
raised
by
officers
and
members
last
year
and,
as
such
recommendation
to
members
is
to
defer
and
delegate
approval
of
the
application
subject
to
matters
outlined
within
the
report
and
as
such.
Nothing
further
to
our
chair.
A
But
thank
you.
We
have
a
speaker
in
objection
to
the
application.
Could
I
ask
the
gentleman
to
come
to
the
table
and
when
you're
ready,
you
will
have
four
minutes.
P
Thank
you
very
much
pleasure
to
meet
you
all
again
this
afternoon,
I'm
Peter
cat
and
chairman
of
Weatherby
Civic
Society,
many
of
wetherby
Civic
societies
and
the
plans
panels.
Concerns
over
the
design
of
the
development
have
been
addressed
by
the
proposals
which
you've
just
heard
about
The
Remains,
one
standing
item
which
has
not
been
resolved,
the
attachment
to
many
of
the
houses
of
false
chimneys.
P
Once
we
accept
that
many
may
feel
that
chimneys
add
to
the
visual
appeal
of
houses,
and
we
don't
we're
not.
We
don't
agree
with
that.
I
mean
I,
don't
put
our
personal
view.
Personal
views
is
not
necessarily
Aesthetics.
There
are
reasons
other
than
Aesthetics.
The
false
chimney
pots
should
not
be
allowed
on
any
of
the
houses
in
this
development.
P
P
Okay,
it
may
be
claimed
that
chimneys
are
a
necessary
blending
in
with
existing
nearby
housing.
Let
me
remind
you
that
the
new
estate
is
at
least
half
a
mile
away
from
significant
numbers
of
houses
which
have
real
chimneys
and,
moreover,
many
of
the
houses
built
in
North
and
West
Willoughby
in
the
1980s
do
not
have
proper
chimneys.
Indeed,
I
live
in
one
of
them.
P
Chimneys
may
be
a
source
of
a
fourth
item.
Chimneys
may
be
a
source
of
unnecessary
maintenance
in
the
future,
and
indeed,
potential
danger
to
the
public
and
property
if
they
are
not
maintained
in
chimney,
pots
form
that's
the
recorded
annually
by
Falling
chimney
pots
in
high
winds,
and
indeed
a
neighbor
of
mine
and
somebody
I
know
had
a
chimney.
Pot
fall
on
top
of
their
car.
P
A
Thank
you.
Do
you
remember,
have
any
questions
for
the
speaker.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
sir.
We
also
have
a
well.
We
also
have
speakers
on
on
supporting
this
application.
So
can
I
ask
them
to
come
to
the
table
and
they
also
have
four
minutes
to
present
the
case.
Q
Thank
you,
chair
Mark,
Johnson,
Johnson,
Mallet
planning,
consultant
on
behalf
of
this
scheme
and
I've
brought
with
me
two
representatives
of
Taylor
wimpy
Jenny
purple
on
my
left
on
the
land
team
and
Erica
Bell
on
my
right
is
on
the
technical
team
and
I've
just
put
another
request
out
to
The
Architects
over
behind
the
the
chairs
and
I'll
just
start
off
with
the
chimneys.
If
I
may,
I
think
the
Chimneys
in
total
make
up
no
more
than
15
percent
of
the
dwellings
and
in
that
respect.
Q
Think
where
we
sit
today,
is
that
we
we
sit
in
a
very
confident
position.
Is
that
what
we've
brought
in
this
revised
proposal
is
something
that
represents
what
the
government
aspiration
and
what
the
council's
aspiration
is
good
design,
even
beautiful
design
and
Innovation,
and
innovation
in
two
forms:
one:
the
visible
innovation
in
the
form
of
design
and
then
the
second
element
of
innovation
is
the
invisible
and
that's
the
energy
performance
of
these
dwellings.
Now
again,
the
energy
performance
of
these
dwellings
is
not
dealt
with
through
this
Reserve
matters.
Application.
Q
So
what
we've
got
now
is
a
scheme
known
as
Incredible
Edible,
which
forms
part
of
the
Landscaping
proposal
so
you'll
see
the
Landscaping
scheme
introduces
a
whole
series
of
edible
Landscapes
growing
areas
throughout
the
development
and
and
what
the
report
touches
upon,
of
course,
is.
The
green
space
on
this
site
is
significant
and
probably
represents
something
like
300
percent
of
the
council's
policy
requirements,
so
in
effect
there's
three
times
the
amount
of
green
space
in
this
scheme.
Q
A
Thank
you.
Any
questions
for
speakers
councilam.
K
Yeah,
thank
you
chair,
first
of
all,
unusually
when
usually
when
we're
sitting
here,
we're
lining
up
to
have
a
pop-up
developers,
but
I'd
actually
like
to
say
thank
you
on
this
occasion
for
your
willingness
to
properly
and
fully
engage
with
the
community
on
working
on
the
scheme.
It's
it's
been
really
refreshing
from
the
officer's
side
as
well.
To
actually
have
what
we
ask
for
every
time
doing:
development
with
the
community
rather
than
doing
it
to
them.
It
won't
be
a
surprise
to
anyone
we'd.
K
Rather
this
development
wasn't
happening,
but
that
ship
sailed
some
time
ago.
So
the
community
was
willing
to
step
forward
and
and
say
right,
well
we're
ready
to
work
with
you
and
and
do
what
we
can
to
make
it
the
best
scheme.
It
can
be
and
I'm
really
grateful
that
the
officers
and
the
developer
have
been
willing
to
to
step
up
and
and
do
the
same
as
well.
So
so
thank
you
before
for
asking
my
questions
and
the
couple
of
questions.
K
I've
got
one
just
sorry
to
come
back
to
chimneys,
but
it
was
raised
as
an
issue.
So
it's
just
to
fully
understand
how
big
of
an
issue
it
is
for
you
how
relaxed
you
are
about.
It
was
suggested
by
the
speaker
that
you're
easy
either
way.
That's
the
officers
that
were
Keen
to
have
the
chimneys
as
part
of
the
design
and
if
you've
got
a
view
on,
if
there's
some
other
way
of
achieving
the
same
sort
of
feature
and
character
without
having
without
having
false
chimneys.
K
So
that
would
be
my
my
first
question
and
the
second
thing
is
around
sustainable
Urban
drainage
and
there's
been
talk
this
week
about
future
plans,
which
obviously
we
can't
consider
today,
but
it's
just
understanding
how
you
would
deal
with
that.
How
you're
equipped
to
deal
with
that.
As
as
the
legislation,
changes
and
building
breaks,
change
down
the
line.
Q
Thank
you,
councilor
Lam,
I,
think
with
respect
to
you,
you're
opening
comments
in
the
complimentary
comments.
I
think
we
accept
those
I
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
hard
work
done
and
equally
to
return
is
that
we
we
do
appreciate
the
time
that's
been
taken
by
not
just
Ward
members,
but
by
the
volunteers
and
effects
with
the
better
Weatherby
partnership
in
the
Civic
Society,
because
it's
not
just
the
last
10
months
that
we've
been
chatting
it's,
but
it's
around
about
three
years
now.
Q
Q
Is
there
another
way
of
doing
this
and
how
do
TW
feel
about
the
tubes
I?
Think
in
our
conversations
is
that
tell
them
if
you're
not
wedded
to
the
chimneys,
but
do
think
that
they
make
a
contribution
in
terms
of
the
roofscape
and
the
design
and
to
have
them
on
the
traditional
buildings
are
not
necessarily
on
the
Innovation
buildings.
Is
the
right
approach
to
have
them
in
several
parts
of
the
site
that
have
got
a
traditional
appearance
to
them?
Q
We
think
it
breaks
up
the
roofscape
now
detail,
wimpy
get
any
more
money
for
a
house.
That's
got
a
false
chimney,
probably
not,
but
from
a
design
point
of
view.
We
think
it
works.
Well
we're
not
blaming
the
council's
design
offices.
I.
Think
we've
sat
here
on
behalf
of
Taylor
wimpy
relatively
neutral,
but
no
doubt
there'll
be
somebody
in
the
marketing
department
from
telewimpy.
That
would
like
the
chimney,
because
it
looks
good,
looks
better.
It's
not
on
every
dwelling.
Q
We
don't
think
it's
necessarily
something
that
if
you
removed
all
the
chimneys,
would
it
make
a
worse
design.
It's
it's
a
subjective
matter
with
respect
to
the
sustainable
drainage
system.
Is
that
if
you
look
at
the
layout,
what
you'll
see
throughout
the
middle
of
this
scheme
is
a
series
of
blue
areas
and
they
are
there
to
cater
for
a
significant
volume
of
water
during
heavy
rainfall
periods.
Q
When
it's
not
raining,
those
basins
will
be
predominantly
dry
but
with
wet
areas
at
the
base.
So
they
contain
a
large
amount
of
storm
water
when
it's
raining
and
when
it's
not
raining,
they'll
contain
a
little
bit
of
water
in
the
base
for
ecological
reasons
and
therefore
those
basins
form
an
ecological
corridorth
in
the
middle
of
the
site
and
we'll
go
into
the
management
plan
as
such.
Q
So
yes,
the
point
you
make
about
building
regulations,
changing
building
regulations
are
continuously
changing,
and
if
the
building
regulations
change
through
the
scheme,
then
what
tailwinder
will
do
is
that
they
will
have
to
adapt
to
the
regulations
of
that
in
place
at
the
time.
What
I
would
rate
would
say
with
respect
to
Energy
Efficiency.
Is
that
we're
currently
going
well
beyond
the
council's
policy
on
Energy
Efficiency
and
hopefully
matching
the
government's
2025
initiatives
whenever
they're
published.
J
Thank
you
chair.
This
has
vastly
improved
since
we
we
had
this
before
us
previously,
so
likewise,
I
think
it's
worth
commenting
on
the
work.
That's
gone
on
around
just
a
couple
of
questions
with
I
agree.
