►
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
H
J
A
Thank
you.
Can
we
welcome
councilor
down
for
his
sobbing
moving
on
to
the
agenda?
Could
I
ask
the
clerk
to
go
through
item
one
to
five?
Please.
N
Thank
you
chair
under
gender
item
one.
There
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusable
inspection
of
documents
under
gender
item
two.
There
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
or
the
public
gender
item.
Three.
There
are
no
late
items
of
business
agenda.
Item
four
could
ask
members
to
declare
any
interest
they
may
have.
A
L
Thank
you,
chair
on
item
seven
I'm,
going
to
recuse
myself
from
the
panel,
because
I've
expressed
some
quite
strong
views
about
that
particular
application
and,
however,
just
so
it's
not
a
surprise
at
the
time,
I
am
going
to
then
be
a
speaker
about
the
application
on
item.
Eight
I
did
refer
this
application
to
the
panel,
but
I
do
have
an
open
mind
and
I
will
be
returning
to
take
part
in
that
item.
N
Thank
you,
councilor
Lam
under
agenda
know
where
I
am
at
all
right.
Oh
under
gender
item,
five
apologies
have
been
received
from
councilors
Mitchell
and
Stevenson.
Councilor
Cohen
is
in
attendance,
a
substitute
for
councilor
Stevenson
and
councilor
Maloney
his
attendance
as
a
substitute
for
councilman
Midgley.
Thank
you
very
much,
chair.
A
P
Thank
you
chair
just
one
Amendment
to
the
minutes
on
item
concerning
item
53.
This
is
the
item
which
dealt
with
Saint
Wilfred
circus.
It's
page
15,
the
seventh
boiler
point
and
second
sentence.
It
currently
reads:
it
had
been
noted
and
enforcement
action
was
due
to
start
on
the
4th
of
February
2023.
P
Probably
a
better
wording
would
be
the
enforcement.
The
enforcement
notices
should
have
been
complied
with
by
the
4th
of
February
2023,
which
required
the
removal
of
the
Dormers
such
as
before
that
there's
an
amendment
to
the
minutes.
Chair.
A
Thank
thank
you.
A
member
are
happy
to
move
this
right
and
he's
sorry
proposal
is
counselor
Jenkins.
Anyone
second
comes
through
a
move
on
to
the
any
matches
of
rising
from
the
minutes.
B
B
B
I'll
go
on
to
the
next
video
again,
you
can
see
you
see
that
pond
there
and
then
beyond.
That
is
the
river
Wharf
and
further
along
to
the
West
is
the
junction.
Is
the
roundabout?
Is
the
a58
and
the
a168
with
Boston
Road,
the
main
sort
of
Southern
entrance
into
the
town
of
Weatherby
to
the
the
north?
There.
B
B
B
B
B
B
Take
a
look
at
some
photos
of
the
site
now,
so
this
is
looking
East
along
previous
way.
B
You
can
see
there's
a
footpath
to
the
northern
side
of
previous
way,
but
there
isn't
a
footpath
along
the
the
southern
side
in
the
right
hand
of
the
image
there.
You
can
see
the
access
point,
and
that
is
the
access
point
into
the
attenuation
Pond
there
isn't
an
existing
access
into
the
application
sites,
and
so
it
would
be
punctured
through
the
the
vegetation
there
on
the
on
the
image.
B
This
again
looks
East
along
previous
way
and
then
sort
of
a
clearer
image
of
the
the
access
to
the
attenuation,
Pond
and
the
view
along
along
the
street
scene.
You
can
see
the
the
vegetation
present
and
you
can
also
see
that
the
vegetation
and
the
the
raised
bank
that
exists
along
the
northern
side
of
previous
way.
B
And
this
is
looking
West
along
previous
way,
so
the
application
site
is
on
the
left-hand
side
of
the
image.
This
time.
In
the
background,
you
can
see
the
the
bridge
over
the
river
Wharf
and
the
roundabout
of
the
a168
and
the
a58
is
beyond
that.
B
And
here
we
have
some
images
from
within
the
site
and
so
it
sort
of
shows
the
the
scrubland
and
the
dilapidated
structures
that
exist
within
the
site
itself.
B
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
petrol
filling
station
is,
on
the
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
image
there
towards
the
west
of
the
site
to
the
southern
side
of
the
the
building
is
the
services
of
the
building.
So
that's
their
staff
cycle
storage,
that's
where
the
air
conditioning
units
are
and
the
refuse
storage
as
well
and
there's
a
two
meter,
high
fence
along
the
southern
and
western
boundaries
of
the
the
building
and
that
sort
of
separates
it
from
the
infrastructure
associated
with
the
a1m.
B
It's
the
parking
provision
within
the
sites
and
we
can
see
the
electric
vehicle
charge
points
positioned
at
the
east
of
the
sites,
as
well
as
the
jet
wash
and
the
adblue
diesel
facility,
with
the
pumps
located
centrally
within
the
site,
and
you
can
see
the
position
of
the
two
underground
fuel
tanks.
That's
essentially
within
the
four
quarts
station,
near
towards
the
entrance
to
the
site.
B
And
there
is
proposed
to
be
a
section
278
agreement
to
secure
the
right
hand,
turning
into
the
site
and
the
entrance
into
the
site
is
the
the
right
hand
axis
on
the
image
and
the
exit
being
the
the
left
hand,
access
point
from
the
site
so
that
a
278
agreement
would
cover
the
right
hand,
turn
lane
The,
Pedestrian,
Island
Crossing
and
the
associated
adjustments
to
the
curb
line
in
that
location.
B
So
this
also
has
the
floor
plan
for
the
the
shop
associated
with
the
petrol
filling
station
or
the
ancillary
shop
and
Food
Outlet
facility,
and
so,
as
you
can
see,
the
well
the
the
orange
the
area
outlined
in
Orange
is
the
sort
of
internal
areas
that
include
the
the
shop
and
the
the
food
offering
with
the
support
areas
and
stuff
areas
making
up
the
rest
of
the
the
building.
B
It's
got.
Provision
for
12
covers
in
the
in
the
seating
in
the
food
offering
so
it's
quite
a
limited
in
scale.
It
also
includes
the
toilet
facilities
within
within
the
building
as
well.
B
Also
important
to
note
is
the
the
distance
from
the
application
site
to
the
properties
at
Glenfield.
Avenue
has
sort
of
pointed
out
on
the
Aerials,
before
it's
approximately
30
meters,
to
the
the
rear
garden
and
around
40
meters
to
the
rear
of
the
properties
along
Glenfield
Avenue
themselves,
from
the
petrol
Filling
Station
building.
B
This
is
the
landscape
plan.
That's
been
provided
as
part
of
the
proposal,
as
you
can
see
the
existing
vegetation
on
the
Eastern
end
of
the
sites
or
weather
triangle,
Narrows
that
is
proposed
to
be
retained
and
there's
some
planting
proposed
to
the
west
of
the
sites,
which
is
Wildflower
Meadow
and
tree
and
shrub
planting
in
that
location,
as
well
as
some
hedge
planting
along
the
front
of
the
site.
There.
B
B
Here
we
have
the
elevations
for
the
petrol
Filling
Station
building,
and
so
you
can
see
the
the
building
itself
and
the
the
canopy
stretching
over
the
full
court
there,
as
well
as
the
the
jet
wash
facilities
in
our
blue
tank
as
well,
and
so
cladding
is
proposed
with
a
brick
material
to
the
elevations,
and
the
frontage
of
the
shop
itself
is
largely
glazing
to
note
the
signage
propose
that
is
indicative
at
this
stage,
as
that
would
be
subject
to
in
separate
advertising
consent.
B
And
so
before,
we
take
a
look
at
the
the
offset
site
here.
It's
worth
sort
of
running
through
the
the
key
issues
in
relation
to
the
proposal,
so
it
isn't
out
of
center
location
by
virtue
of
its
position
outside
of
the
Weatherby
town
center
and
outside
of
the
settlement,
and
they
have
provided
a
sequential
site
assessment
as
part
of
the
application
which
is
accepted
by
officers
as
meeting
the
requirements
of
p8
demonstrating
there
aren't
any
available
sites
for
the
development
within
the
a
five
minute
drive
time
of
the
application
site
in
terms
of
amenity.
B
We
have
had
noise
light
and
air
quality
information
provided,
which
has
been
assessed
by
environmental
health
and
found
to
be
acceptable,
and
the
hours
are
proposed
to
be
linked
into
the
the
lighting
in
the
area
in
order
to
ensure
there's
not
an
acceptable
impact
in
terms
of
lighting,
so
the
proposed
opening
hours
would
would
marry
up
with
those
essentially,
so
it
would
be
closed
between
midnight
and
5
30
in
the
morning.
In
order
to
ensure
that
is
the
the
lighting
impact
is
acceptable
and
we
haven't
received
any
objection
from
highways.
B
B
And
then
the
biodiversity
is
a
key
issue
which
is
relevant
to
look
at
the
planning
history
for
that
one.
So
the
application
for
its
sort
of
near
identical
scheme
was
refused
in
a
2019
application.
There
were
three
reasons
for
refusal:
the
principle
of
the
development
in
that
location,
so
it's
positioned
outside
of
the
settlement
limits
within
rural
land
and
the
impact,
the
the
spatial
impact
to
the
character,
the
setting
and
the
landscape.
B
And
so
at
appeal
stage,
the
the
applicant
provided
further
information
in
relation
to
light
and
noise
and
was
amenable
to
conditions
restricting
the
opening
hours.
B
So
it
was
sort
of
agreed
between
parties
that
that
information
had
demonstrated
that
the
noise
and
light
and
impacts
were
considered
acceptable,
subject
to
today's
conditions,
restricting
certain
activities
and
in
relation
to
the
opening
hours
and
a
and
the
the
inspector
agreed,
with
the
reason
for
refusal
in
relation
to
biodiversity
net
gain
but
didn't
uphold.
The
reason
in
relation
to
the
principle
of
the
development,
and
so
the
inspector
said
in
relation
to
principle.
B
I
accept
that
the
proposed
development
would
incur
a
loss
of
a
field
and
Associated
vegetation
which
would
transform
the
appearance
of
this
part
of
previous
way.
The
site
is
not
a
valued
one
within
the
meaning
of
national
policy
and
has
no
specific
landscape
designation,
while
the
site
still
forms
part
of
a
wider
Countryside.
It
is
in
of
limited
inherent
quality
in
itself,
making
a
limited
contribution
and
they
went
on
to
find
that
the
the
sites
exhibited
characteristics
primarily
associated
with
the
surrounding
Highway
Network
connoting,
the
a1m
to
the
south
of
the
application
site.
B
So
the
inspector
went
on
to
find
to
States
I,
do
not
find
that
a
petrol
filling
station
and
its
ancillary
shop
and
food
outlets
and
other
Associated
structures,
typical
in
its
design
and
layout,
would
form
a
strident
feature
as
such
facilities
are
a
common
occurrence
on
roads
exhibiting
similar
characteristics
to
previous
way.
B
Whilst
the
site
is
located
within
and
forms
part
of
the
wharf
Valley
strategic,
green
infrastructure
for
the
above
reasons,
which
is
live
society
today
and
in
this
instance,
I
do
not
consider
that
the
proposed
development
would
undermine
the
wharf
Valley
strategic,
green
infrastructure.
So
they
go
on
to
find
that
that
would
not
significantly
harm
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
appeal
sites
and
surrounding
area,
including
the
Strategic
green
infrastructure.
B
And
so
they
found
that
the
proposed
development
would
occurred
with
the
design,
character
and
appearance
aims
of
the
relevant
policies.
Sorry,
and
so
the
remaining
reason,
so
the
application
that
was
refused-
and
that
was
upheld.
But
although
the
appeal
was
dismissed,
rather
with
the
only
reason
for
refusal
upheld
being
biodiversity,
and
on
this
point,
the
the
appellant
the
applicant
did
provide
details
of
an
offset
site
in
order
to
deliver
biodiversity
net
gain
at
appeal
stage.
B
B
It
was
considered
that
that
the
in
the
absence
of
a
mechanism
that
the
appeal
couldn't
succeed
so
for
this
application,
the
applicant
has
sought
to
address
that
remaining
reason
for
refusal
with
the
submission
of
details
of
delivery
of
biodiversity
to
an
offset
site
and
the
site
that
is
proposed
is
on
the
screen.
Now.
So
it's
a
triangle
of
land
which
is
a
corner
of
an
arable
field
which
is
currently
in
use
as
cereal
crops.
B
It's
around
two
kilometers
from
the
application
site
as
the
the
crow
flies
in
adjacent
to
definitive
Bridal
way,
Weatherby
nine,
which
runs
along
sort
of
the
the
southeast
of
the
the
image
there,
and
to
the
northeast
of
that
that
triangle.
As
you
can
see,
it's
adjacent
to
Woodland,
and
it
is
within
that
Leeds,
habitat
Network.
B
This
area
of
land
would
deliver
0.59
habitat
units,
which
is
an
over
15
biodiversity
net
gain
so
that
does
exceed
out
the
aspirational
target
of
10
biodiversity
net
gain,
like
I,
say
the
delivery
of
Hedgerow
units
that
will
be
on
the
application
site
itself.
So
this
purely
relates
to
the
delivery
of
biodiversity
net
gain
habitat
units.
B
And
The
Works
to
this
land
will
be
secured
through
a
section
106
agreement
which
the
owners,
the
Emoji,
the
Council
and
the
developer
will
be
signatories
to,
and
it
requires
that
a
biodiversity
net
gain
management
plan
is
provided
prior
to
commencement
of
works
on
the
application
site
and
details
of
how
the
habitat
units
will
be
delivered.
B
It
will
also
include
details
of
the
body
responsible
for
the
works,
the
funding
and
the
monitoring
reports
with
information
on
sort
of
the
contingencies
and
remedial
action
to
be
taken
if
it's
not
found
to
be
progressing
as
per
the
plan,
and
so
that
document
would
be
updated
every
five
years
and
it
will
be
carried
out
in
perpetuity
on
the
on
the
offset
at
land.
B
The
section
106
agreement
also
includes
the
requirement
for
the
biodiversity
net
gain
monitoring
reports,
which
would
need
to
be
prepared
by
a
chartered
ecologist
in
years.
Two
three:
five:
ten
twenty
and
thirty
years
after
the
agreement
of
the
biodiversity
net
gain
management
plan,
and
this
also
does
include
a
dispute
Clause
within
it,
so
that
the
council
is
able
to
carry
out
the
works.
B
B
And
here
we
can
see
some
images
of
the
sites
as
existing
the
offset
sites.
So
you
can
see
the
arable
field,
you
can
see
the
public
rights
of
way
and
you
can
see
the
the
Woodland
as
well
within
the
setting.
It
also
includes
some
Himalayan
Balsam
on
site
and
invasive
species,
which
should
be
sort
of
proposed
to
be
removed
as
part
of
the
the
net
gain
Works
in
this
location.
B
And
there
have
been
50
objection,
comments
received
to
date
with
a
focus
on
immunity,
highway
safety,
the
lack
of
need
for
the
development
and
the
impacts
on
whether
be
Town
Center.
B
These
include
objections
from
the
Weatherby
Town
Council,
better
Weatherby
partnership,
the
Boston,
spa,
Weatherby
and
Villages
Community
green
group
and
the
Weatherby
Civic
Society,
and
following
the
the
the
report
being
shared,
we
have
received
a
further
objection
from
the
Weatherby
partnership,
noting
no
endorsement
of
the
drainage
proposals
and
the
and
a
lack
of
confidence
that
the
biodiversity
issue
could
be
addressed
by
a
section
106
agreement
requesting
that
the
section
10c6
agreement
would
be
referred
back
to
panel
for
scrutiny
prior
to
any
approval.
B
So
to
summarize,
I
think
one
more
slide
yeah.
So
this
just
shows
the
application
sites,
as
the
Red
Cross
on
the
screen
and
the
offset
site
is
the
yellow
cross
on
the
screen.
And
so
it's
about
two
kilometers
I
say
as
the
as
the
crow
flies
is
on
one
of
the
definitive
Weatherby
public
rights
of
way
the
offset
sites
so
and
it
is
within
the
same
ward
as
well.
B
So
that
is
considered
to
be
sort
of
directly
related
to
the
development
and
appropriate
offset
location,
and
so
to
summarize,
it's
considered
that
The
Proposal,
with
the
section
106
and
mechanism
in
place,
would
address
the
previous
reason
for
refusal
upheld
by
the
inspector
through
the
delivery
of
biodiversity
net
gain
off-site
and
would
emphasize
that
substantial
weight
and
must
be
given
to
this
inspector's
previous
decision
in
terms
of
the
principle
of
development
and
to
revisit
such
matters
could
leave
sort
of
open
to
costs
and
claims
of
unreasonable
behavior.
B
A
L
Good
afternoon
again,
everybody
I'm
still
councilor
Lam
from
the
Weatherby
Ward.
This
is
Joanna
who's,
a
resident
of
Glenfield
Avenue,
which
sits
directly
opposite
the
proposed
Filling
Station
I'm,
going
to
speak
very
briefly,
because
my
comments
already
outlined
in
the
report
and
then
hand
over
to
Joanna
and
that'll
be
more
than
happy
to
pick
up
any
questions
that
members
have
got
so
the
principal
concerns
of
the
ward
members,
Town
Council,
better,
whether
it
be
the
Civic
Society,
still
relate
to
the
principle
of
development,
noting
what
the
officers
have
said
about
the
inspector's
report.
L
The
highways
are
a
huge
issue
here
and
okay
happy
to
elaborate
on
some
of
the
issues
that
have
existed
and
mitigations
that
have
already
had
to
take
place
in
that
location.
To
try
and
deal
with
with
problems
that
have
existed
there.
L
The
offset
location,
I
think
is
totally
unacceptable
to
be
I.
Don't
think
you
can
say
that
is
directly
related
to
the
development
in
other
parts
of
the
city.
You'd
be
Crossing,
multiple
Wards
to
get
to
to
get
to
that
point
and
that
doesn't
seem
to
fit
with
our
policies
and
the
idea
that
you're
going
to
take
away
useful
food
growing
land
to
produce
a
biodiversity
net
gain
which
isn't
needed.
I,
don't
think
it's
appropriate.
Q
Hi
I'm,
a
local
resident
of
Glenfield,
Avenue
and
I
know
that
many
of
my
neighbors
are
strongly
objecting
to
this
proposal.
The
main
concerns
being
potential
for
air
noise
and
light
pollution.
Q
Many
of
us
on
the
street
have
young
children
and,
despite
the
reduction
of
hours
of
opening,
I,
still
feel
there
will
be
significant
light
and
noise
pollution,
particularly
around
the
time
of
the
children
going
to
bed
and
also
in
the
summer
months,
when
Windows
might
need
to
be
open
and
I'd,
be
particularly
concerned
about
this,
when
the
initial
building
work
would
take
place,
but
also
ongoing
with
the
presence
of
the
petrol
station,
although
we
do
have
a
graspurge
with
shrubs
and
trees
planted.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
and
thank
you
for
keeping
the
time
any
questions
for
the
speakers.
Members
can
I
also
remind
members
specifically
what's
before
us,
to
ask
questions
on
those
councilor
Barry
Anderson.
R
You
mentioned
highways
as
a
potential
issue,
bear
in
mind
it's
close
proximity
to
roundabouts
and
various
other
things.
What
are
your
concerns
because
you
said
that
there
are
concerned?
Location
is
considerable
impact
on
the
highway,
but
what
does
that
actually
mean?
That's
what
the
words
that's
been
placed
here.
What
do
you
actually
mean.
L
Okay,
there's
two
two
issues:
I
think
one
is
obviously
you're
going
to
introduce
two
new,
a
new
entry
and
a
new
exit
from
The
Filling
Station
on
quite
a
short
space
of
Road,
very
close
to
a
difficult
roundabout
Junction,
which
is
going
to
have
to
take
more
and
more
traffic.
Because
that's
been
at
the
last
panel,
we
approved
800
houses
in
Weatherby,
which
is
going
to
significantly
add
to
the
road
Network.
So
there's
the
safety
impact
and
the
amount
and
volume
of
traffic
that
would
potentially
go
in
and
out
of
the
site.
L
L
The
vehicle
movements
late
at
night,
within
and
without
the
hours
we
had
a
lot
of
complaints
from
residents
about
the
impact
of
trucks
stopping
moving
in
and
out.
We
had
to
remove
the
lay
by
working
with
officers,
and
the
concern
is
we'd
just
go
back
to
where
we
were
with
the
antisocial,
behavior
and
all
the
other
issues
that
came
with
that.
So
they're.
The
concerns
I
have
I,
don't
know.
If
there's
anything
you
wanted
to
to
add.
Q
No
I
would
second
that
really
and
say,
especially
if
there
was
concerns
with
antisocial
Behavior
with
Amelia
layby,
then
I'd
probably
be
more
concerned
about
having
a
petrol
station.
There.
M
R
L
Well,
the
first
thing
I
tell
you
is
nobody's,
come
to
ask
the
board
members
if
there's
another
suitable
site
and
another
aspect
of
this
that
you
might
want
to
start
thinking
about-
is
the
complete
lack
of
consultation
and
engagement
with
the
local
community
about
this
proposal,
and
would
the
Town
Council,
for
instance,
be
interested
in
looking
at
the
biodiversity
there's
been
no.