J
We
shouldn't
dwell
too
long
on
chimneys,
but
as
it's
a
topic,
I'll
ask
the
question
anyway,
when
everybody
is
talking
about
everything,
we've
heard
so
far,
we're
talking
about
officers,
views
objectives,
views
policy,
views
developers,
views
that
the
people
that
we
we've
not
heard
about
yet
are
the
actual
consumers,
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
buying
the
properties.
The
people
who
were
effectively
here
today
discuss
in
the
future
homes
of
so
when
you
plan
when
you're
designing
those
houses,
presumably
you
go
through
a
process.
J
Do
you
with
Consultants
around
what
consumer
choices
and
on
a
personal
level,
if
I
was
buying
a
house
in
a
character
area?
Yes,
I
would
want
a
chimney
on
it
because
that's
the
character
area
and
scheme
I
was
looking
at.
So
what
could
you
just
talk
us
through
that
design
process?
In
that?
Do
you
have
a
consumer
voice
in
there
and
do
your
future
customers
tell
you
that?
J
That's
what
they're
looking
for
and
then
the
other
question
I
was
going
to
ask
was
around
the
report,
mentions
Bungalows
and
whenever
I
ask
this
I
always
get
the
same.
Well,
it's
political
but
I
have
to
in
policy
and
that's
it.
But
the
approach
we've
taken
on
this
scheme
collectively
I
think
has
been
Innovation
going.
J
Beyond
what's
required
to
get
a
really
good
product
and
to
that
extent,
I
am
disappointed
to
read
that
I
think
it's
10,
Bungalows
out
of
762
dwellings
panel,
will
recall
the
application
Cunningham
in
my
award,
where
we
managed
to
negotiate
six
out
of
129,
which
I
still
didn't
think
was
good
enough.
J
So
in
terms
of
the
housing
need
in
the
area,
I
know
for
you,
you
get
more
profit
from
the
other
way,
but
is
there
scope
just
to
look
back
at
those
but
Asian
Bungalows
to
see
if
we
can
squeeze
any
more
in
for
the
housing
need
in
the
area.
Q
Thank
you,
councilor
I
think.
If
we
may
would
just
split
the
answer
and
I'll
let
Erica
just
perhaps
talk
about
the
marketing
elements
and
the
chimneys
with
respect
to
the
mix
and
the
Bungalows
you're
right.
We've
got
10
Bungalows
those
10
Bungalows
weren't
in
the
application
that
we
presented
in
March
and
they've
come
about
as
a
request
that
we
look
at
the
mix.
Q
There
isn't
actually
a
policy
that
requires
you
to
introduce
Bungalows,
but
there
is,
if
you
you
bear
with
me
for
a
moment.
There
is
a
policy
that
requires
accessibility
and
the
accessibility
standards
are
there
to
take
care
of
people
with
disabled
needs
and
then
varying
needs
at
different
levels.
And
that's
that's
the
point
that
we've
introduced
a
higher
proportion
of
accessible
housing,
but
they
don't
necessarily
need
to
be
Bungalows.
So
what
you've
got
is
that
you've
got
all
of
the
council's
accessibility
requirements
being
made
over
a
range
of
different
house
types.
Q
The
Bungalows
have
been
introduced
in
the
form
of
both
affordable
housing
and
the
market.
So
there's
a
mix
of
the
two
within
the
Bungalows,
but
equally
the
mix
and
bearing
in
mind
this
35,
affordable
housing
on
here.
So
there's
something
in
the
order
of
I.
Think
it's
280,
affordable
dwellings
is
that
those
affordable
dwellings
are
also
mix
right
across
all
of
the
tenures,
including
quite
a
large
amount,
within
the
three
and
four
beds.
Q
But
in
this
particular
case
you
also
see
from
the
report
is
that
we've
dropped
significantly
below
the
800
that
we
get
on
the
outline
to
meet
the
design
requirements
on
wider
streets,
Street
trees,
wider
cycle
ways
and
thought
paths.
So
it's
been
a
challenge
and
so
far
where
we're
currently
at
we'd
rather
not
grow,
try
to
seek
more
Bungalows
because
we
just
end
up
losing
numbers
and
if
we
lose
numbers,
we
don't
use
these
Market
numbers,
but
we
lose
affordable
housing
as
well,
because
it's
all
part
of
the
same
percentage,
Eric.
I
So
we
we
do
carry
out
extensive
Market
Research
in
relation
to
all
our
house
types,
all
our
customers-
and
this
is
across
the
country.
We
have
worked
with
the
authority
on
this
occasion
in
relation
to
chimneys
and
the
design
of
the
house
types.
We
have
a
palette
of
house
types
within
our
scheme
and
within
our
house
Site
range
within
Taylor
wimpy.
That
can
be
adaptable
to
the
needs
of
where
we
are
building
within
the
country.
I
So
we
have
a
drastic,
as
Marcus
said
of
the
last
10
months
in
relation
to
the
subjective
matter
on
chimneys,
and
what
we
felt
was
that
there
was
a
compromise
there
and
we
felt
it
added
to
the
street
scene
and
we
worked
alongside
the
authority
and
almost
came
to
the
conclusion
that,
let's,
let's
incorporate
a
small
amount,
let's,
let's
not
flood
the
development
with
chimneys
and
I-
think
it
actually
adds
to
the
to
the
to
the
value
of
the
scheme.
D
Yeah
my
question
is
in
the
spirit
of
the
climate
emergency,
so
it's
paragraph
116,
where
it
says
that
the
solar
panels
to
at
least
one
third
of
all
properties,
so
I
I,
would
think
that
you
it
ought
to
be
100
of
all
properties.
And
but
if
it's
not
a
hundred
percent,
then
how
would
you
choose?
D
Q
Thank
you
chair,
yes,
you're
right,
it's
not
all
of
the
dwellings
and
then
again,
the
orientation
of
the
dwellings
doesn't
naturally
suit
solar
panels
in
each
and
every
case.
The
focus
in
this
particular
case
and
I
talk
about
a
separate
planning
condition.
Number
41
is
about
making
sure
that
we
hit
the
energy
requirements
and
energy
reduction
and
carbon
Savings
in
different
forms.
Q
In
this
particular
case,
it's
a
combination
of
fabric
first
and
solar,
ideally
fabric
first,
which
means
the
need
to
generate
electricity,
is
lessened
by
the
fact
that
you
don't
need
to
heat
the
house.
It's
so
it's
so
warm
and
well
ventilated
in
itself
and
The.
Innovation
element
is
the
no
gas
moving
towards
air
source
heat
pumps.
Now
it's
either
just
just
to
be
clear
on
this.
The
aim
with
the
Central
Energy
Hub
is
to
create
one
central
location
that
generates
energy
that
provides
for
all
of
the
houses
both
affordable
and
Market.
Q
The
fallback
is,
is
air
source
heat
pumps
on
each
individual
dwelling,
the
solar
panels
help,
but
the
drive
here
is
fabric
first
in
the
in
the
building
Fabric
and
the
no
gas
air
source
heat
pump.
So
hopefully,
when
we
go
to
submit
and
agree
the
details
on
the
condition
41
with
the
council,
we
will
demonstrate
that
we
significantly
surpass
the
carbon
reduction
in
that
in
that
respect
of
the
climate
change
emergency.
Q
Yeah
I
I
think
counselor,
it's
orientation
of
the
building.
It's
those
buildings
that
are
best
suited
to
be
south
facing
most
likely.
A
Right,
thank
you.
Thank
you
and
thanks.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation.
Can
we
now
move
on
to
the
any
questions
to
the
officers.
A
Can
you
please
leave
the
table
as
well,
so
we
can
invite
members
to
ask
any
questions
to
the
offices.
E
I
guess,
unsurprisingly,
what
is
the
opinion
of
officers
on
Chimney.
B
Yeah
I
anticipated
this
will
come
in.
It
wasn't
like
that
when
we
were
having
the
meetings
with
the
developer,
it
was
like
you
will
have
chimneys
on
these.
It
was
a
collaborative
process.
I,
don't
think
the
the
matter
of
chimneys
was
specifically
raised.
It
wasn't
like
on
that
particular
area.
It
was
just
born
out
of
the
whole
design
process
that
we
went
through
and
I'm
of
the
I'm
of
the
view
as
a
professional
officer
and
I.
Think
John
is
of
the
same
that
on
certain
particular
house
types.
B
Admittedly,
they
don't
have
a
function
per
se,
but
they
are
acceptable
on
the
traditional
house,
type
characters.
I
think
one
of
the
councilors
said
about.
If
he
was
looking
at
a
buying
a
house
in
that
particular
character
area,
he
would
want
a
chimney.
So
I
think
that
that
explains,
it
is
probably
more
of
a
personal
subjective
opinion.
B
Some
will
like
some
will
complete
the
dislike,
but
from
our
point
of
view,
as
a
personal
preference,
I
have
no
thing,
but
as
a
as
a
planning
officer,
my
view
is
that
on
them
particular
character
areas,
they
do
serve
a
function
and
they
are
appropriate
in
that
thing
in
terms
of
the
energy
they
produce,
I
I
completely
understand
that
they
do.
B
Obviously,
if
you
are
producing
something,
it
creates
energy
energy,
but
in
the
same
way
as
a
canopy
to
a
house,
would
it
doesn't
really
serve
a
purpose
other
than
an
aesthetic
appeal
to
the
front
elevation
of
a
house,
but
it's
it.
Aesthetically
improves
the
look
of
it.
So
hopefully
that
answers
your
question
in
terms
of
of
our
our
viewer.
A
K
Yeah,
just
on
the
same
subject,
have
you
explored
any
Alternatives
that
would
achieve
the
same
outcome?
Are
there
any
available
or
is
it
something
we
can
look?
What
would
you
be
open,
I
guess
to
as
part
of
the
delegation
to
to
looking
and
seeing
if,
if
more
could
be
done,
because
I've
got
sympathy
with
both
points
of
view
that,
in
the
other
one
hand,
we're
trying
to
say
this?