L
As
far
as
I
know,
there's
been
this
site
put
forward,
there's
been
no
consideration
of
whether
other
sites
are
suitable
to
soon
have
been
no
engagement
with
us
and,
to
my
mind,
the
way
our
policies
read
the
if
you're
going
to
offset
it
should
be
directly
related
to
the
site
in
question
and
I,
don't
see
how
you
can
say
that
this
is
and
so
I
don't
think
it
satisfies
what
the
inspector
raised
in
the
appeal
decision.
L
H
Thanks
chair,
you
mentioned
that
the
three
other
petrol
stations
around
the
area.
How
I
know
it's
only
a
guesstimate
this,
but
how
long
would
it
take
you
to
go
to
each
of
the
three
stations
by
car
from
your
home.
Q
A
I
suppose,
depending
on
the
time
of
the
day,
anyone
else
no
in
that
case,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Can
we
now
we
also
have
a
speaker
in
support
of
the
application.
Can
I
ask
you
to
come
on
the
table
and
you
will
once
you're
ready?
You
will
have
four
minutes
to
address.
S
Chairman
members
of
the
planning
committee,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
for
the
purpose
of
this
sitting.
I
would
like
to
briefly
confirm
a
role.
I
am
a
chartered
town
planning,
consultant
elected
to
the
Royal
town
planning
Institute,
with
over
12
years,
local
Authority
experience
currently
representing
clients,
nationally
with
planning
submissions
and
planning
appeals
with
a
particular
expertise
in
roadside
services.
I.
S
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
I
am
delighted
to
stand
before
you
with
an
officer
recommendation
for
approval
following
a
thorough
assessment
by
the
council's
professional
planning
department.
I'm
sure
you
will
all
recognize
this
site
and
it's
planning
history,
given
the
previously
refused
application
when
the
20th
2019
application
was
refused.
The
council
cited
three
reasons
for
refusal:
its
impacts
upon
the
rural
character
of
the
landscape,
harm
to
immunity
and
a
net
loss
for
biodiversity.
S
When
the
planning
inspector
assessed
the
appeal,
however,
he
concluded
and
I
quote,
the
proposed
development
would
not
significantly
harm
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
appeal
site
and
surrounding
area,
including
the
wharf
Valley
strategic,
green
infrastructure.
He
also
concluded,
and
I
quote
the
hours
of
operation
suggested
by
the
appellant
and
the
details
submitted
in
relation
to
noise
and
light
means
that
any
potential
adverse
effects
on
neighboring
residential
occupiers
could
be
mitigated
through
the
imposition
of
a
suitably
worded
condition.
S
Given
the
scheme
is
identical
to
that
already
assessed
by
the
inspector
and
was
found
to
be
compliant
in
terms
of
character
and
appearance
and
a
meeting
pack
and
highways.
There
is
no
reason
why
the
scheme
cannot
be
supported
by
members
today.
The
appeal
was,
however,
dismissed
due
to
the
absence
of
a
reliable
mechanism
to
ensure
that
a
net
gain
in
biodiversity
was
to
be
delivered.
This
sole
remaining
issue
has
now
been
resolved,
as
the
applicant's
legal
representative
has
worked
tirelessly
with
the
council's
legal
provision
to
come
up
with
a
suitable
mechanism.
S
A
refusal
of
the
application
will
only
result
in
an
appeal
and
a
costs
application
against
the
council.
A
refusal
of
the
application
at
this
stage
would
not
particularly
stand
a
chance
of
being
upheld
at
appeal.
Another
key
element
of
the
inspector's
assessment
was
referenced
to
and
I
quote
the
resulting
economic
and
social
benefits
of
erection
and
petrol,
filling
station
and
its
ancillary
functions
on
this
section
of
the
Year
168.
There
are
clearly
economic
benefits
to
be
accrued
and
the
site
will
employ
a
notable
number
of
local
people
and
have
positive
supply
chain
impacts.
S
Given
the
current
economic
climate
proposals
which
result
in
job
creation
and
sustainable
Economic
Development
ought
to
be
looked
upon.
Favorably
and
I
hope
members
will
agree
with
the
council's
professional
planning
Department's
recommendation
and
approve
this
application
without
further
delay.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
do
member,
have
any
questions
for
for
the
speaker.
F
Yeah,
just
how
would
you
respond
to
the
comments
made
by
the
objector
about
noise
and
highways
in
the
area?
It's
also
I
think
there's
two
companies
involved
and
there's
Woodman
Woodman
Four
Courts,
but
there's
also
Weatherby
Four
Courts,
which
is
a
new
company.
That's
been
set
up
just
can
you
just
clarify
the
difference
between
the
two
companies
and
which
company
is
actually
developing
this
site.
S
With
regards
to
the
objections
raised
by
neighboring
residents
as
it
created
prior
to
my
speech,
they
have
already
been
addressed
and
the
inspector
has
already
concluded
that
there
was
no
particular
impact
with
immunity,
given
the
conditions
that
can
be
imposed
to
the
planning
notice.
How
is
again
that
has
been
suitably
assessed
by
the
professional
highways
officer
from
the
council.
No
objection
raised
no
objection
raised
by
the
inspector
in
terms
of
its
principle.
Again,
it's
been.
No
objection
has
been
raised
by
the
inspector
with
regards
to
the
principal
element
as
well.
S
Therefore,
as
the
planning
officer
had
iterated,
that
does
give
substantial
weight
to
the
decision
making
because
it
is
all
considered
in
terms
of
its
material
planning
consideration
with
regards
to
the
Developers,
it
would
be
Woodmont
Four
Courts
that
would
be
taken
over
this
project.
They
do
own
a
number
of
petrol
filling
stations
and
they
will
be
keeping
hold
of
the
site
and
managing
it.
They
will
be
tied
into
a
legally
banned
document
with
regards
to
section
106
agreement
associated
with
biodiversity.
G
Thank
you.
Yeah
I
bring
this
up
regularly
with
different
site
plans,
as
any
consideration
gone
into
providing
gender
neutral
toilets,
as
well
as
male
and
female
toilets,
or
instead
of
male
and
female
toilets.
S
S
S
There
was
no
requirement
in
terms
of
its
planning
policy,
which
is
one
of
the
policies
that
we
have
to
adhere
to
National
young
locally.
However,
there
was
a
recommendation
in
terms
of
us
to
provide
something
that
was
in
within
the
ward
within
distance
to
the
petrol
filling
station,
and
it
was
accepted
by
the
council's
biodiversity
and
environment
consultant,
and
the
planning
officer
itself
has
agreed
in
a
planning
report.
S
R
Based
on
you
admit
you,
you
accepted
at
the
very
beginning,
your
qualifications
Etc.
Would
you
say
that
that
was
best
practice
that
you've
just
done
by
not
Consulting
with
a
Town
Council,
not
Consulting,
with
board
members?
Would
you
say
best
practice,
irrespective
of
any
legislation
best
practiced
using
your
experience?
Would
you
say
that
was
compatible
or
not
compatible
with
your
experience.
R
Not
trying
to
write
a
recommendation
by
anyone
I'm
talking
about
your
good
business
practic.
Well,
not
not,
actually
you
personally,
but
the
company
you
represent,
and
the
company
who
are
looking
to
work
with
the
community
in
order
to
get
you
mentioned,
Mutual
economic
benefits,
so
they've
thought
about
that.
R
Do
you
think,
in
your
professional
opinion,
based
on
your
years
of
experience,
that
this
was
good
practice
that,
though
there
was
little
or
no
consultation
with
the
Town
Council
or
the
ward
members
in
order
to
get
buy-in
so
that
we
don't
end
up
in
a
position
like
this,
so
if
you
get
buy-in
from
them,
you
wouldn't
then
need
this
meeting
to
take
place.
Do
you
think,
what's
your
view,
based
on
your
professional
experience,.
R
S
There
was
no
requirement
into
what
we
are.
What
we
are
sitting
here
today
is
with
regards
to
a
planning
application
that
was
upheld,
the
only
sole
reason
for
refusal
being
the
biodiversity,
the
mechanism
for
the
biodiversity,
in
terms
of
having
an
agreement
with
the
local
authority
of
how
the
applicant
is
going
to
be
delivering
this
biodiversity
mitigation.
That
has
been
done,
successive
successively
and
been
accepted
by
the
planning
officer
and
the
council
officers.
R
J
Thank
you,
chair
yeah,.
J
Just
help
me
out
because
I'm
slightly
confused,
we
had
two
companies.
Are
they
two
discreet
companies
making
the
application?
You
said
there
was
one
developer,
I'm
just
confused
to
help
me
out
there.
First.
J
If
I
mate,
the
the
applicant
seems
to
have
somewhat
misdirected
themselves
as
to
what
our
decision-making
ability
is
here
could
I
just
can't
my
understanding
looking
at
this
is
we're
making
a
decision
on
the
whole
item,
not
just
in
terms
of
the
biodiversity
net
gain
and
it's
for
this
panel
to
determine
what
is
and
what
isn't
a
material
consideration.
P
Yes,
thank
you
chair,
yes,
councilor
Cohen's
right,
the
the
whole.
The
application
is
here
before
members
to
consider
and
in
regard
to
to
to
all
of
the
all
of
the
factors
and
understand
what
council
Cohen's
just
trying
to
do
is
provide
some
clarity
to
an
area
which
was
a
little
bit
unclear
as
as
I
say
before,
coming
to
help
come
to
a
view.
A
I
can't
see
any
any
more
members
showing
an
interest.
Thank
you
very
much
Nadia.
For
for
your
presentation.
Can
we
now
move
on
to
the
question
to
to
the
officers.
R
Quite
a
few
to
be
quite
Frank
right
on
the
papers
here
in
paragraph
20:
it
states
LCC,
sorry,
yeah,
LCC,
landscape
objection.
So
it's
down
on
this
report
as
the
landscape
are
objecting.
R
Is
that
objection
Still
Standing,
or
have
they
now
withdrawn
that
objection
based
on
the
last
five
six
words
in
that
paragraph
and
it
shouldn't
be
there
as
objection
they
might
have
objected
originally
and
are
now
happy.
Is
that
the
position
that
LCC
landscape
have
no
concerns
now
whatsoever
about
this
proposal?
Foreign.
B
So
the
the
last
sort
of
written
comments
were
an
objection
from
landscape,
but
the
the
the
net
gain
the
offset
site
is
considered
to
address
the
the
landscape
objection
through
the
provision
of
the
section
106,
as
as
were
did
there.
R
In
terms
of
the
inspectors,
views
right
so,
in
other
words
biodiversity
still
to
be
decided,
did
the
inspector
give
any
indication
in
their
judgment
as
to
what
types
of
things
would
and
would
not
be
acceptable?
So
in
other
words
the
distance
did
they
make
any
comment
as
to
whether
or
not
they
saw
a
five-mile
radius
being
acceptable?
Two
mile
radius
or
whatever
we've
got?
Was
there
any
indication
either
given
in
the
report
and
I
presume
this
inspect?
The
inspection
was
carried
out
by
exchange
of
letters.
R
B
There
isn't
any
specific
reference
to
distance
within
the
inspector's
decision.
However,
an
offset
site
was
provided
as
part
of
the
appeal,
and
that
was
it
was
somewhat
closer,
but
it,
but
it
wasn't
right
next
to
the
application
sites
as
such,
and
so
there
was
an
offset
site
proposed,
but
the
the
offset
site
that's
proposed
as
part
of
this
application
is,
is
set
a
bit.
R
Further
away
well,
if
I
was
to
draw
the
conclusion
that
the
the
inspector
hasn't
set
aside
answer,
so
we've
got
no
idea
whether
or
not
the
inspector
would
or
would
not
be
happy
with
what's
been
proposed
here
today.
It
comes
down
purely
to
my
judgment
and
my
colleagues
as
to
whether
or
not
that
meets
the
council's
test
or
not.
P
One
of
the
things
that
I
suppose
members
need
to
be
aware
of
is
that
ourselves
lead
city
council
to
have
guidance
in
terms
of
biodiversity,
and
we've
got
a
guidance
note
which
we
produce
for
Developers
and
within
that
guidance
notes
where
we
talk
about
where
they
can't
achieve
this
aspirational,
as
it
is
aspirational
at
the
moment,
the
10
on-site
and
we
look
off-site
as
it
were,
and
when
we
talk
in
our
guidance
note
to
developers
about
off-site
options,
what
we
say
is
off-site
land
under
control
of
the
applicant
that
can
be
used
for
Net
game
for
biodiversity
provided,
and
then
it
has
a
list
of
bullet
points
and
one
of
them.
P
The
very
first
bullet
point
is,
in
the
same
ward
or
immediately
adjacent
Ward,
subject
to
the
agreement
to
local
planning
Authority
as
the
development
site
where
the
impacts
occur.
So
what
we
will
do
as
planning
officers
is
when
we
talk
about
off-site
an
off-site
site,
as
it
were,
is
that
we
will
be
looking
for
something
in
in
the
ward
or
the
adjacent
Ward.
There
are
some
other
criteria
that
we
look
to
meet
as
well.
P
For
example,
its
area
deficiency
is
per
natural,
England's
nature,
nearby,
accessible
natural
Green,
Space
standards
or
with
immediate
Jason
area,
but
also
forming
part
of
a
connected
to
the
Leeds
habitat
Network.
So,
there's
a
series
of
sort
of
criteria
that
we
judge
these
sites
against
and
this
site
meets
those
criteria.
So
that's
why
we've
We've
Ended
up
with
something,
albeit
two
kilometers
away.
It's
in
the
same
ward,.
O
O
We
had
looked
at
trying
to
secure
the
offset
site
and
ongoing
maintenance
and
monitoring
of
that
through
condition
and
actually
hadn't
necessarily
come
down
to
fixing
it
down
under
section
106
agreement
and
the
provisions
therein,
as
well
as
ongoing
management
plans,
which
is
the
approach
that's
being
used
or
proposed
to
being
used
in
this
instance.
So
it
was
quite
a
lot
to
do
with
the
mechanism
of
how
we
were
securing
it,
which,
in
a
nutshell,
the
inspector
wasn't
convinced
that
we
were
going
to
tie
it
down
in
a
robust
way.
A
No
no
in
concern
recently
has
been
on
the
panel
for
many
many
years.
I'm
sure
you,
you
must
have
been
aware
of
this,
but
but
it's
it's
a
good
good,
good,
good
debate.
Any
other
questions
to
the
office
before
I,
move
on
to
the
comments
comes
from
it.
G
Thanks
chair
two
questions:
please
to
highways
there
was
talk
of
the
closeness
of
other
petrol
stations
and
I
just
wondered
whether
we've
done
any
work
around
who
works,
who
would
or
whether
the
applicant
in
fact
actually
has
done
any
work
around
who
the
petrol
station
would
be
used
for
and
actually
is
it.
Is
it
likely
that
having
this
will
actually
get
cars
off
the
road
within
Weatherby,
town
or
not?
G
It
just
feels
quite
close
with
there
being
obviously
the
service
station,
as
well
as
as
well
as
those
ones
in
the
town
as
well,
and
then
I
also
wondered
about
the
section
106,
the
biodiversity
and
it
being
on
a
separate
site.
What
is
to
safeguard
them,
then
being
bringing
a
planning
application
for
that
site
that
takes
the
biodiversity
away
next
year,
and
then
they
just
have
to
put
it
somewhere
else.
Don't
sound
so
shocked
that
it's
a
good
question,
counselor
rape
and
what
is
the?
G
What
is
so
that
it
doesn't
end
up
just
kind
of
moving
across
the
city
away
further
and
further
from
site.
Thank
you.
A
D
Don't
yeah
in
terms
of
the
highways
question
they,
the
applicant,
didn't
look
at
how
traffic
was
displaced
so
where
it
had
come
from,
but
they've
assumed
as
we're
doing
other
situations
like
this,
that
a
lot
of
the
traffic
is
passed
by
traffic
anyway,
there's
not
necessarily
new
traffic
on
the
network.
It's
just
traffic,
the
driving
past
and
nibbling.
A
Second
question:
is
it
yourself
stellar.
B
And
so
through
the
section
106
agreement
that
would
be
sort
of
a
commitment
tied
to
that
piece
of
land.
So
that
would
that
would
ensure
that
that
is
a.
That
is
a
legal
commitment
to
to
that
piece
of
land
in
perpetuity
for
the.
What
the
offset
sites.
C
So
it's
just
to
add
to
that
as
well.
I
think,
obviously,
any
section
on
this
experiment
is
is
potentially
subject
to
an
application
to
amend
that
in
the
future,
and
if
that
were
the
case,
then
we'd
have
to
obviously
consider
the
implications
of
that
and
if
it
were
to
affect
a
opposite
decision
of
plans,
it
may
be
the
case
that
we
may
need
to
come
back
to
plans
panel
and
run
that
by
yourselves
as
well.
C
In
terms
of,
if
that
were
to
arise
in
the
future,
I
mean
I've,
never
seen
that
happen
personally,
so
it
would
be
a
fairly
rare
instance,
but
it's
not
to
say
that
it
is
a
possibility
which
couldn't
occur,
but
there
are
safeguards
in
place
through
processes
that
we
would
have
to
reconsider
those
matters
at
that
time.
If
that's
helpful,
cancel.
A
I
About
the
off-site
provision
for
biodiversity,
is
there
any
more
information
about
the
policy
of
that
biodiversity?
I
think
you
just
said
it
was
grassland,
but
is
there
anything
any
more
information
about
the
kind
of
yeah
detail
of
planting
if
there'll
be
any
other
things,
because
it's
obviously
agricultural
land
at
the
moment?
So
just
grassland
doesn't
look
like
it's
providing
that
much
extra.
B
Yes,
so
it
would,
it
would
be
the
creation
of
grassland
and
the
details
of
the
planting
and
the
means
to
achieve
that
are
all
the
details
as
part
of
the
biodiversity
net
gain
management
plan.
And
so
there
has
been
a
report
carried
out
to
show
the
feasibility
of
delivering
it
to
to
that
land
and
to
reach
that
figure
of
0.59
biodiversity
units,
and
so
that
has
been
sort
of
assessed
and
considered.
That
would
be
achievable
to
that
land.
B
But
the
sort
of
fine
details
of
that
will
come
through
in
the
the
section
106
agreement
and
the
reports
required.
As
part
of
that.
It
has
been
assessed
by
our
nature
conservation
officer
and
it's
sort
of
seen
as
a
reasonable
proposal
that
it
could
be
achieved
to
that
land.
B
J
I,
do
love
the
way
we're
following
by
the
way,
a
city
plans
where
everyone
else's
counselor
surname
and
counselor
Dan
Wherever
We
There
we
go.
Thank
you
chair,
it's
okay,
just
if
you
could
just
help
me
out
here
looking
at
the
principle
of
development.
J
For
a
moment,
the
appeal
judge
directed
themselves
to
looking
at
the
Weatherby,
whether
it
be
neighborhood
plan,
it's
accurate
to
say,
isn't
it
they
actually
dismissed
most
of
the
plan,
because
the
only
bit
that
had
previously
been
raised
was
env3
at
what
they
hadn't
addressed
is
what
this
primary
objection
is
around,
which
is,
he
says,
desperately
looking
for
it
hwl2.
J
So
actually
the
appeal
doesn't
consider
the
principle
of
development
under
hwl2
and
I've
read
through
the
appeal,
and
it
doesn't
that's
correct,
isn't
it
yeah,
so
I
then
read
through
your
report
and
again
this
is
a
very
new
neighborhood
plan.
This
is
20.
This
is
made
in
February
2020.
and
she
has
his
birthday
in
a
few
days,
nice
star,
I'm
concerned
as
to
the
degree
of
weight
that
we
have
applied.
So
perhaps
you
could
just
speak
to
me
a
little
bit
about
that
that
we've
applied.
J
These
are
huge
pieces
of
work
that
we
encourage
neighborhoods
to
go
through
just
speak
to
me
about
the
weight
and
perhaps
a
little
bit
about
the
fact
that
it
wasn't
referred
to
in
that
aspect
in
the
appeal
thanks.
B
So
policy
hwl2
relates
to
community
facilities,
which
sort
of
are
generally
understood
to
be
perhaps
more
the
social
facilities,
so
that
might
be
places
of
worship
or
schools
or
Healthcare
facilities.
So
this
is
considered
to
represent
a
commercial
facility
rather
than
a
community
facility
as
such,
so
we
wouldn't
consider
that
the
hwlt
would
be
applicable
in
this
instance.
B
So
it's
addressed
within
the
representations
rather
than
within
the
the
principle
of
development,
and
that
will
be
the
the
same
for
the
inspector
and
that's
why
it
wasn't
addressed
as
such.
In
the
previous
appeal
decision.
A
Good,
thank
you
for
that.
Can
we
now
move
on
to
the
comments
any
comments.
J
Freaks
me
out
a
bit
now
we're
used
to
that.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chair.
This
is
the
I've
not
sat
on
North
for
a
while,
so
it's
nice
to
be
nice
to
be
back
I,
look
around
the
city,
chair
and
I
see
the
Great
Lengths
we
are
going
to
to
protect
shrub
areas
of
grassland.
We
do
relaxed
mowing.
J
We
recognize
they're
important
biodiversity
contribution
in
hyper
local
areas,
so,
where
I,
where
I,
where
I
represent
I,
look
at
the
Ring
Road,
and
we
purposely
allow
big
chunks
of
that,
even
though
it's
quite
scrubby
grassland
to
grow,
because
it
has
a
really
important
contribution
to
the
local
environment,
and
it
just
seems
really
bizarre
to
me
that
of
all
the
things
we
would
seek
to
shove
or
allowed
to
shovel
on
an
area
that
is
precisely
that
which
we
seek
to
protect
everywhere
else
would
be
something
that
is
encouraging
more
cars,
because
the
other
thing
we're
trying
to
dissuade
is
more
cars.