Is
a
development?
K
That's
going
to
be
gas
free,
it's
going
to
be
exceeding
the
standards
for
for
carbon
and
so
on,
but
we're
still
going
to
put
chimneys
on
which
visually
suggests
the
opposite.
So
is
it
something
not
not
necessarily
that
we
would
say
you
must
go
and
get
rid
of
all
the
chimneys,
but
at
least
you'd
be
open
to
exploring
Alternatives
and
different
ways
of
approaching.
B
Thank
you.
Counselor
I
mean
yeah
I
I,
not
close
book
on
that.
It's
just
how
you
would
in
terms
of
how
we
explored
over
our
options.
No
because,
as
I
say
in
terms
of
the
chimneys,
it
was
never
a
a
thing
to
say:
You
must
have
them
so
we've
not
then
looked
at
alternatives
to
that
I
think
we
are
going
for
Innovative,
but
I
think
what's
got
to
be
under
studies.
Innovation
is
around
the
the
sandbeck
area.
B
We,
the
other
house
types
within
the
areas,
are
I
I,
love
to
say,
standard
house
types,
because
the
fact
from
it
and
I
hope
members
see
that,
but
they
still
are
more
traditional
in
their
appearance
and
therefore
the
chimney's
fun
part
of
that,
in
inverted
commas.
Traditional
View,
I'm,
open
to
having
a
conversation
about
the
alternative
to
that
and
I.
Don't
know
John.
If
you
have
got
any
views
on
on
that
matter,.
C
I
suppose,
just
to
illustrate
to
its
Point,
a
lot
of
our
discussions
were
around
how
this
scheme
sits
within
the
landscape.
Landscape's
really
important.
It's
setting
its
context,
how
it
works
with
it
and
I
I.
Take
the
point
that
there
are
no,
that
there
are
a
few
buildings
within
the
immediate
context
that
have
chimneys.
But
it's
how,
as
you
stand
at
some
distance
and
view
this
across
the
field,
does
it
look
like
it
sits
comfortably?
C
Is
it
something
that
you
would
expect
to
see
within
the
landscape
and
part
of
that
I
think
is
a
roofscape
that
that
incorporates
chimneys,
which
is
why
we
can
see
the
advantages
of
it.
I
do
struggle
to
some
extent
to
think
of
anything
else.
That
would
that
would
do
that
job
without
just
being
another
additional
element
that
would
have
to
be
manufactured
and
installed
and
have
exactly
the
same
problems
as
a
chimney
so
happy
to
take
it
away,
but
not
with
any
Great
Expectations.
If
I'm
honest
with.
J
In
terms
of
the
response
I
received
on
accessible
housing,
Bungalows
and
the
like,
so
from
an
officer
point
of
view,
are
we
content
that
the
Apartments
meet
those
requirements
and
also
have
we
done
any
work
around
the
or?
What's
the
regulations
around
the
ability
to
sort
of
retrofit
houses
so,
for
example,
put
stair
lifts
in
afterwards,
Etc
and
and
then
on
chimneys
if
I
purchased?
One
of
these
properties
that
was
perhaps
in
the
Innovations
are
that
doesn't
have
a
chimney
and
I
wanted
to
install
a
wood
burning.
J
Stove
would
I
need
piling
permission
to
do
that
to
install
the
flu,
for
example,
onto
that
property.
B
Okay
right
so
I'll
take
the
first
question
about
accessible
homes,
so,
as
Mac
explained
that
the
scheme
does
fully
comply
with
the
requirements
of
m42
and
m43
and
I.
B
They
could
have
a
two-story
house
which
can
be
adaptable
with
a
through
floor,
lift
or
a
hoist
to
get
them
to
the
bathroom
Etc,
so
I
think
the
way
we've
done.
It
is
probably
the
right
approach
if
I'm
honest
with
regard
to
the
second
point:
it
it
it's
a
very
valid
question.
Actually,
because
my
view
is
I
think
we
should
remove
permitted
generally,
it
will
be
permitted
development
right.
B
It
would
be
permitted
development
to
do
that,
but
I
think
we've
gone
so
far
down
a
design
route
here
that,
if
we
allowed
it's
not
to
say
there
wouldn't
ever
be
a
like,
a
homeowner
would
never
be
allowed,
but
I
believe
the
local
Authority
should
retain
control
over
it
regatting
in
the
certain
character
areas,
because
we'd
be
going
to
this
all
this
all
this
length
to
get
Innovative
design,
which
would
then
be
put
on
potentially
spoil
by
a
chimney
several
burning
stuff
on
a
on
a
particular
house
type.
That
wasn't
meant
for
that.
N
B
A
K
Long
thank
you
chair,
but
just
to
reiterate
my
earlier
point
it
just
it's
refreshing
to
be
able
to
sit
with
a
a
the
point
about
chimneys
is
important,
but
the
fact
that
that's
the
pertinent
point
of
an
application
of
this
size
shows
just
how
effective
the
process
has
been,
and
my
main
comment
is
really
to
because
to
be
the
most
reticent
to
take
part
in
a
forum
like
this
was
not
the
developer
of
the
community.
It
was
probably
the
planners
initially
present
company
accepted
I
I
hope
they.
K
They
would
see
the
value
in
working
this
way
and
when
we
push
for
it
actually
I
think
our
team
here
should
be
much
more
fortunate
saying
actually
this.
This
is
a
way
that
can
work
and
deliver
better
development
and
better
outcomes.
We
don't
have
to
have
arguments
and
hundreds
of
people
coming
and
objecting
that.
Actually
you
can
work
with
communities
and
get
a
good
development
at
the
end
of
it.
K
As
I
said,
we'd
prefer
it
was
going
to
stay
as
nice
green
fields
and
nothing
there,
but
that
ship
sailed
a
long
time
ago
and
we've
ended
up
through
a
collaborative
process
of
I
think
getting
the
best
that
we
could
in
the
circumstances,
and
that's
great
credit
to
the
community,
to
our
planning
team
and
to
the
and
to
the
developer.
J
Echoing
those
points
made
by
Council
I
think
it's
important.
J
J
If
this
development
had
proposed
chimneys
on
every
single
house,
I
would
have
wholeheartedly
supported
the
comments
by
Mr,
catton
and
I
think
they
would
be
valid.
However,
I
believe
in
consumer
choice,
I
think
consumer
is
King
and
I.
J
Think,
for
whilst
there
are
people
out
there
who
would
want
to
buy
a
home
with
a
false
chimney
on,
it
is
perfectly
reasonable
that
I
think
it
was
15
of
them
and
that
provides
that
choice
so
from
that
Spirit
I
think
what's
proposed,
is
actually
a
fairly
balanced
and
reasonable
and
I
would
be
happy
to
propose
that
that's
what's
in
front
of
us
today
is
moved
at
the
appropriate
punch.
E
Thanks
I
think
I
disagree
with
in
terms
of
consumer
Choice.
There
is
that
consumer
choice
for
chimneys,
it's
the
millions
of
houses
we
have
in
the
country
with
chimneys
the
work
and
actually
the
the
point
that
was
made
about.
Could
they
convert
to
then
use
the
chimney
like?
Could
they
in
the
future?
It
be
a
useful
thing
kind
of
sealed
it
for
me.
If
we
we're
unlikely
to
permit
the
development
to
actually
make
them
useful
in
the
future,
then
they
they
serve
no
purpose.
E
O
Just
if
I
made
a
chair
just
to
clarify
one
one
point
and
sorry
cancer,
maybe
I
misunderstood,
but
the
point
that
Stuart
was
making
in
respect
of
permitted
development
was
the
erection
of
new
chimneys
and
new
flues
rather
than
conversion
of
the
the
the
existing
the
the
chimneys,
which
are
shown
on
the
on
the
plans
which
are
before
us.
O
If
it's
technically
possible
to
convert
that
into
a
usable
chimney,
then
it's
highly
unlikely.
They
need
any
consent
from
the
local
planning
Authority,
it
wouldn't
be
a
mess
that
would
fall
under
planning
control.
K
Well,
I
think
I'd
support
that
point,
actually
that
that
it
reinforces
the
issue
that
what
we're
saying
is
we're
putting
something
on:
that's,
not
usable
and
anyone
who
doesn't
have
a
chimney.
They
wouldn't
have
automatic
right
to
get
it,
but
there's
nothing
to
stop
someone
who's
got
one
of
the
15
of
putting
a
log
burner
in
and
making
the
chimney
usable.
K
They
wouldn't
need
permission
for
that,
so
it
potentially
does
serve
a
purpose
for
those
people
that
that
have
it
and
so
I'm
leaning
towards
say,
can
we
go
away
and
look
at
I
think
that
I
do
get
there's
a
design
issue?
That's
really
what
why
they're
there
they're
there
for
design
and
Aesthetics,
but
they
could
be
converted
to
serve
a
purpose
which
is
not
what
we
want.
So
is
there
some
way
that
we
can
put
something
to
go
away
and,
as
part
of
the
delegation,
try
to
reduce
that
number
further.
A
I
I
can
see
which,
with
the
debate
is
going
but
just
remind
members
to
consider
what
we
got
before
us
and
I'm
quite
pleased
to
hear
from
the
last
10
months
or
so
officers.
Members
of
the
community
and
also
developers
that
have
been
work
very
closely
and
and
the
scheme
itself
is
absolutely
a
fantastic
scheme.
As
we
what
we
have
learned
a
guest
free
scheme,
one
of
the
first
one
in
the
north
of
England,
is
going
to
be
this
part
of
the
city.
A
So
if
I
mean
I'm
quite
pleased
to
be
honest
with
you,
the
elderman
Graham
lot
is
not
here
this
afternoon.
Otherwise
we
would
have
this
debate
for
for
hours
and
hours.
So
chimneys
are
important
to
many
of
us
and,
and
many
of
us
agree
to
disagree.
A
A
scheme
which
is
is
will
serve
the
needs
of
our
local
communities
in
here
in
our
city,
so
Council
Stevenson,
you
still
want
to
say
something
is
it
to
do
with
the
chimney?
Well,.
J
Yeah
I
was
just
going
to
make
that
part
I,
think
officers
I
would
have
to
Clarity
that
we're
talking
about
the
design
principle
and
clearly
you
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
retrofit
a
chimney
in
it
because
there's
nothing,
there's
no
flu,
it's
just
a
pot
on
top
of
the
brick.
So
you've
got
the
infrastructure
in
the
house.
J
Isn't
there
to
put
a
chimney
in
and
retrofit
it
so
I
think
we'll
just
talk
about
design
on
that
Merit
I
was
going
to
say
perhaps
the
the
compromise
series
that,
as
we
approve
this
here,
that
it's
as
it's
delegated
off,
perhaps
as
a
an
added
bit
within
there,
where
there
can
be
a
conversation
locally
just
to
try
and
cover
this
off
with
all
partners
and
Ward
members
Etc
before
it
finally
gets
approval.
I.
A
Personally,
don't
have
any
issue
with
that,
but
only
the
thing
is
I.
Last
thing:
I
want
to
see
as
a
chair
for
this
panel
to
delay
any
any
any
of
schemes
such
as
this,
because,
as
what
we
heard
earlier,
trees
is
a
long
time
and,
and
things
are
moving
very
fast
and
we
are
shortage
of
properties
here
in
in
our
city.
So
do
you
want
any
any
other
comments?
Council
shop
before
I
bring
the
officer
and,
of
course,.
F
N
J
Because
I
think
the
speakers
after
me
suggested
that
they
wanted
some
further
work.
Okay,
I'd
be
happy
to
withdraw
my
original
proposal
to
accept
the
officer's
report.
If
somebody
wanted
to
suggest
further
work
was
done
on
it.
Okay,.
O
O
Chair
in
in
very
broad
terms,
obviously
members
here
are
very
welcoming
of
the
the
effort
that
has
gone
into
the
scheme
from
the
local
community,
Ward
members
and
officers
alike,
and
I
think.
The
overwhelming
message
seems
to
be
that
this
is
a
very
good
scheme.
There's
obviously
this
issue
about
the
the
chimneys.
O
The
way
I
would
put
it
to
you
is:
would
you
refuse
Reserve
matter
of
consent
on
the
basis
of
this
chimneys
and,
if
not
and
I,
think
it
would
be
a
very
dangerous
road
to
go
down?
I
would
be.
My
advice
to
members
was
well
you've
got
to
scheme
before
you,
the
the
overwhelming
balance,
the
scheme,
you
all
you
are
supportive
of
in
terms
of
The
Reserve
matters
that
are
before
you
chimneys
is
such
a
a
minor
issue.
O
As
we
know,
we've
been
recently
told
at
a
legal
training
session
that
it's
not
for
us
to,
as
the
plans
panel
to
redesign
redesign
a
scheme
and
in
that
context,
I
would
suggest
to
probably
go
to
the
recommendation
as
set
out
and
if
that
is
not
voted
through,
then
maybe
look
at
a
deferral
to
include
sure
the
the
issue
of
chimneys.
O
A
I
further
invite
members
again
for
final
comments
and
then
we'll
move
on
with
recommendation.
If
anybody
wants
to
move
it,
okay.
K
Q
A
A
A
R
So
I
think
it's
important
to
highlight
that
this
application
has
been
submitted
in
part
to
rectify
retrospective
Works
carried
out
without
buying
permission
and,
in
addition
to,
in
addition
to
proposed
extensions.
The
retrospective
Works
include
two
rare
Dormer
windows,
a
heptagable
extension
on
either
side
and
a
two-story
side
and
rear
wrap-around
extension
to
number
45..
R
The
proposed
extensions
under
this
application
seek
to
regularize
the
retrospective
Works
through
reducing
the
scale
of
the
two
rear,
Doma
Windows
altering
the
roof
of
the
existing
two-story
side
and
rear
extension
and
constructing
a
first
floor
extension
above
an
existing
single
story.
Rare
extension,
the
application
is
brought
to
plans
panel
at
the
request
of
Ward
members,
who
feel
who
do
not
sorry
who
do
not
feel
that
they're
reared
on
Windows
and
two-star
extensions
are
an
unsuitable
form
of
development
in
their
current
form
and
note
that
there
are
other
examples
of
this
design
across
the
city.
R
At
this
slide
is
an
aerial
from
above
the
site
and
shows
the
surrounding
dwellings
and
what
is
mostly
on
cluttered.
Roofscapes
numbers,
43
and
45
are
located
to
the
northeast
of
Saint
Augustine
School
other
than
the
local
Primary
School.
The
area
is
predominantly
made
up
of
residential
dwellings,
mostly
identical
two-story,
semi-detached
red
brick
built
with
hip
roofs.
R
R
The
slide
shows
a
block
plan
of
the
site.
As
you
can
see.
This
starts
to
illustrate
the
massing
of
the
extensions
on
the
dwellings
and
how
this
Compares,
with
the
neighboring
properties.
This
block
plan
doesn't
show
the
alterations
to
the
property
in
number
49,
which
members
on
the
site
visit
today
will
have
seen.
The
works
at
number
49
were
constructed
without
planning
permission
and
a
now
time
immune
from
enforcement
action
so
aren't
relevant
to
this
application.
R
This
slide
shows
the
existing
plans
for
book
Numbers,
43
and
45
St
Wilfred
circus.
This
demonstrates
which
The
Works,
which
have
already
been
constructed,
such
as
the
rear,
Dorma
windows
and
the
two-story
side
in
rear
wraparound
extension.
There
is
also
an
existing
single-story
rare
extension
to
number
43.
R
the
plan
to
illustrate
how
the
combination
of
the
hip
to
Gable
extension
and
rear
Dormer
windows
create
a
three-story
appearance
to
the
rear
of
the
dwelling.
The
plan
showed
three
different
roof
forms
here:
the
Gable
reform
to
the
front
of
the
dwellings,
the
flat
roof
to
the
Box
drama,
windows
and
leaned.
To
from
this
the
two-story
side
and
rear
extension,
the
household
design
guide
states
that
rooform
should
match
the
existing
dwelling
foreign.
R
R
The
application,
the
surrounding
area
is
characterized
by
uncluttered,
roofscapes
and
two-story
dwellings,
and
the
application
is
at
odds
both
of
these
characteristics.
Add
this
application
come
in
before,
and
part
of
the
works
have
been
constructed.
The
local
planning
Authority
would
have
had
the
same
opinion
on
the
design
of
the
Dharma
windows
and
rear
extension,
and
would
have
requested
that
the
scheme
be
amended
to
remove
the
Dharma
windows
or
to
significantly
reduce
their
scale.
A
Thank
you,
Lydia
we
have
a
speaker
in
support,
is
Mr
Khan.
Can
you
please
come
to
the
table
and
you
will
have
four
minutes
when.
P
A
S
Respect
to
chair
and
members,
thank
you.
My
name
is
aftab
Khan
I'm
here
in
support
of
the
applicants.
I
would
just
like
to
start
by
just
referencing.
What's
been
shown
to
you,
I'm,
giving
you
a
bit
of
a
background
very
briefly,
so
the
applicants
there's
two
of
them.
They
have
originally
approached
an
architect
to
make
plans
for
a
Dharma
window.
Sorry
Thomas
to
the
rear
of
the
properties
in
line
with
permitted
development,
and
they
were
informed
that
everything
was
fine.
S
They
could
continue
and
work
started
and
as
works
progressed,
they
were
told
that
everything
was
okay
again
now
these
are
normal
sort
of
working
class
people
with
no
relevant
experience.
S
They
came
to
this
country
and
they
worked
and
saw
from
nine
to
five
jobs.
They
have
four
children
each.
So
there
was
a
housing
need
in
line
with
Lee
city
council
guidelines.
They
should
have
five
bedrooms
to
live
with
their
children,
hence
why
they
needed
two
additional
bedrooms.
Now
these
Works
commenced
and
they
were
completed.
Although
there
were
some
problems
with
the
builders
and
they
were
informed
by
the
architect
that
everything
was
okay,
somebody
came
around
from
building
regs
and
it
was
all
okay.
Some
years
later
they
have.
S
Then
one
of
the
applicants
has
asked
for
a
double
story:
side
and
rear
extension,
again,
referencing
the
presentation
and
upon
one
of
the
officers
visiting
the
property.
They
have
then
been
informed
that
the
dharmers
had
not
been
regularized
or
they'd
not
been
put
into
the
records
of
the
of
the
council
as
per
the
normal
process,
and
since
that
day
they
have
been
trying
to
make
retrospective
applications
for
the
approval
of
these
Doma
Windows.
S
Now
for
the
assistance
of
the
panel
members,
I
do
have
reference
of
three
other
planning
applications
which
have
been
improved
within
the
vicinity
in
the
recent
past.
Should
anybody
want
to
have
a
look
at
that?
S
I
can
hand
out
the
details,
but
there
is
a
need
for
the
applicants
to
have
these
houses
to
have
these
rooms
they've
been
living
in
them
for
a
number
of
years
and
now
face
having
the
roof
literally
ripped
off
their
heads,
I
mean
to
use
a
cliche
and
I'm
here
to
support
them,
not
only
for
that,
but
also,
if
I
can
refer
you
to
paragraph
25
of
the
document.
That's
brought
To
Us
by
the
officer
in
which
the
personal
circumstances
are
discussed.
S
S
T
Thank
you,
chair
I'm,
mindful
I've
only
got
60
seconds
so
just
to
say,
I
can
count
on
my
fingers.
The
amount
of
times
I've
put
in
a
refer,
an
application
to
the
plans
panel
I
haven't
in
the
last
six
years.