J
So
I
I,
just
don't
understand
how
we
are
squeezing
this
square
peg
into
that
particular
round
hole.
I
hear
what
officers
say
about
the
biodiversity
net
gained
two
kilometers
away,
but
I
look
at
it
and
it's
a
field
with
some
Woodland
right
next
to
it.
It's
doing
a
perfectly
good
job,
contributing
to
biodiversity
anyway,
and
a
little
bit
of
food
production
as
well.
So
I
really
don't
see
that
we've,
given
the
officers,
are
given
the
right
weight
here.
J
I,
look
at
and
I
take
your
points
about
hwl2,
but
I.
Look
at
the
neighborhood
plan
in
The
Wider
aspect
and
its
impact
on
local
immunity,
respecting
the
local
environment
and
to
me
it
seems,
we've
just
got
the
weight
balance
wrong
and
for
those
reasons
it
just
doesn't
seem
to
be
something
that
we
should
be
supporting
in
this
way.
Thank
you,
chair.
R
Point
on
paragraph
41
talks
about
the
mppf,
and
one
of
the
things
is
achieving
sustainable
development.
Well,
I
would
argue
that,
yes,
the
economic
case
has
been
made
because
of
the
job
creation,
but
how
have
we
made
the
on
environmental
grounds?
Are
socially
sustainable?
I've
not
seen
any
argument
in
here
as
to
why
the
development
is
environmentally
sustainable
and
why
it
is
socially
sustainable.
I
accept
the
economic
one,
no,
no
problem
on
that
at
all
and
then
on.
R
So
what
weight
have
the
council
given
to
the
neighborhood
plan,
because
the
neighborhood
plan
was
designed
in
a
way
that
they
were
satisfied
with
it
now?
Okay,
maybe
somebody
else
isn't
happy
with
it.
That's
a
matter
of
personal
interpretation,
so
I
have
concerns
on
that.
It's
not
been
environmentally
and
socially
sustainable.
I'm
concerned
at
the
decision-making
process
and
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
lack
of
weight
given
to
the
neighborhood
plan
and
finally
from
if
we
are
getting
rid
of
agricultural
land,
and
it
is
one
of
the
objectives
of
the
council
to
try
and
Source
food.
R
As
close
as
we
can
to
us,
we
need
agricultural
land.
We
are
looking
to
get
people
to
produce
things
locally.
This
is
hardly
going
forward,
I
mean
we
all
signed
up
to
the
climate
emergency,
and
this
is
one
of
the
fundamental
points
that
we
all
agreed
on
at
the
time
and
I
have
difficulty
in
seeing
how
this
is
meeting
that
climate
change.
I
I
accept
that
our
climate
policies
are
not
yet
in
place.
R
E
I'm
50
50.
I,
must
admit
so.
I
am
actually
interested
in
hearing
other
colleagues,
I
think
I
think
we've
established
that
we're
looking
at
the
application
in
the
round,
rather
than
the
specifics
and
I
think
that's
being
clarified,
so
I
think
it's
it's
understandable.
The
hesitancy
of
offices
when
they've
had
an
inspector
decision
as
to
how
close
to
the.
Why
you
play
to
that
because
you
we
don't
know
how
one
respect
will
look
on
the
decision
of
another
inspector
and
make
an
indication
whether
or
not
that
gives
kind
of
a
general
approval.
E
Even
though
it's
on
a
very
specific
point,
I
think
there
are
issues
with
the
offsetting
I
accept
it's
within
policy,
but
two
kilometers
is
quite
a
Distance
by
any
stretch
of
the
imagination,
and
so
there
are
some
concerns
of
that
and
I'm
concerned
about.
We
can't
guarantee
in
perpetuity-
and
it
just
takes
another
plans
panel
or
it
just
takes
another
set
of
offices
to
decide
that
actually
there's
a
special
case
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
it's
gone.
E
However,
I
also
accept
the
arguments
that
we
are
trying
to
effectively
second-guess
a
potential
appeal
and
how
an
inspector
will
judge
the
decision
of
another
inspector
as
to
what
the
overall
permissibility
of
the
decision
is
so
I
I'm,
50,
50
and
I'm
I'm,
hoping
some
wiser
words
from
colleagues
might
convince
me,
which
way
I'm
gonna
fall.
P
Yes,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
pick
up
just
on
some
of
the
points
that
had
been
raised
because
there's
officers
we've
got
a
lot
of
sympathy
with
a
lot
of
the
points
which
are
being
raised.
P
The
points
about
that
Council
Cohen
raised
around
about
the
loss
of
the
vegetation,
the
loss
of
the
landscape,
the
impact
that
that
has
the
concerns
around
about
the
bio
diet,
the
biodiversity,
the
fact
that
this
has
been
done
to
the
community
rather
than
with
the
community,
but
we
we
know
the
answer
to
that,
but,
as
councilor
Anderson
highlighted,
it
is
best
practice
for
developers
to
bring
forward
their
proposals
to
consult
with
the
community.
P
That
has
the
impact
upon
and
the
issue
around,
about
the
neighborhood
plan
and
and
more
and
I
suppose.
An
awful
lot
of
this
comes
back
to
the
point
that
counts
array
raised
about
the
inspector's
decision
and
the
weight
that
needs
to
be
or
should
be
attached
to
that.
That
decision-
and
it's
it's
one
of
those
circumstances
where,
as
officers,
we
don't
like
the
development.
We
know
we
don't
like
the
development,
because
we've
refused
planning
permission
for
it
in
the
past.
P
P
So
we
are
where
we
are
with
that,
and
Howling
inspector
would
view
it
if
we
refuse
it
typically,
the
inspector
would
approach
it
the
same
way
that
a
planning
officer
would
approach.
It
was
that
we've
got
an
appeal
decision
for
a
very
similar
form,
almost
identical
form
of
development.
It's
very
recent:
has
there
been
a
material
change
in
circumstance?
Well,
no.
P
So
in
essence,
although
we
don't
like
what
inspector
told
us
we're
stuck
within
what
the
inspector
told
us
and
normally
speaking,
to
depart
from
what
the
inspector
told
us
we'd
have
to
have
a
very
good
planning
reason
and
that
would
go.
Is
there
a
change
in
policy?
Is
there
a
change
of
material
circumstance,
so
we
don't
really
have
that
that
here,
so
our
strong
advice
to
you
is
well,
we
can't
really
revisit
those
arguments,
because
all
that
will
end
up
there's
a
very
strong
risk
that
will
end
up
at
appeal.
P
So
that's
the
uncomfortable
position
that
we're
all
in
because
we
don't
like
to
be
in
that
position
and
we
don't
particularly
as
I
say
we
refuse
playing
permissions.
So
it's
on
the
public
record.
We
don't
particularly
like
this
development,
but
we
are
where
we
are
with
with
that
in
terms
of
the
biodiversity
and
where
that's
located
well,
to
be
fair
to
the
developer,
I've
read
out
our
guidance,
which
is
guidance.
It's
not
policy,
it's.
P
I
know
the
points
about
loss
of
agricultural
land,
but
it
is
a
very
small
portion
of
that
land
and
when
the
nature
conservation
officer
will
have
been
assessing
the
biodiversity
they
would
have
had
regard
to
the
net
loss
or
the
contribution
that
land
makes
in
calculating
what
the
positive
contribution
The
Works,
that
land
create
to
create
the
biodiversity.
A
F
Yeah,
so
I
I
think
we
we
almost
have
to
go
along
with
the
the
inspector's
decision.
It's
very
sad
because
the
the
company,
because
I've
looked
into
it
is
some
funded,
has
a
charge
against
shell,
which
is
making
billions
out
of
the
the
fossil
fuel
industry.
So
you
know
it's
very
reluctant
that
we'd
probably
have
to
go
along
with
it,
but
just
to
note
that.
A
And
I
also
can
understand
the
the
frustration
from
the
community
of
whether
we
and
especially
surrounding
those
areas
when
we
were
out
there,
but
very
rightly
the
members
have
expressed
where
we
are
where
we
are
at
the
moment.
It's
a
difficult
decision
to
make,
but
you
know
and
I
think
in
the
future.
A
Developers
like
these
needs
to
consult
with
the
local
communities
and
and
work
with
the
local
communities,
and
that's
something
that
we
feel
as
elected
members
and
the
authority
that
they
need
to
have
some
sort
of
understanding
for
those
people
that
they
will
be
serving
on
those
surroundings.
So,
listening
to
the
offices
is
there
anyone
to
propose
the
the
office's
recommendation
comes
to
Rey
anyone
to
second
comes
from
mythil
or
anyone
in
favor
to
start
off
with
all
in
favor.
P
P
Thanks
chair,
then,
just
to
confirm
that
members
have
resolved
to
defer
and
delegate
or
accept
the
officer
recommendations
to
defer
and
delegate
the
approval
of
the
application
subject
to
deprive
completion,
section,
10,
section
106
agreements
and
the
conditions
set
out
in
Pages,
17
and
18
of
the
panel
of
the
panel
report.
And
we
have
heard
what
members
have
again
said
about
Community
involvement
and
we'll
reinforce
that
message
with
our
teams.
As
a
as
a
message
to
relate
to
to
developers.
I'm
sure
my
colleagues
are
doing
that
already.
But
we'll
reinforce
that
message.
A
B
B
So
here
we
have
the
site
plan.
It's
a
U-shaped
site
plan.
As
you
can
see,
it
has
entrance
points
from
the
west
of
the
sites
from
Brahman
Road
and
from
the
north
of
the
site
from
High
Street
Clifford
yeah.
In
the
setting.
There
are
a
number
of
grade
two
listed
buildings
and
structures,
including
the
baptismal
well
and
flanking
walls
which
are
to
the
south
of
the
application
sites
on
Brahman
roads,
the
heads
house
at
Northway,
School
Associated.
B
B
B
B
So
this
aerial
view
just
shows
that
the
context
there
is
quite
near
sort
of
the
entrance
to
the
Village.
You
can
see
that
with
the
the
sort
of
green
open
land
to
the
south
of
the
site
or
sort
of
beyond
beyond
the
houses
to
the
south
of
the
sites-
and
you
can
see
the
the
road
as
it
moves
moves
through
there.
B
So
there
are
two
detached
dwellings
to
the
south
of
the
application
site.
As
you
can
see,
I'll
go
on
to
the
site
photos
now,
and
so
these
I've
sort
of
tried
to
show
The
View
As.
You
move
along
Brahman
Road
and
to
the
from
the
south
to
the
north.
So
this
shows
the
baptismal
well
and
flanking
walls
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
image
and
then,
on
the
left,
hand,
side
of
the
image
you
have
got
the
Northway
school
and
disused
school
room
buildings
which
are
now
in
use
as
dwellings.