Perhaps
a
couple
of
times
and
the
reason
the
elected
members
and
the
local
Member
of
Parliament
are
supporting.
This
application
is
because
of
the
circumstances
of
the
family
and
as
Mr
cans
alluded
to.
This
was
a
genuine
need.
This
happened
during
the
code
pandemic.
They
thought
they
had.
T
The
planning
permission
turns
out,
they
didn't,
they
were
misled
Unfortunately.
They
were
now
in
a
position
where
they've
spent
thousands
of
pounds
to
create
a
family
home
and
are
being
told.
Unfortunately,
this
isn't
this.
This
doesn't
meet
the
guidelines.
The
problem
we've
got
is
in
in
the
cost
of
living
crisis.
This
is
going
to
cost
this
family
a
lot
of
money
to
undo
and
it's
causing
a
lot
of
pressure
and
the
need
is
there,
as
I
said,
because
they
have
got
a
large
family
and
I've
seen
these
examples.
T
We
have
got
plenty
of
examples
that
have
very
similar
larger
families,
so
I
just
like
to
support
my
local
residents
and
I
genuinely
do
feel
that
this
was
not
done
intentionally
and
perhaps
it's
been
a
little
bit
more
done
a
little
bit
more
due
diligence,
but
in
the
circumstances
of
corvid
they
just
weren't
able
to
do
that
and
they're
in
these
situations.
I
hope
that
the
panel
will
look
upon
this
favorably.
Thank
you.
Thank.
S
K
S
Yes,
so
my
relationship
to
them
is
I'm
a
family
friend
in
the
normal
world
day
today,
I'm
a
financial
planner,
although
I'm
here
to
support
their
application
today
in
a
different
capacity.
S
S
These
types
of
dharmers
are
predominant
around
lead
city,
I,
see
them
every
day.
I'm,
not
a
housing
or
planning
expert,
but
I
see
them
with
a
naked
eye.
In
fact,
I
have
them
in
my
house
in
in
the
rounder
Ward,
and
in
addition
to
that,
there's
three
examples
of
recent
planning
applications
very
close
to
some
awful
Circus,
the
fire
station
houses
just
further
below.
S
If
anybody
is
aware
there
is
a
an
application,
that's
gone
in
for
a
two-story
extension
Plus,
Dharma
Windows,
which
are
very,
very
sort
of
in
your
face.
As
you
drive
around
those
streets
and
the
fire
station
houses
are
visible
to
anybody
that
visits
the
fire.
The
you
know,
the
old
fire
station
can.
A
I
can
I
remind
members,
and
also
a
member
of
public
I
mean.
Can
we
just
stick
to
a
planning
application
which
is
before
us
and
just
talk
about
the
issues
which
are
to
do
with
the
planning
issues
and
and
keep
it
to
this
particular
topic?
Rather
than
asking
other
questions
so
I'm,
sorry,
cancer,
metal.
E
Hopefully,
I'll
obey
the
rules
so
I,
based
on
the
context.
You've
given
us
I
understand
that
it
was
an
accident
not
to
have
had
the
correct
Planning
Commission
for
the
Dormers
Etc,
but
the
planning
application
we've
got
in
front
of
us
has
quite
a
lot
of
additions,
as
well
as
those
dormal
windows.
So
I'm
just
wondering
what
the
reasoning
is
for
once
the
mistakes
been
made,
not
just
going
for
planning
to
keep
what's
already
there
and
why
we're
then
going
for
expansion
still
further.
T
Could
I
just
come
into
the
first
point?
My
understanding
is
it?
Wasn't
it
wasn't
that
it
was
an
accident?
It
was
that
the
my
residents
were
led
to
believe
that
they'd
actually
have
the
planning
permission,
so
they
thought
that
the
planning
permission
had
gone
through,
hence
why
they
contracted
the
builders
to
go
and
do
the
work
had
they
known
that
that
wasn't
the
case
they
wouldn't
have
spent
thousands
of
pounds
to
do
that.
That's
that's
the
issue,
that's
my
understanding
of
what's
happened,
and
then
you
can
pick
up
on
the
second
Point.
Thank.
S
You,
in
addition,
I
think
there's
there's
to
this
very
important.
There's
two
different
applications
here.
So
this
this
double
story,
side
and
rear-
has
actually
been
approved.
That
there's
no
issue
with
that.
The
only
issue
is
that
the
officer
or,
if
I
may
say
that
the
council
officers
would
like
to
that
would
like
the
applicants
to
remove
their
dharmers
literally
and
replace
it
with
a
normal
roof,
and
that's
the
only
way
they're
going
to
prove
the
Dormers.
So
remember,
dharmers
are
permitted
development
and
what
so?
S
What
they're
being
asked
is
remove
the
permitted
development
because
of
the
fault
of
their
own,
which
they
accept
was
done
in
good
faith.
But
it
was
a
you
know,
a
mistake
that
hadn't
followed
their
due
procedure
because
they
were
LED
on,
however
they've
since
that
day,
since
they
were
informed,
they
have
applied
for
retrospective
permission
time
and
time
again.
So
from
their
side,
they
are
doing
everything
possible
to
stay
on
the
right
side
of
the
regulations
and
the
planning
laws,
but
then
obviously
we're
here
today
to
discuss
the
same.
A
Can
I
can
I
invite
David
to
just
to
clarify
the
point
that
you've
just
made.
O
Yes,
thank
you
Chad,
sorry,
Sarah.
Is
it
possible
just
have
the
plan
out
which
shows
the
proposed
development
I
just
want
to
make
make
it
clear
what
the
council
officer
view
is
of
the
of
of
of
the
proposal,
and
why
that
the
council
is
bringing
forward
a
recommend
or
why
officers
are
bringing
forward
a
recommendation
for
for
refusal.
Sorry
legit!
Could
you
pass
something?
O
O
So
you'll
see
in
the
report
that
the
report
talks
about,
and
we
always
relate
it
back
to
planning
policy,
because
that's
that's
what
we
do,
that's
what
we're
charged
we're
doing
and
when
we
look
at
our
guidance,
which
is
set
out
in
the
household,
the
design
guide,
and
we
look
at
this
particular
proposal.
The
issue
is
a
combination
of
the
size
of
the
dormant
and
how
the
roofs
on
the
back
interject
or
relate
to
the
Dormers
themselves.
O
So
I
suppose
in
in
layman's
terms
and
I'm,
putting
it
in
layman's
terms
because
seeing
this
property,
the
only
terms
I
understand
it,
just
looks
very
messy
and
ugly.
O
So
from
our
perspective
from
an
officer
perspective,
when
you
look
at
the
developments
around
that's,
why
we've
come
forward
with
a
recommendation
for
a
refusal
now
I
perfectly
accept
Council,
Harris
and
Mr
Khan's
point
about
you
can
build
very
large
Dormers
as
permitted
development,
and
we,
when
we're
on
site
today,
we
would
have
seen
a
number
of
those
Dormers
as
we
as
we
drove
around
and
many
members
will.
O
It's
got
separate
paragraphs
talking
about
how
the
roots
are
important
to
the
character
and
defining
the
character
of
a
of
a
particular
area
and
gives
guidance
on
design
that
new
proposals
which
come
forward
the
roof
forms
should
respect
the
proportions
the
general
roof
form
in
terms
of
hit,
whether
they've
got
a
hip
roof
former
or
gable
roof
form,
so
that
the
extension
pays
due
regard
to
to
the
house
itself.
O
So
that's
that's.
Where
we've
come
from,
we've
looked
at
it
and
around
rather
than
picking
off
in
in
individual
bits
now
I
should
say
well,
I
must've
got
the
microphone
on
it's
it's
clearly.
It
is
a
very
difficult
circumstance
because
we
are
talking
about
people.
Who've
invested
a
lot
of
money
in
their
own
homes
to
provide
accommodation
to
their
families.
So
we've
got
to
be
very
sensitive
sensitive
to
that.
We're
also
sensitive
to
the
fact
that
you
know
members
may
come
to
a
different
view.
We
saw
it
as
on
site
today.
O
This
is
at
the
back
of
the
house,
and
members
will
have
to
have
regards
the
impact
in
terms
of
from
the
street
scene
and
with
the
public
Vantage
impact.
As
it
were,
so
there
are
judgments
here
for
for
members
members
to
make
in
terms
of
planning
amounts
of
this
particular
proposal,
and
thank
you.
E
Thank
you
just
a
slightly
different
question.
The
proposed
ground
floor
plan
on
the
I
guess
number
43
doesn't
show
a
kitchen
I
take
it.
One
of
those
rooms
will
be
a
kitchen
in
the
long
run.
S
Apologies,
there
will
be
a
kitchen,
yes,
of
course,
and
the
plan
I'm
looking
at
does
show
a
ground
floor
kitchen.
So
it.
S
That
they
will
I
I
can
clarify.
There
will
be
kitchens
in
both
house
because
they
are
residential
dwellings
if
I
may
just
touch
upon
the
point
made
by
the
officer
earlier
is
that
is
that
allowed?
A
No,
it's
only
to
the
questions
from
the
members
you
can
respond
to.
Thank
you
any
other
questions.
Thank
you.
Mr
Khan
and
sorry.
Counselor.
K
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
on
page
59
the
relevant
planning
history,
there's
four
applications
of
from
2019
2021
2021
again
2022
were
they
made
by
the
existing
occupiers.
S
Thank
you.
So
these
are
all
the
applications
that
were
made
in
respect
to
rectify
the
the
dharmers
and
try
and
come
up
with
a
resolution.
Now
my
the
applicants
who
I'm
here
to
represent
there,
they
weren't
even
aware
that
you
could
potentially
take
matters
to
this
committee.