B
As
you
sort
of
move
along
the
street,
then
you
can
see
the
application
site
itself
within
this
image.
You
can
see
the
the
vegetation
and
the
other
sections
of
wall,
and
then
there
is
a
break
with
the
high
the
vehicular
access
to
the
application
site
and
to
the
dwellings
to
the
south
of
the
sites
and
that's
where
and
then
the
boundary
wall
to
Corner
Cottage
itself.
You
see
Corner
causes
itself
with
the
pantile
roof
there
and
the
single
story:
side
extension
to
its
side.
B
B
You
can
also
see
the
the
variation
in
height
along
the
the
boundary
wall,
so
it
does
drop
near
the
access
and
take
sort
of
a
right
angle
into
the
application
site
itself
and,
furthermore,
you
can
see
that
the
tarmac
to
the
existing
access
and
the
existing
access
arrangements,
as
well
with
two
accesses
next
to
each
other.
B
Here's
a
further
View
and
again
you
can
see
that
the
timber
fence
seem
to
be
replaced
and
you
can
see
the
dwellings
to
the
south
of
the
application
sites.
You
can
also
see
the
variation
along
the
wall
and,
with
some
gate
posts
from
sort
of
previous
alterations
and
infill.
You
can
see
that
that
is
part
of
the
the
character
of
the
existing
boundary
wall.
B
Now
on
to
the
next
one,
and
so
this
shows
the
boundary
wall
in
relation
to
the
existing
single
story-
side
extension,
which
is
a
flat
roof
extension.
As
you
can
see,
you
can
also
see
that
the
existing
side
extension
does
projectable
of
the
boundary
wall.
B
And
then
you
can
see
that
extension
in
relation
to
Corner
Cottage
itself
and
you
can
see
that
it
is
rendered
in
an
area
where
the
prevailing
character
is
Stone.
B
So
this
is
the
entrance
from
High
Street.
This
is
proposed
to
be
pedestrianized,
with
a
Bollard
inserted
on
this
entrance
so
that
the
soul,
vehicular
access
to
the
site
will
be
taken
from
the
Brahman
Road
entrance,
which,
as
as
you've
seen,
is
sort
of
an
existing
access
arrangement.
B
B
Foreign,
so
this
is
the
existing
site
plan.
So
again
you
can
see
they've
indicated
the
existing
visibility
space
from
both
accesses
and
that
access
to
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
image
is
the
High
Street
access,
so
that
is
the
one
that
is
proposed
to
be
pedestrianized
with
the
realignment
of
the
boundary
wall.
On
the
the
relating
to
the
left
hand,
access
on
on
this
image
here
and
you
can
see
again
the
the
current
visibility
displays
from
that
existing
access
points.
B
And
this
plan
also
shows
the
existing
extension
and
some
of
the
sort
of
landscaped
areas
within
the
site.
This
does
show
the
parking
areas
as
existing.
These
are
sort
of.
These
are
previously
approved
under
a
2020
application
reference,
so
there
is
hard
standing
that
was
previously
approved
to
that
area
to
serve
as
parking
to
the
properties
to
the
Greyhound,
which
are
either
side
of
that
High
Street
access
there
and
do
form
part
of
the
the
application
site
as
well.
B
So
here
we
have
the
proposed
site
plan.
The
area
in
Orange
is
where
the
hard
standing
is
proposed
to
be
sort
of
crushed
Limestone,
so
a
sort
of
heart.
The
oranges,
perhaps
are
so
what
misleading?
In
that
sense,
it's
going
to
be
sort
of
a
crush
Limestone
finish
there
and
it's
a
couple
sets
are
proposed
to
the
access
running
up
to
high
streets,
which
will
be
pedestrianized
as
I've
mentioned.
A
cobble
sets
are
also
proposed
to
the
entrance
to
bramham
Road.
B
For
that
section
that
isn't
indicated
in
Orange,
and
so
that
is
considered
to
be
a
more
sympathetic
materials
response
to
the
Conservation
Area
foreign.
B
You
can
see
the
boundary
wall
running
along
the
south
of
the
application
site.
That's
proposed
to
be
sort
of
a
boundary
wall
lower
in
in
Heights,
but
replacing
the
existing
fencing.
B
The
form
location
of
the
bounduel
is
proposed
to
be
indicated
through
the
use
of
stone
sets
in
that
area
to
provide
kind
of
a
visual
interpretation
of
how
that
has
changed
over
time.
So
you'll
be
able
to
see
this
little
footprint
of
the
existing
boundary
wall.
As
such,
this
plan
does
also
have
the
elevation
of
the
the
boundary
wall
itself.
So
you
can
see.
B
On
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
proposed
site
plan
there,
so
that's
proposed
to
serve
as
a
garage
outbuilding
in
support
of
corn,
Cottage
and
then
the
second
out.
Building
with
the
sort
of
simpler
plan
for
more
rectangular
form,
that's
proposed
to
be
a
cyclical
parking
for
the
properties
at
the
greyhounds.
B
So
here
are
the
plans
of
the
proposed
extension,
and
so,
as
you
can
see,
the
extension
itself
won't
be
visible
from
that
front.
Elevation
it'll
be
sort
of
screened
and
effectively
read
as
the
boundary
wall
to
the
application
site.
So
it's
a
flat
roof
extension
built
in
stone
with
a
sliding
door
detail
to
rear,
and
you
can
see
that
the
boundary
wall
then
ties
in
directly
to
that
part
of
the
extension.
B
So
this
shows
the
outbuilding
structures
to
to
the
sites.
So
you
can
see
that
curved
outbuilding
external
wall,
which
is
adjacent
to
the
site,
access
and
that's
proposed
to
serve
as
a
garage
and
outbuilding
and
then
again
the
the
simpler
form
of
the
the
second
out
building
to
serve
as
cycle
parking,
and
so
that
curved
access
is
considered
sort
of
the
wealth
that
allows
for
the
visibility
explains
to
be
achieved
and
also
introduces
that
sense
of
containment
which
is
prevalent
within
the
area
with
the
existing
boundary
walls.
B
So
there
is
some
history
to
this
site
as
well,
which
is
relevant
for
the
considerations
there's
a
2012
application,
which
was
which
for
a
single
dwelling
but
also
included
the
realignment
to
the
boundary
wall,
and
that
was
found
to
sort
of
have
concerns
about
the
the
realignment
of
the
boundary
wall.
We've
also
had
a
2021
application,
which
sought
to
erect
out
buildings
and
sort
of
had
some
similarities
with
the
current
scheme,
proposing
again
the
Demolition
and
realignment
of
the
boundary
wall.
B
However,
we
would
say
that
the
the
applicant
has
worked
with
us
to
address
the
concerns
identified
in.
B
In
that
case,
they
have
responded
positively
to
feedback
raised
by
the
conservation
officer,
so
that
now,
whilst
we
acknowledge
that
the
the
sort
of
loss
of
the
boundary
wall
and
it's
rebuilding
would
represent
less
than
substantial
harm
in
sort
of
the
mppf
terms,
we
consider
that
overall,
with
the
all
of
the
proposed
works
and
looking
at
it
as
a
whole,
we
would
consider
it
would
serve
to
enhance
this
at
this
area
of
the
this
part
of
the
conservation
area
and
that's
through
reintroducing
the
sense
of
containment,
which
is
something
the
inspector
referenced
in
their
2012
decision
and
noting
the
important
of
that
pinch
point
and
that
impacts
of
use
so
the
the
sort
of
raising
in
height
of
the
wall,
the
introduction
of
the
structures
to
restrict
those
views
across
the
site.
B
We
do
consider
that
that
does
serve
to
reintroduce
that
sense
of
containment,
that's
perhaps
been
lost,
and
also
the
replacing
of
existing
Timber
fencing
with
Stone
Walling
is
considered
to
be
more
sympathetic
in
terms
of
the
the
conservation
area
and
the
the
prevalent
materials
within
within
the
setting.
B
And
the
use
of
cobbles,
either
of
the
access
points
as
well,
is
considered
an
enhancement
to
break
up
the
the
tarmac
setting
in
in
that
location
and
with
the
integration
of
the
single
story,
single
so
side,
extension,
sorry
into
the
wall
and
the
integration
of
the
outbuildings
as
well.
That
is
all
considered
sort
of
a
positive
of
the
development
that
does
serve
to
enhance
the
setting
there.
B
To
address
the
concerns
that
have
sort
of
previously
been
raised,
we
have
received
quite
a
detailed
Stone
methodology,
which
does
describe
how
the
war
will
be
dismantled
by
hand
with
with
tools
and
dismantles
in
sections
and
labeled,
so
that
and
stored
in
those
respective
sections.
So
it
can
be
rebuilt
in
those
sections
and
retain
the
character
of
that
change
over
time.
B
So,
for
example,
whether
the
gate
posts
are,
there
is
quite
a
different
sort
of
character
of
the
to
the
wall
along
there
and
then
that's
considered
with
the
information
that
we've
had
to
to
have
been
addressed
through
through
the
the
detail
we've
had
of
methodology
and
then
there
would
be
for
the
additional
stone
that
would
be
required
for
the
sort
of
outbuilding
and
all
of
the
the
other
structures
and
the
building
up
of
heights.
B
B
And
so
through
the
alignment
realignment
of
the
boundary
wall
that
would
achieve
a
visibility,
display
improvements
to
the
Brahman
Road
access
points,
and
so
it
is
currently
a
substandard
access,
but
it
will
be
improved
to
meet
the
the
standards,
so
that
would
be
to
the
benefit
of
the
users
of
the
existing
access,
which
does
serve
eight
dwellings,
and
so
this
is
recommended
by
officers
to
Grant
the
buying
permission
subject
to
the
conditions
recommended
and
any
amendments.
A
T
T
Firstly,
the
blocking
off
of
the
vehicle
access
from
The
High
Street
will
mean
eight
properties
with
potentially
two
vehicles,
each
using
the
new
entrance
off
Brahman
Road.
Secondly,
we
object
to
the
historic
boundary
wall
being
extended
in
height.
The
extension
should
be
built
parallel
to
the
rear
of
the
boundary
wall,
as
always
required
at
a
similar
location
on
the
High
Street
setting.
The
extension
back
is
considered
to
be
a
positive
move
in
terms
of
visual
immunity,
as
the
wall
will
regain
its
own
integrity.
T
Thirdly,
of
most
concern
is
a
demolition
of
a
historic
boundary
wall.
The
wall
is
the
key
part
of
the
fabric
which
make
up
Clifford's
Conservation
Area.
Its
alignment
and
position
serves
to
focus
one's
eye
as
you
approach
the
heart
of
Clifford
forming
a
key
view
into
the
village.
The
conservation
area
and
the
appraisal
management
plan
clearly
identifies
that
magnesium
lines
of
stone
boundary
walls
are
a
positive
contribution
to
the
conservation
area
and
will
be
retained.