S
It
was
only
once
I'd
happened
to
have
a
discussion
with
them,
a
social
Gathering
that
and
I
offered
my
assistance,
so
I
just
want
the
members
to
you
know
to
perhaps
take
that
into
consideration
as
well
in,
in
terms
that
the
the
the
the
applicants
have
tried
their
almost
to
come
in
line
with
the
planning
laws,
since
they've
realized
and
they're
happy
to
make
aesthetic
changes
to
the
outside
to
to
to
to
to
conform
to
the
to
the
planning
laws.
S
But,
as
I
said
this,
this
is
permitted
development.
So
you
know
in
terms
of
having
dramas-
and
the
only
reason
we're
here
today
is
because
they're
being
asked
not
to
that.
There's
no
issue
with
the
the
ex
the
double
story,
extension
or
the
re-extension
they're
being
asked
to
take
the
dharmas
off
the
roof
space
and
replace
it
with
a
roof
again.
E
Thank
you.
So
if
the
Dormers
were
removed,
what
impact
would
it
have
on
the
bedrooms
at
the
top?
Would
they
be
converted
into
one
bedroom
in
the
roof,
or
would
it
be
just
a
removal
of
the
bedrooms
because
I
believe
there
were
skylights
in
there
as
as
well.
S
So
if
they
were
removed,
that
would
result
in
the
house
then
becoming
potentially
a
four
bed
house.
If
the
space
was
still
habitable
and
excuse
me,
I'm,
not
a
obviously
an
expert
when
it
comes
to
habitable
spaces,
but
let's
just
presume
that
it's
a
four
bed
house
well
Lead
City
housing
guidelines
that
somebody
who
has
four
children,
husband
and
wife,
four
children,
each
on
both
sides
of
the
semis
and
the
ages
of
the
children
and
the
genders.
S
Obviously
impact
the
who
can
share
bedrooms
and
in
in
in
following
the
guidance
both
houses
would
require
five
bedroom.
Both
families
would
require
five
bedrooms
to
reside.
S
E
I
was
just
going
to
say:
that's,
that's
not
all
like.
If
you're
talking
about
like
our
lettings
policy,
you
only
need
above
11
years
old,
your
own
bedroom,
if
you're
of
different
genders
and
obviously
because
there's
only
two
genders,
there's
four
kids,
some
of
them
under
our
policy
I'm
not
suggesting
they
necessarily
should,
in
this
case
I'm
just
saying
it
doesn't.
That's
I,
don't
believe
that
to
be
what
the
policy
is
right,.
J
I'm
very
aware,
chair
that
we've
got
to
determine
some
planning
issues,
but,
as
some
of
the
objections
refer
to
sorry
about
that,
raise
the
issue
of
the
need
for
a
living
space.
J
If,
if
the
enforcement
action
was
carried
through
and
the
dorm
was
removed,
what
would
the
Practical
outcome
of
that
be
for
the
family?
What
would
they
have
to
do
as
a
result
of
that.
S
There
would
need
to
be
housed
re-housed,
essentially
because
you
would
be
removing
two
habitable
rooms
from
each
house
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
the
the
respected
members
visited
the
internal
house
on
that
visit
today
or
if
they
just
had
a
look
outside.
But
that
would
be
removing
two
bedrooms
each
from
both
houses
so
effectively.
You
would
be
getting
rid
of
living
space
for
the
residents
of
each
house
in
in
in
in
respect.
A
Okay,
if
there
aren't
any
other
questions
for
speakers,
thank
you,
Council
Arif
and
Mr
Khan.
Any
questions
to
officers,
Council
Stevens.
J
Yes,
following
on
from
what
we
just
heard
at
several
points,
the
speakers
referred
to
permitted
development
rights
for
the
Dormers.
Would
you
like
to
give
a
comment
in
reply
to
that.
R
Yeah,
so
just
to
clarify,
as
it's
been
constructed
at
the
minute,
the
heptagable
and
the
dormal
windows,
that's
not
permitted
development
and,
what's
proposed
again,
wouldn't
be
permitted
development
because
of
the
other
alterations
that
being
proposed
in
terms
of
the
two-story
elements
to
the
rear
and
to
the
side.
So
at
the
minute
it's
not
permitted
development
and
it
wouldn't
be
permitted
development
under
what's
proposed
as
well.
J
Thank
you
and
can
I
just
clarify
that
what
we're
being
asked
today
is
well.
The
recommendation
is
to
refuse
this,
because
this
does
not
conform
with
planning
policy.
So,
therefore,
can
you
confirm
that
that
if
we
were
to
refuse
that
and
then
appeal
right
was
taken,
that
we
would
defend
that
position
and
we
believe
you
believe
that
we
would
have
a
policy
based
decision,
a
reason
to
defend
that
position
as
student
conform
with
planning
policy.
U
Come
straight
away,
so
in
the
presentation
it
was
mentioned
that
it
would
be
a
concern
that
if
this
was
approved,
it
would
effectively
create
problems
with
people
to
do
similar
things
in
the
area.
I
just
want
an
illegal
opinion,
because
we're
always
told
to
these
playing
applications
that
we
look
at
each
planning
application
on
its
own
individual
merits
and
other
planning
applications.
Don't
impact
each
other
in
that
sense.
N
And
so
as
part
of
material
considerations,
precedent
is
clearly
a
key
consideration
for
you.
So
if
there
was
an
application,
this
was
approved
and,
for
instance,
there
are
further
applications
across
the
street.
Given
the
scale
is
the
same,
the
location
is
the
same.
The
inspector
or
we
as
a
planning
Authority,
would
have
to
take
that
into
account
when
coming
to
a
decision,
we'd
have
to
balance
our
policies
against
what
president
has
been
set
by
the
decision
maker
ieu.
So
it
would
set
a
poor
poor
president,
and
that
is
a
material
consideration
for
you.
N
U
I
just
an
additional
question,
so,
let's
just
say:
blankly
they
hadn't
done
anything
to
this
property
and
I
know
we're
talking
about
the
combination
here,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
get
this
into
my
head.
If
they
did
just
done
the
dharmas
by
themselves
without
the
other
extensions,
would
that
be
permitted
development
if
they'd
done
the
other
extension
without
the
dharmers
would
have
that
been
permit
development,
because
I
appreciate
in
contact
we're
talking
about
combined,
it's
not
but
I'm,
trying
to
understand
the
individual
elements
as
to
how
we
got
to
that
stage
so
individually.
R
R
It's
because
of
the
way
they've
been
constructed,
sort
of
permitted
development,
normal
Windows,
should
be
set
in
from
the
Ridge
and
from
the
size
and
from
the
top
of
the
roof
as
well.
These
have
been
built
straight
off
the
side
walls.
So,
if
can
get
up
on
on
the
screen
the
existing
plans,
you
can
see
that
from
the
top
approved
form
and
they
come
straight
out,
whereas
usually
you'd
have
the
Dormers
set
in
and
also
for
them
to
construct.
R
What
is
proposed
under
this
there's
going
to
need
to
be
some
element
of
alterations
to
the
roof,
to
actually
get
the
Dormer
windows.
To
the
point,
that's
shown
on
the
proposed
plans
as
well.
So
you
can
see
on
here.
I've
got
the
pointer,
but
ball.
U
Yeah,
it
is
a
pertinent
point,
because
again,
if
this
is
Refuge,
this
may
help
inform
if
they,
if
they
do,
do
an
appeal
or
if
they
come
back,
is
there
a
way
for
them
to
keep
the
Dormers
if
they
reduce
the
scale
to
within
permitted
development?
So
is
it
a
case
of
no
domas
at
all,
or
actually
the
Doms
are
just
too
big.
R
G
Thank
you,
chair
I
know
that
letters
were
advertising
were
sent
out
to
neighbors
advertising.
The
development
I
just
wondered
how
many
letters
went
out,
because
there
were
no
objections
so
I'm
assuming
locally,
both
the
size
of
the
development
and
the
design
has
been
acceptable
locally.
R
It
would
just
be
the
neighboring
properties
that
are
that
share
a
common
boundary.
F
Thanks
chair
Mr
Khan
mentioned
that
there's
three
similar
builds
extensions
around
the
area
you're
aware
of
those.
L
Clarification
has
there
been
any
pre-application
advice
given
to
another?
You
know
advice
as
to
what
would
have
been
acceptable
when
the
enforcement
first
found
out
about
it.
Was
there
any
advice
given
to
the
applicants
either
by
enforcement
or
by
any
planning
officer
that
you're
aware
of
that
would
regularize
this.
R
And
so
I
think
not
pre-application,
but
when
we've
had
applications
submitted,
so
the
ones
that
are
listed
in
the
report
in
terms
of
ones
that
have
been
withdrawn
and
also
one
that's
been
approved.
Within
that
we've
had
significant
back
and
forth
I've,
given
a
lot
of
design
advice
and
getting
to
a
point
where
a
scheme
would
be
acceptable,
and
that
was
a
a
number
of
Officer
levels
and
throughout
Council.
A
K
Thank
you
chairs
two
two
separate
questions.
So,
first
of
all,
let's
get
some
clarification
on
the
planning
history,
so
I'm
slightly
confused
from
what
we've
heard
that,
if
I'm
reading
it
correctly,
the
the
first
incident
of
enforcement
was
in
July
of
2022
but
prior
to
that,
there's
three
planning
applications
and
what
I
was
understanding
from
the
speaker
was.
K
The
planning
applications
were
in
response
to
action
from
the
council,
but
doesn't
seem
to
be
the
case
so
and
if
I
read
this
correctly,
it
would
seem
that
the
owners
are
very
familiar
with
the
planning
system,
because
they've
put
three
applications
in
previously
so
I'd,
just
like
some
clarification
to
make
sure
I've
understood
correctly.
Please.
R
And
so
I
think
the
case
was
Open
prize
2022,
which
is
why
it's
got
a
19
at
the
start
of
its
case.
File
number
so
I
think
that
was
opened
earlier
and
then
the
notice
was
then
issued
at
a
later
date,
which
is
the
the
first
of
July,
so
the
applications
from
2019
2020
and
the
two
after
that
2021
and
they
were
all
after
the
the
enforcement
no
case
was
opened.