T
The
inclusion
of
the
document
approved
changes
to
former
Northway
School
site
is
presumably
supposed
to
act
as
a
precedent
for
moving
a
wall
as
part
of
a
development.
This
document
must
be
dismissed
as
irrelevant
as
it
predates
the
neighborhood
plan.
The
application
refers
to
the
plan
in
history
and
each
case.
Assessment
of
the
proposal
by
planning
and
conservation
officers
have
led
to
refusal.
The
refusal
taken
to
appeal
where
the
inspector
rejected
the
appeal
and
strongly
supported
the
protection
of
the
wall
in
2021.
T
The
conservation
officer's
view
of
the
application
was
the
section
of
stone
boundary
wall
in
question
is
an
extremely
important.
The
alignment
of
the
wall
to
the
pavement
Edge
is
therefore
as
important
as
the
form
of
the
wall.
If
rebuilt
apart
from
the
loss
of
historic
form
and
character
that
would
result,
the
new
position
was
Severance
Association
and
continuation
with
the
rest
of
the
listed
wall.
The
Wider
depth
of
the
pavement
would
appear
as
an
anomaly
here.
T
Changes
would
have
a
detrimental
impact
on
the
setting
of
the
grade
two
listed
wall.
As
a
result,
the
historic
wall
sits
opposite.
The
gray
two
listed
nunnery
house
Northway
school
and
contributing
positively
thiefly
to
the
setting
of
both
the
proposal
to
realign
the
historic
wall
are
not
considered
to
preserve
the
setting
of
the
various
grade.
2
listed
buildings
and
structures
or
The
Wider
character
of
the
Conservation
Area.
T
Mppf
sets
out
that
great
weight
should
be
given
to
the
conservation
of
Heritage
assets,
and
there
are
no
public
benefits
of
The
Proposal,
which
would
outweigh
the
harm
caused
by
the
demolition
of
this
wall.
We
collectively
believe
the
approval
of
this
application
would
lead
to
the
harm
of
Clifford
Conservation
Area
The
Proposal
would
raise
significant
conflicts
in
policy
and
is
contrary
to
Clifford
neighborhood
plan.
T
It's
contrary
to
Clifford
neighborhood
plan,
dv2,
be2
and
GS2
core
strategy,
UDP
policies
and
guidance
in
the
Clifford
Conservation
Area
management
plan
and
npf.
It
is
felt
the
neighborhood
plan.
A
statutory
document
is
not
being
given
full
weight.
What
is
a
point
of
producing
a
neighbor
plan
if
its
Provisions
approved
by
referendum
and
not
adhere
to?
We
strongly
ask
you
to
refuse
this
application.
Thank
you.
R
R
Are
you
and
well
not
you
personally,
but
the
council
and
the
historic
history
group?
Are
you
close
to
accepting
a
development
of
some
description
here
or
are
you
and
the
applicants
miles
apart
in
terms
of
what
would
and
would
not
be
acceptable.
T
Thank
you.
We
know
of
a
no
accident
record.
There,
we've
not
been
provided
rarely
when
we've
asked
the
police
on
various
issues
in
the
past
and
highways.
With
regard
to
our
differences
with
the
developer,
our
difference
is
the
wall,
the
movement,
the
demolition
of
this
wall.
T
L
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
yeah.
Thank
you.
It's
really
helpful.
Could
you
just
outline
what
consultation
engagement
they've
been
between
the
developer
and
the
the
parish
council
and
The
Wider
Community
to
try
and
find
a
scheme
that
will
be
acceptable.
T
The
developers
did
send
Advanced
notification
of
a
planning
application
to
the
parish
council,
and
that
was
looked
at
by
the
planning
working
group
and
it's
been
discussed
with
residents
who
have
it
was
on
the
agenda
and
they
had
the
opportunity
to
come
to
Parish
Council
meetings
and
speak
with
patch
counselors
to
discuss.
L
Sorry
this
is
a
separate
issue,
I
just
from
the
site
visit
this
morning,
I
I
had
some
concerns
about
accessibility
and
whether
putting
cobbles
down
is
appropriate.
L
A
Cute
any
other
questions.
Thank
you.
I
can't
see
anyone
else,
but
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
We
also
have
a
speaker
for
the
application.
Could
I
ask
them,
invite
them
to
come
to
the
table
and
you
will
have
once
you're
ready.
You've
got
four
minutes
to
address.
U
Good
afternoon
chair,
thank
you,
first
of
all,
I'd
just
like
to
talk
about
the
previous
applications
which
has
gone
on
on
this
site
previously,
and
the
concern
that
this
is
simply
a
recash
of
previous
applications.
U
Since
2012
there's
been
one
refusal
at
appeal
and
discussions
and
concerns
raised
through
those
historic
applications
have
led
to
the
revised
design
and
I
proposed
as
part
of
this
application
and
if
One
Compares
the
current
applications
to
those
previously
considered
it's
clear,
we
have
taken
comments
on
Bard
and
subsequently
withdrawn
amended
and
significantly
improved
the
proposals
that
are
now
reflected
under
this
existing
application.
U
Previous
applications
saw
a
much
greater
setback
of
the
wall
and
did
not
include
the
garage
cycle
store
the
wall
between
the
driveways
or
the
raised
section
of
wall
shielding
the
remodeled
extension,
all
of
which
have
been
designed
to
create
a
positive
sense
of
enclosure
and
containment
and
response
sensitively
and
creatively
to
further
enhance
the
conservation
setting.
The
comments
that
was
previously
raised
were
towards
those
other
schemes,
not
this
one.
U
The
previous
application
was
withdrawn
on
the
basis
of
clarity
and
transparency.
Rather
than
doing
a
series
of
amendments,
we
thought
it
was
best
to
withdraw
and
resubmit
as
a
formal
new
application
as
documented
under
previous
applications.
The
conservation
officer
acknowledged
that
it
is
recognized
that
the
insertion
of
the
driveways
offenses
to
boundaries
and
loss
of
trees
in
recent
years
has
somewhat
eroded
the
special
character
of
the
conservation
here.
U
A
positive
sense
of
enclosure
and
containment
is
lacking
from
the
open
area
around
the
Brahman
Road
access
and
can
only
be
enhanced
by
the
inclusion
of
the
garage
cycle
store
and
the
wall
that
will
replace
the
atypical
fins
in
between
the
driveways.
We
have
provided
model
which
demonstrates
how
it
would
look
after
and
before,
and
we
do
believe
that
with
the
alignments
it
has
little
change
to
the
to
the
area.
U
The
proposed
realignment
would
not
result
in
the
removal
of
a
positive
stone
wall
within
the
conservation
area,
although
it
would
result
in
a
slight
changing
position
in
that,
while
in
keeping
with
the
continual
adaptation
and
alteration
that
has
occurred
since
its
original
Construction
rebuilding
it
on
a
slightly
different
alignment
and
an
improved
but
less
visible,
single
story.
U
Statement
in
terms
of
Highways
safety
for
the
applicant's
tenants
is
a
key
driver
for
this
application.
The
Proposal
does
not
include
any
additional
dwellings
and
will
not
generate
any
further
traffic,
but
aims
to
improve
existing
access.
Arrangements
closing
the
substance,
substandard
High
Street
access
and
enhancing
the
visibility
Supply
at
Brandman
Road
will
provide
a
significant
public
benefit
and
serves
to
help
relieve
congestion
on
High
Street
and
further
improve
Highway
Safety
in
the
village.
Following
the
introduction
of
the
20
miles
per
hour,
speed
limit
minimum
required
visibility.
U
Splays
are
unachievable
at
their
severely
substandard
High
Street
access
due
to
the
presence
of
existing
buildings,
one
and
four,
but
we
can
improve
the
the
visibility
to
meet
current
guidance
at
Brandon
Road.
The
visibility
split
to
the
South
is
already
adequate,
but
the
proposals
would
provide
an
improvement
to
the
north,
thereby
enhancing
highway
safety.
This
Improvement
is
of
the
Circa
38
percent.
U
The
proposals
will
provide
further
public
benefits
through
enhancing
pedestrian
safety
by
achieving
a
minimum
Footwear
width
of
two
meters
over
a
length
of
12.3
meters
with
a
wider
Footwear
than
existing
provided
along
a
further
three
and
a
half
meters.
This
also
AIDS
in
addressing
the
current
concerns
raised
at
the
November
parish
council
meeting
in
connection
with
the
safe
pedestrian
routes
to
the
school.
We
understand.
Ongoing
discussions
are
happening
between
Parish
Council
and
the
authority
to
improve
safety
considerations.
U
Up,
please
I
will
do
very
much
so
price
of
the
applications
we
have
submitted
to
the
parish
council
and
all
surrounding
Neighbors
full
packages
of
the
submission
documents,
including
reports
plans,
with
an
opportunity
to
contact
us
with
any
comments
that
they
may
have.
We
have
not
received
any
comments
or
calls
from
any
party
we've
also
because
we
haven't
we've
produced
a
consultation
response
document
in
which
we
have
identified
every
comment.
That's
been
submitted
formally
and
we
have.
A
No
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
now
shall
we
move
on
to
the
any
questions
to
the
officers.
L
So
I
asked
the
site
visit
this
morning,
but
for
the
benefit
of
those
that
weren't
there
can
you
confirm
whether
the
accessibility
office
has
been
consulted
on
these
proposals?
Can.
D
Yeah,
that's
fine!
Thank
you.
We
look
at
accessibility
in
part
of
our
highways
response,
so
we
did
look
at
that
in
terms
of
pedestrian
talk.
Do
you
mean
in
terms
of
the
sets?
Stone
sets
yeah,
so
we
did
look
at
that
and
that,
in
terms
of
the
width
of
the
pavement,
it
will
be
improved
across
that
access.
The
stone
sets
can
be
agreed
through
a
section
two
seven,
eight
agreements
to
make
sure
they're
compliant
with
accessibility,.
L
R
I've
been
looking
through
details,
I
can
see
reference
to
the
neighborhood
plan,
but
I
can't
see
your
critique
of
the
relevant
policies.
So
briefly,
what?
Where
was
your
critique
of
the
neighborhood
plan?
Vis-A-Vis
this
application
and
what
did
and
did
not
comply
and
what
you
felt
unbalanced
did
comply.
B
So
in
so
in
terms
of
the
policy
in
relation
to
key
views,
which
is
GS2
which
was
referenced
there,
and
it
is
considered
that
the
the
development
would
serve
to
preserve
and
enhance
that
Key
View
by
reintroducing
a
sense
of
containment
to
that
the
application
sites
in
that
location,
as
has
been
sort
of
previously
highlighted
as
a
benefit
of
or
a
defining
character
of
that
location
in
terms
of
dev2,
which
is
in
relation
to
design
standards
and
does
specifically
reference
Stone
boundary
walls
and
their
retention,
and
because
the
scheme
is
sort
of
carefully
demolishing
and
rebuilding
that
stone
boundary
wall
is
considered
the
viewing
that,
in
the
whole
and
in
light
of
the
improvements
to
other
elements
of
the
the
conservation
area
setting
and
the
key
views
and
restrict
restricting
those
views
across
the
site.