And
then
the
notice
was
issued
from
enforcement
in
2022..
R
K
K
It's
I
think
the
concern
I
have
is
to
make
sure
we
really
stick
to
planning
matters
rather
than
personal
circumstances
too,
to
judge
the
application.
So
is
there
any
consideration
to
highways
and
and
things
like
that,
if
10
years
time,
there's
a
lot
of
adults
living
in
these
houses
and.
A
Council
I'll
bring
the
legal
into
it.
N
Council
I
wanted
to
pick
up
on
this
point
because
personal
circumstances
take
up
three
paragraphs
in
the
report,
so
personal
circumstances
can
be
deemed
to
be
material
considerations,
but
they've
got
to
be
a
very
unique
set
of
circumstances.
There's
a
lot
of
case
law
around
this
and
the
high
court.
Judges
have
said
that
they've
got
to
be
compelling
and
usually
what
we
found
when
personal
circumstances
have
been
taken
into
account
is
when
it
involves
Gypsy,
Travelers
and
there's
hardship.
N
True
hardship,
that's
going
to
derive
out
of
the
decision
of
the
local
planning
Authority,
so
so
that
is
something
for
you
to
consider.
But
first
and
foremost,
is
compliance
with
planning
policy.
D
Yeah
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
about
the
the
map
on
or
the
diagrams
on
page
65,
so
they
were
originally
produced
in
March
2021,
the
at
the
bottom,
but
at
the
top
it
says
elevations
approved
approved,
but
the
the
approval
wasn't
until
July
I
think
22..
So
it's
a
bit
confusing
to
have
all
all
those
together.
Is
this
so
This
Is
by
the
Council
planning.
R
This
is
the
applicant's
plans
produced
by
their
agent
and
just
to
clarify
the
reason
I'm
assuming
for
the
date
to
be
March
2021
and
the
the
approval
date
being
later,
if
the
other
application
is
because
we've
had
this
scheme
in
before
as
a
revision
before
getting
to
the
approved
scheme
under
the
under
the
other
application
and
we'd
said
that
this
scheme
wouldn't
be
acceptable.
R
R
J
Terms
of
design
standards
and
sizes
of
bedrooms
and
the
like.
So
if,
if
the
Dormer,
that
itself
was
removed-
and
it
was
back
to
just
the
roof
space
and
I-
think
it's
cancer
before
measure,
there's
a
skylight
in
the
reverse,
so
without
that
Dormer
or
that
bedroom
be
policy
compliant
to
be
used
as
a
bedroom
from
planning
terms
is
the
first
bit,
but
also
how
would
we
know
about
if
they
just
used
it
as
that
in
a
sense
if
it
didn't
require
planning.
R
Ndss
wouldn't
apply
in
this
situation
in
the
roof
space,
because
it's
it's
already
existing
dwelling
and
I
think
if
you
did
remove
the
dorms
off
the
back,
there
would
be
some
space
potentially
to
the
front
which
you
can
see
where
the
roof
light
is
and
where
a
store
is
also
located.
I'm,
not
sure
what
size
that
would
be,
as
I
might
be,
able
to
measure
and
I've
not
got
the
dimensions
of
that
room
on
here.
H
Might
be
quite
basic
questions,
but
so
when
planning
permission
was
initially
refused,
who
does
that
communication
go
to
would
have
not
gone
to
the
residence?
Would
it
go
to
the
agent?
So
obviously
they
were
we've
been
told.
They
were
led
to
believe
by
the
agent
that
it
was
all
okay,
but
would
they
not
have
been
communicated
with
directly.
R
So
I
think
that
was
before
they'd
actually
put
any
planning
applications
in
I
think
it
was
their
agent
and
Builders
prior
to
submitting
any
applications
that
I
told
them
that
they'd
either
submitted
a
planning
application
or
that
they
had
permitted
development
rights,
and
so
then,
once
the
applications
were
being
submitted
and
that's
when
there's
been
back
and
forth
in
the
they
were
aware
of
the
planning
system,
which
is
why
subsequent
applications
were
then
submitted.
Okay,.
H
That's
helpful
and
then
you
know,
obviously
we
feel
for
the
families
with
the
potential
cost
of
all
this.
Do
you
could
you
work
out?
Is
there
less
cost
in
kind
of
mating
the
alterations
that
will
make
it?
H
You
know,
okay
by
planning
terms,
or
would
the
cost
be
greater
like
having
to
get
rid
of
it
all?
Is
there
is
there
a
way
forward
for
the
family
to
keep
the
extensions
they
make
some
alterations.
R
In
terms
of
cost,
I
wouldn't
really
be
able
to
answer
that.
But
the
way
forward
is
the
elevations,
as
approved
under
the
previous
application.
That
was
how
what
the
the
solution
that
we
came
up
with,
which
gave
and
then
the
ability
to
keep
a
lot
of
the
space
that.
R
Suitable
on
the
site.
A
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
a
point
which
I
believe
it
was
comes
from:
Stevenson
made
about
the
number
of
adults
living
in
a
property
because
I
represented
high
hills
and
gibton
for
many
many
years
and
I
know
from
my
own
background,
there
is
a
culture
of
an
extended
families
living
together
and
that
culture
which
we
respect,
which
goes
across
the
city
in
some
parts.
A
So
it's
not
only
the
adults,
it's
just
it's
the
extended
family,
you
you
have
Grandma's,
moms
and
dads
and
other
living
together
with
regards
to
the
hardship
which
was
mentioned,
I
mean
it's
something
that
that
can
be
discussed,
but
I'll
move
on
to
the
comments
now
and
if
there
are
any
comments
and
then
we'll
just
come
through
shop,
is
a
comment
always
a
question.
It's.
F
F
When
we
first
arrived,
you
couldn't
see
any
of
the
extensions
at
the
back
anywhere
from
the
front
of
the
property,
and
I
also
feel
that
it
didn't
seem
too
overlooked.
You
had
to
say
it's
one
of
those
cases
where
you
had
to
actually
be
there
to
to
see,
but
I
don't
think
that
the
back
of
the
property
is
that
overlooked
by
the
other
properties.
So
I
am
struggling
with
this
one
I
have
to
say.
A
E
Thank
you,
I
think
so.
For
me,
the
thing
that
makes
the
extension
look.
The
worst
is
the
massing
of
the
first
two
flaws
and
they're
already
permitted.
We've
already
got
planning
permission
for
that,
so
actually,
I
I
can't
really
see
how
that
the
two
Dormer
windows
make
any
difference.
I
think
I'd
have
felt
differently.
Actually,
if
it
was
the
what
is
already
currently
approved
that
was
coming
to
us,
I
think
I'd
have
looked
less
favorably
on
that
level
of
massing
of
extensions,
then
I
do
on
them.
Keeping
four
windows.
J
I'm,
reflecting
on
plans
panel
training
we
had
very
recently
and
what
our
material
planning
issues
and
what
are
not,
and
we've
spent
quite
a
lot
of
time,
hearing
of
or
discussing
the
social
demographic
status
of
the
applicants,
which
is
not
a
material
planning,
consideration,
things
like
as
valid
as
they
might
be
for
a
community.
What
are
I
think
Jay
referred
to
cultural
norms
which
have
no
bearing
on
material
planning,
consideration
whatsoever,
yeah
and
I.
Think
they
are
valid
in
respect
to
what
councilor
lambre
is.
J
Likewise,
if
we
were
to
consider
the
social
aspects,
we'd
probably
ask,
if
you
know,
did
they
have
four
children
when
they
bought
a
house
that
wasn't
big
enough
or
if
they
planned
four
children
in
a
house
that
wasn't
big
enough
they're
completely
irrelevant
to
planning
matters.
So
where
I
view
this
is
we've
had
a
professional
officers,
give
us
a
professional
opinion
based
on
planning
law.
We've
been
told
that
if
that
goes
to
appeal,
we
will
comfortably
defend
that.
J
J
It's
not
a
material
pattern,
consideration
if
I
overturn
this
based
on
that,
then
how
do
I
know
the
next
plans
panel
somebody's
not
going
to
come
to
me
with
a
different
story
and
I
have
to
make
that
judgment
which
just
doesn't
stack
up
in
in
planning
law.
So
I,
don't
think
as
a
plans.
Member
I
have
any
I'll
have
to
cast
a
judgment.
J
I
have
to
take
a
a
view
based
on
the
legal
advice
given
to
us
and
I
think
that's
set
out
quite
clearly
in
planning
policies.
So
that'll
be
my
comment
share.
L
Again,
going
back
to
this
training
that
we
had
where
it
where
we
were
told
that
if
an
application
is
policy
compliant,
we
need
to
have
very
good
reasons
to
turn
it
down
and
equally,
if
an
application
is
not
policy
compliant
and
nothing
has
been
put
to
us
to
point
out
which
policies
it
should
know,
which
you
know
we
could
argue
are
flexible.
Is
that
a
case
here
that
we're
not
talking
about
50
50.?
R
Yes,
this
isn't
completely
non-policy
compliant
and
we
wouldn't
accept
a
design
like
this
and
if,
if
that,
if
it
had
come
in
without
retrospective
works
as
well.
A
And
if
not,
can
I
ask
David
to
just
sum
it
up,
so
we
can
go
on
to
the
vote.
O
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
I,
think
we've
probably
got
split
views
most
recently,
we've
heard
from
cancer
Anderson
the
councilor
Stevenson
and
seeking
advice
from
officers
in
respect
of
compliance
with
policy
and
their
weight
to
be
attached
to
the
personal
circumstances,
and
it
seems
to
be
there
that
the
officer
of
advice
is
very
clear
that
members
are
accepting
that
this
is
contrary
to
our
to
our
policies
that
we
have
and
our
design
guides
that
we
have.
O
The
alternative
view,
which
is
coming
from
Council
sharp
and
from
Council
of
Bethel
is
well
we've
seen
it.
We
understand
the
planning
history
of
it.
O
Council
sharp
made
the
comments
about
the
impact
of
the
development
from
the
street
scene,
thinking
that
that
wouldn't
be
particularly
harmful,
that
there
are
limited
views
from
The,
Wider
neighborhood
of
that
particular
site
and
Council.
Before
pointed
to
the
fact
that
the
most,
if
I
could
put
it
inverted,
Commons
objectionable
part
of
the
development
is
something
that
the
council
has
already
granted
planning
permission
that
being
the
massing
at
the
rear.
So
we
do
have
a
a
split
view
across
across
the
panel
on
on
this
particular
application.
Chair.
A
Right,
based
on
the
summary
which
has
just
been
given
to
us
by
by
the
officers,
is
there
anyone
to
move
the
recommendation?
A
A
Oh
so,
in
that
case
the
yes,
no.
N
It's
fine,
so
the
officer
recommendation
has
been
moved
and
seconded
and
has
fallen.
It's
not
received
a
majority
vote
and
therefore
it
leaves
the
members
around
the
table
to
put
forward
an
alternative
motion
should
they
wish
to
do
so.
But
there
is
nothing
on
the
table
at
the
moment
to
determine.
A
Anyone
has
no
do
you,
can
I,
can
I
bring
David
in
I
mean
and
is
there
anything
that
you
might
be
able
to
suggest
or
any
any
members
want
to
say
anything
at
least.
O
There
there
are
I,
guess
I
guess
cheddar,
that
the
the
two
options,
obviously
the
resolution
to
refuse
plan
information
hasn't
been
accepted
by
the
panel
as
a
whole.
That
is
the
two
options
either
to
a
resolution
or
a
recommendation
to
actually
Grant
planning
permission
from
the
members
or
if
there
are
particular
aspects
of
the
scheme
that
members
in
terms
of
the
design
parents
scheme
members
would
like
officers
to
go
away
and
negotiate
on.
O
Then
there
is
the
option
for
members
to
defer
consideration
but
as
as
an
officer,
I
would
like
some
guidance
as
to
what's
what
are
the
things
that
we
are
to
negotiate
negotiate
on
in
terms
of
to
make
it
an
acceptable
form
of
development.
Thank.
J
I
was
going
to
just
query:
David
So
in
plans,
pollen
trading.
We
were
told
that
our
job
is
to
determine
the
application
before
us
not
to
consider
what
different
types
of
schemes
will
be
referred,
which
is
I'm
going
to
put
in
an
awkward
spot,
but
slightly
contrary
to
what
you've
just
told
us.
So
my
understanding
is
I've
just
finished.
J
There
was
a
vert
so
whether
to
look
at
not
to
accept
the
council,
the
office's
recommendation,
three
members
voted
to
accept
the
recommendation,
one
two,
three
four
five
or
two
against
so
surely
one
of
the
people
that
have
just
voted
against
now
needs
to
put
forward
immersion
to
Grant
it
and
put
the
name
to
it.
N
You
could
leave
it
undetermined
and
then
you
know
matters
can
take
their
natural
courses
and
enforcement
notice
here
that
will
take
effect
on
the
4th
of
February,
but
given
that
you've
you've
not
Taken
part
in
the
first
motion,
there
is
an
option
for
you
now
to
provide
an
alternative
for
those
members
that
have
not
joined
that
vote
and
so
I'll
leave
it
for
members.
What
David
has
said
in
terms
of
the
two
options
for
deferral
or
approval,
that
is
there
or
it
remains
undetermined.
A
Thank
you
Nikki,
so
obviously
you
you
have
two
options:
either
to
defer
it
with
officers
and
and
can't
come
back
or
you
can
approve
the
application
and
someone
needs
to
move.
And
second,
this
particular
motion.
A
E
For
me,
I
would
prefer
us
to
defer,
because
the
issue
is
in
the
Dormer
windows
and
I.
Think
there
probably
is
a
negotiation
that
could
take
place
to
mean
that
they
can
keep
bedrooms
that
are
able
to
be
utilized
without
and
that
could
be
putting
back
the
hipping
or
whatever,
whatever
the
official
terms
are
for
the
roof.
Things
I
think
there
is
more
space
there
for
further
negotiation
to
be
able
to
make
it
more
policy
compliance.
So
we
get
that
it's
90
policy
compliant
type
thing,
rather
than
just
isn't
so.
E
N
You're
required
to
approve
or
refuse,
what's
before,
you
you're
not
allowed
to
start
altering
the
application.
If
you
are
asking
for
a
deferral,
bearing
in
mind
everything
that
the
planning
officer
has
said
to
you
in
terms
of
what
is
policy
compliant,
what
has
got
legal
and
planning
permission.
I
think
that's
really
important
that
you
take
that
on
board,
because
you've
clearly
said
that
there
are
certain
aspects
which
would
not
be
granted
planning
permission.
You've
been
very
clear
on
what
PD
is
and
what
PD
isn't
so
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
point
to
you.
A
O
I
guess,
from
my
perspective,
there
is
a
Nuance
in
terms
of
the
training
experience
received.
It's
not
the
role
of
the
plans
panel
to
redesign
a
a
scheme
and
come
up
with
an
alternative
form
of
development.
But
if
there
is
a
a
change
to
a
scheme
that's
submitted
which
would
make
it
policy
compliant,
then
you
are
entitled
to
say
to
to
officers.
Can
you
alter
that
scheme
without
redesigning
the
whole
thing?
O
J
Stevenson
and
we,
we
did
have
an
answer
to
that,
because
the
officer
told
us
that
there's
a
live
planning
permission
that
would
make
it
compliant
so
that
that's
dealt
with
my
question
to
Legal
is
we've
just
had
a
vote
on
the
offer
direct
after
the
recommendation.
As
a
result,
some
members
voted
for
it.
Some
against
the
problem.
We're
in
now
is
that
those
that
voted
against
aren't
willing
to
put
forward
a
separate
Motion
in
line
with
legal
advice.
So
can
I
ask
if
I
proposed
the
original
motion
again.
N
I'm
afraid
you
can't
underconstitutional
or
you
shouldn't
be
re-voting
on
a
motion.
That's
already
been
through
the
process.
I
think
councilor
Bethel
was
getting
to
the
point
of
setting
out
a
a
motion
as
I
understand
it
I
don't
think
it
was
completed
and
I
apologize
if
I
interrupted,
but
I
just
wanted
to
guide
you
in
terms
of
what
you're
asking
officers
to
to
do.
A
I
I
think
Council
was
trying
to
be
helpful
in
in
a
way
where
we
can
find
some
sort
of
solution
to
to
to
to
to
to
this
particular
issue,
and
we
went
through
a
vote
and
and
then
obviously,
members
on
this
side
obviously
voted
against
the
officer
recommendation
on
on
the
basis
of
what
they
believe
in
so
I
I
think
we
need
to
move
on
with
it
and
if
there
there
are
two
options
as
as
what
Dave
and
the
legal
advice
has
been
given
to
us,
and
if
we
follow
those
options
and
stick
with
them
rather
than
making
it
into
a
long
winding
so
issue.
A
K
As
you
know,
Chad
only
ever
here
to
help
yes,
I
am
going
to
try
and
be
helpful.
I'll
explain
why
so
I
I
would
propose
moving
a
motion
to
defer,
because
we've
only
got
two
options
left.
We
either
approve
it
or
defer
it.
I,
don't
think.
There's
a
single
person
sat
around
this
table
who
thinks
it's
policy
compliant
and
actually
I
think
retrospectively.
People
have
realized.
K
Maybe
we
were
a
bit
Hasty,
but
for
that
reason
I
think
there's
no
trust.
My
advice
to
the
Apple
can
be
withdraw
it
and
come
back
with
because
it's
so
far
from
being
policy
compliant.
The
only
question
is:
do
the
personal
circumstances
outweigh
the
harm
of
the
application
and
the
the
precedent
that's
in
here
from
an
inspector
clearly
tells
us?
No,
it
doesn't
so
I
I,
don't
think.
K
We've
got
an
alternative
now
from
where
we've
got
to
it's
a
bit
of
a
mess
but
to
defer
for
a
cycle,
and
then
we
can
we'll
have
all
three
options
sat
on
the
table
in
front
of
us
again.
So
I
would
move
that.
That
is
the
motion
to
vote
on
next.
H
Just
to
clarify,
we
can't
defer,
with
officers
looking
to
see
what
can
be
done
to
make
it
policy
compliant
and
what
did
the
legal
officers
say
happens
on
the
4th
of
February?
Sorry.
N
Councilor
Lam
has
already
moved
for
that
that
to
take
place
for
officers
to
go
away
and
discuss
this
application
further
with
the
eyes,
so
that
would
be
the
deferring
yeah.
That
would
be
the
defect,
so
it's
deferred
for
a
cycle
so
that
those
discussions
can
take
place
or
a
new
application
be
submitted.
Okay,.
N
A
Assalam
as
the
motion
in
but
no
one
has
seconded
yet.
A
Councilor
Anderson.
Okay,
do
you
want
to
repeat
the
motion
in
case
if
anybody
has
missed
missed.
N
Lawyer,
it's
the
the
ones
that
you
don't
see
coming
that
cause
the
most
become
most
complex,
but
we've
had
a
Emotion
by
councilor
Lam
to
defer,
say
that
further
discussions
can
take
place
and
that's
been
seconded
by
councilor
Anderson,
and
that
has
passed
with
all
voting
apart
from
two
members,
one
abstaining
and
one
against
I'll
leave
it
to
David.
To
sum
up
here,
thank.
O
A
In
that
case,
we'll
move
on
to
item
10
date
and
time
of
next
meeting
will
be
Thursday,
the
15th
sorry
15th
of
December
at
1
30
p.m.
That,
in
concludes
the
business
of
today's
meeting.
Thank
you
all
for
your
attendance
and
what
did
I
say,
December.