B
The
new
stone
boundary
walls
is
considered
that
looking
at
in
the
round.
It
is
acceptable
in
in
those
terms
again
that
is
similar
with
the
be2
in
relation
to
conserving
Heritage
assets
and
also
the
guidance
within
the
Clifford
and
Clifford
Conservation
Area
action
and
management
plan
and
which
does
again
reference
Stone
boundary
walls.
B
As
a
key
feature,
and
because
it
is
rebuilding
the
stone
boundary
wall,
introducing
that
sense
of
containment
and
also
reintroducing
additional
Stone
boundary
walls
where
it's
currently
Timber
fencing,
it
is
considered
that
it
is
compliant
with
today's
policies.
When
looked
in
the
round,
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
L
Yeah
I
think
my
comments
are
I,
get
into
frustration
at
the
lack
of
consultation,
and
it
feels
from
what
we've
heard
from
from
both
speakers
is.
There's
a
scheme
to
be
had
here
that
the
community
could
support,
but
if
they're
not
engaged
with,
and
if
it's
done
to
them,
then
they
haven't
been
given
the
opportunity
to
to
do
that,
and
the
question
for
us
is:
does
the
benefit
our
way
to
harm,
and
there
are
some
benefits
you
can
see
in
what's
proposed
and
some
improvements,
but
without
question.
L
L
If
the,
if
the
applicant
was
willing
to
sit
down,
not
just
send
a
letter
out
to
say
this
is
what
we
want
to
do
to
you
and
send
us
a
letter
back
if
you
don't
like
it
or
you
do
like
it,
that
that's
not
engagement
and
we've
seen
numerous
occasions
recently,
where
developers
engaging
well
with
the
community
has
resulted
in
things
not
having
to
come
here
and
applications
and
better
development
at
the
end
of
it.
So
it's
a
tricky
one.
So
I
can
see.
I
can
see
some
benefits
to
it,
but
I,
don't
I.
L
I
I
think
I
accept
counseling's
point
about
how
things
could
be
avoided.
Having
to
you
know,
get
to
this
point
but
I'm
struggling
to
see
the
harms
really
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
benefits
from
being
there.
This
morning
it
looks
like
it
would
be
a
lot
tidier,
it
would
be
safer.
The
materials
are
really
suitable.
I
You
know
to
the
location,
I
think
my
only
concern
is
the
pavement
having
like
walked
along.
It's
very
narrow
and
I.
Think
cobbles
would
be
a
hindrance
rather
than
a
help
to
the
pavement.
So
I'd
quite
like
that
to
be
looked
at.
A
That's
good,
that's
a
good
comment.
Anyone
else
comes
for
a
coin
or
cancer
done,
whichever
whichever
you
like,
if.
J
I
would
counselor
Dan
it's
fine.
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
suppose
the
harm
isn't
it
is
that
we're
here
we've
got
this
role
of
custodians
and
there
is.
There
is
a
historic
wall
that
follows
a
historic
line
and
there's
a
there's
a
essentially
there's
a
proposal
to
to
move
away
from
that,
and
that
concerns
me
because
when
it's
moved
it's
moved.
J
I'm
always
fascinated
when
we
talk
about
improving
highway
safety
when
there
are
no
Road
accidents,
because
of
course,
highways
anytime.
Any
of
us
talk
about
an
accident
waiting
to
happen
in
our
Wards.
We'll
talk
about
the
accident
hasn't
happened
there
in
20
years
counselor.
We
don't
need
to
do
anything,
you
know.
So
we
were
talking
about
a
38
increase
in
highway
safety,
but
there
aren't
accidents
there.
There
isn't
a
history
of
accidents
there.
The
road
is
de
facto
safe,
I,
don't
get
why
we're
putting
cobbles
anywhere?
J
You
know
someone
who's
pushed
someone
in
a
wheelchair.
They
are
they're
and
bookies
as
well
forgot
about
them.
J
I
I
would
ban
cobbles
from
appearing
anywhere
if
I,
if
that
power
ever
granted
to
me,
but
if
I
may
respectfully
develop
councilor
Lam's
Point
ever
so
slightly
I
I
I
think
there
is
an
agreement
to
be
done
here,
particularly
in
terms
of
just
giving
the
developer
and
residents
that
little
bit
more
time
to
actually
have
a
discussion
on
some
of
these
points
and
I
would
be
really
Keen
to
see,
is
defer
this
for
a
cycle
to
see
if
they
could
actually
get
there
themselves
and
then
nobody
feel
that
something's
being
done
to
them,
but
done
with
them,
which
is
something
I'm
always
Keen
to
do,
and
for
me
this
is
what
I'd
really
be
Keen
to
propose
a
deferring
for
a
cycle.
J
E
When
he's
all
the
same
well
or
not
or
a
different
world
and
I,
think
we're
having
our
discussion
about
because
of
the
conversations
there's
still
a
wall
there.
So
it's
fine,
but
is
it
the
same?
Well?
Is
it
a
different?
Well,
can
it
be
built
the
same
way,
I
think
I,
I
think
I
tend
to
agree.
This
probably
can
go
away
and
be
deferred
and
actually
just
have
a
bit
more
negotiation,
see
if
there's
a
middle
ground,
I
think
the
general
principle
of
actually
looking
at
this
plan.
E
The
overall
plan
is
going
to
make
a
lot
of
difference
to
this
area.
But
again,
once
you
change
the
historic
boundary
of
a
historic
area,
then
you've
changed
the
historic
boundary
of
an
area
just
because
they're
replicating
the
wall
in
a
slightly
different
position
doesn't
mean
that
you've
not
changed
the
historic
boundary
and
things
like
that
do
need
to
be
dealt
with
with
some
degree
of
sensitivity.
So
I
think
there
is
a
deal
to
be
done
by
a
negotiation
between
the
developer
and
the
relevant
objectors.
R
A
note
on
the
very
front
page
that
the
target
date
for
completion
was
the
13th
of
September.
It
was
negotiated
to
be
a
time
agreed
on
the
17th
of
February
and
I
noticed
that
that
and
it's
we're
up
against
that
and
I
think
based
on
what's
been
said.
Maybe
for
another
cycle
we
might
be
able
to
just
get
it
moved
a
bit
further
on
I
accept
the
discipline
that
we've
had
to
introduce
I'm,
not
criticizing
that.
P
Yes,
thank
you.
Chad
just
just
wanted
to
pick
up
this
point
on
deferral
for
for
one
month.
If
that's,
if
that's
the
way
that
members
go,
I
would
just
ask
members
because
of
the
leading
time
for
plans
power.
Actually
it's
it's
not
a
month.
It
probably
only
gives
us
about
a
fortnight
to
to
sort
it
and
that's
a
fortnight
from
today.
So
if
members
do
want
to
go
for
the
the
deferral,
I
would
I'd
ask.
A
Yeah,
no
yeah
that
absolutely
makes
sense
guns
are
Sharp.
H
Thanks
chair,
if
we
are
going
to
go
for
a
deferral,
can
we
also
press
the
pass
and
the
Cobble
area
as
well?
Please.
L
A
Because
so
so
that
we
know
the
which
way
the
the
panel
is
is
going.
Is
there
anyone
to
propose
cancer
coin?
Anyone
to
a
second
can
I
ask
David
to
just
show
me
up
what
exactly
we're
proposing
and
and
and
how
roughly
about
a
couple
of
months
or
so
is
enough
time.
P
P
Obviously,
that's
something
we're
trying
to
facilitate,
but
we
can't
make
promises
on
behalf
of
the
applicant,
but
that's
what
we
would
do
for
revisiting
the
stone
sets
cobbles
and
in
conjunction
with
that
consult
with
the
access
officer
going
back
to
the
consultation
with
local
community
I
noticed
that
I've
forgot
now
is
it
maybe
a
new
Council
Ray
I
mentioned
local
residents,
local
objectors
and
Council
Anne
mentioned
the
parish
council,
I
presume.
Would
the
parish
council
be
the
the
starting
points
so
we'll
set?
A
A
V
Thank
you
chair.
This
item
is
brought
back
to
plans
panel
after
being
deferred
by
panel
members
for
one
cycle.
The
reason
for
the
deferral
by
members
was
to
allow
the
applicant
to
submit
a
scheme
which
would
improve
the
design
officers
suggested
amendments
that
could
be
made
to
the
scheme
to
improve
the
design.
However,
this
still
resulted
in
a
refusal
due
to
the
scheme
being
contrary
to
planning
policy.
The
reasons
for
this
have
been
set
out
in
the
report.
H
V
This
is
the
flat
roof
two-story
rare
extension
with
a
reduced
scale,
normal
Windows,
that's
shown
on
the
screen
there
and
last
week,
offices
and
local
board
members
met
with
the
applicant
and
their
representatives
to
further
discuss
an
alternative
design
and
that
would
mitigate
the
harm
and
enable
the
policy
compliance
scheme
to
be
submitted.
Officers
presented
two
potential
options
that
both
resulted
in
some
loss
of
internal
space,
but
both
retain
the
desired
number
of
bedrooms
for
each
property.
V
V
At
the
newly
revised
scheme,
further
reduces
the
Dormer
windows
and
sets
them
further
back
from
the
eaves.
The
roof
of
a
two-story
extension
now
has
a
mono
pitch
which
has
regards
the
form
of
the
main
roof
and
is
now
policy
compliant.
Therefore,
we
ask
that
members
defer
consideration
of
the
application
today,
so
that
officers
can
bring
back
a
report
that
clearly
sets
out
why
we
would
now
issue
a
recommendation
to
approve
the
scheme.
A
Thank
you
for
any
questions
to
the
officers.
Councilor
coin.
J
Oh,
thank
you.
First
there
and
counselor
Kevin
Richard.
Thank
you
chair.
Obviously,
I
wasn't
here
at
the
last
meeting
which
for
which
I
shouldn't
be
eternally
devastated,
but
obviously
I
can
see
the
plans
and
I've
looked
at
the
report
and
the
plans
you've
just
presented,
look
eminently
sensible
to
me:
hey.
J
A
To
me,
I
I
personally
agree
with
that.
If
there's
anyone
to
propose
and
second
okay
concert,
coin
and
then
seconded
by
okay,
okay,
I'll,
take
sorry.
G
Thank
you,
yeah
I,
just
wanted
to
comment
on
how
delighted
I
am
that
this
has
come
back
after
a
difficult
plans
panel
last
time
that
it
has
come
back
with
this
being
the
end
result.
So
I
just
wanted
that
on
on
the
notes,
thanks
the.
H
Yeah
I'd
like
to
second
that
and
just
to
say
that,
obviously
the
plans
panel
does
work.