►
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
A
D
B
Good
afternoon
council
paul
ray
from
huntsman
riverside
world
good
afternoon
sharon
burke
from
middleton
parkward
good
afternoon,
councillor
david
jenkins
from
killing
beck
and
sikroff
ward
good
afternoon.
Everyone
councillor
colin
campbell,
just
wondering
what
I've
done
wrong
to
be
dismissed
to
the
bottom
end
of
the
table
chair,
but
I'll
try
and
be
good.
This
meeting.
E
Good
afternoon,
trish
smith,
I
represent
the
pudgy
ward.
B
Thank
you,
chair
under
agenda
item
number
one.
There
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
agenda
item
number
two.
There
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
or
public
under
item
number.
Three.
There
are
no
late
items
on
the
agenda
today
under
agenda
item
number
four.
Could
we
ask
if
any
members
have
any
interest
to
declare.
B
A
Chair,
okay,
thank
you.
We'll
move
on
to
item
six,
that's
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting
held
on
july.
The
1st.
There
are
three
meetings:
do
members
accept
a
ship
before
say
that
you've
all
have
agenda?
Take
it
that
you've
read
the
minutes
and
then
I
won't
go
page
by
page,
but
when
it
comes
to
matters
arising,
I
won't
eliminate
if
you
just
put
your
answer
so
could
I
ask
members
to
if
you
agree
with
the
minutes,
can
someone
do
not.
E
Chair,
I
just
wanted
to
expand
on
one
of
the
bullet
points.
On
page
seven,
please
yeah
it's
a
minor
issue,
but
I
just
wondered
the
second
bullet
point
down
on
page
seven
it
it
just
feels
like
it's
hanging
there.
The
other
bullet
points
have
like
a
resolution
of
what
was
actually
discussed.
So
I
just
wonder
if
officers
could
make
a
statement
after
the
words
have
been
removed,
to
say
that
the
issue
will
be
discussed
further
with
the
applicant.
It
just
doesn't
read
well
at
the
moment.
Thank
you.
E
A
A
B
A
C
C
C
C
Information
so
moving
on
the
application
relates
to
the
demolition
of
existing
outbuilding
and
the
erection
of
a
single-story
rear
extension
and
the
site
is
etched
in
red
there
and
glebe
terrace
is
located
within
the
firehead
in
the
conservation
area,
where
it
is
identified
as
a
positive
building.
So
that's
the
whole
terrace
and
number
three
is
a
mid-terraced
property
and,
as
you
can
see
there,
the
numbering
is
consecutive.
So
it's
one
two
three
four,
as
opposed
to
the
usual
odds
and
events.
C
So
it's
identified
as
a
positive
building
within
the
conservation
area,
appraisal
and
terrace
itself
is
accessed
off
holland
lane
to
the
north,
with
the
rear
elevation
of
the
terrace
facing
westwards
towards
a
car
park
and
beyond
that,
wheatwood
lane
there's
also
a
back
alleyway
called
back
glube
terrace,
which
is
directly
to
the
to
the
rear
of
the
of
the
terrace.
C
So
this
is
the
the
front
of
a
terrace
which
is
a
very
attractive
terrace
then
and
number
three
is
the
property
with
the
yellow
door
and
just
for
clarity.
No
changes
are
proposed
to
this
elevation.
C
However,
it's
a
it's
an
attractive
frontage,
and
this
is
where
a
lot
of
the
special
interest
in
the
in
the
conservation
area
and
and
exists,
so
it's
constructed
of
stone
to
the
front
with
nice
bay
windows,
ornate
detailing
and
the
landscape
front,
gardens
which,
which
are
very
attractive
and
contribute
positively
to
the
conservation
area,
and
you
might
also
note
there
that
the
terrace
steps
down
from
from
left
to
right.
C
So
there
is
a
modest
land
level
change
which,
looking
at
the
the
ridge
levels
there
is
about
the
equivalent
of
one
course
of
the
stone
work
there.
C
C
Each
property
has
a
two-story
like
outrigger
element,
which
is
it's
part
of
the
original
property
and
consistent
along
the
lines,
and
then
the
properties
also
have
variations
of
single
story
additions.
Beyond
this,
they
also
benefit
from
reasonably
sized
rear,
gardens
and
vegetation
to
the
rear
as
well.
C
So
let's
go
on
to
the
next
one.
So
this
is
the
property
in
question,
so
it's
got
an
existing
single
story,
which
is
a
rear
outbuilding
which
has
been
rendered
and
to
the
back.
C
And
then
this
isn't
in
your
packs.
This
is
just
an
additional
picture
that
I
put
in
just
to
highlight
the
the
land
level
difference.
So
there
is
a
very
modest
land
level
difference
between
the
host
property
on
the
right
and
the
neighboring
property
number
two
on
the
left
hand,
side
which
might
not
be
discernible
from
this
picture.
C
So
this
is
looking
down
the
the
line
of
properties
and,
as
you
can
see
here,
there's
a
range
of
styles
of
the
single-story
rear
edition,
so
there's
differences
in
the
roof
pitches.
There's
differences
in
the
v-look
styles
roof
styles,
projections
of
the
rear
extensions
as
well,
and
if
you
look
all
the
way
down
down
the
bottom
that
one
at
the
ends
projects
quite
a
considerable
distance.
C
This
is
the
picture
from
wheatwood
lane
looking
towards
the
rear
of
the
terrace,
so,
as
you
can
see
from
that,
there's
a
there's
a
wall
and
some
substantial
trees
which
provide
a
considerable
amount
of
screening
across
the
car
park.
At
the
moment,
of
course,
these
trees
are
deciduous
so
that
screening
will
be
have
a
lesser
effect
in
winter.
However,
it's
still
not
duly
prominent.
C
This
is
looking
up
the
alleyway
so
from
from
north
to
south,
and
this
is
the
back
alleyway
and
you
can
see
there
that,
given
the
boundary
walls
and
the
the
neighbouring
outbuilding
that
you
still
can't
get
a
good
view
of
the
rear
elevation
of
number
three-
and
this
is
further
down
looking
up
as
well,
so
the
existing
boundary
treatment
and
land
levels
help
help
screen
the
development
from
wider
views,
so
the
rear
elevation
of
the
terrace
doesn't
have
the
same
presence
or
make
the
same
contribution
to
the
to
the
conservation
area.
C
This
is
the
the
proposal,
so
the
left-hand
side's,
the
existing
site
plan,
showing
that
two-story
outrigger
extension
and
the
single-story
outbuilding
outline
and
on
the
right-hand
side,
is
the
the
footprint
of
the
new
extension.
So
the
new
extension
doesn't
extend
any
further
from
the
existing
out
building.
C
This
is
this
is
the
floor
plan
here.
So,
on
the
left
hand,
side
see
existing
layout,
showing
that
out
building
and
the
depth
of
the
extension
and
the
proposed
ground
floor
layout
in
the
middle
shows
the
the
in
filling
extent
there
and
the
right
right
hand.
One
is
the
roof
which
you'll
know
is
a
is
a
flat
roof
design
which
I'll
come
on
to
in
a
minute.
C
As
I
previously
said,
it
doesn't
project
further
than
the
existing
outbuilding,
albeit
it
now
extends
the
full
width
of
the
of
the
terrace
property
and
it's
proposed
to
be
built
of
brick
to
match
the
existing
rear
elevation
and
the
extension
benefits
from
a
parapet
detailing
which
screens
the
proposed,
skylights
and
flat
roof
element
making
sure.
That's
not
elements
visible.
Sorry,
so
that
detailing's
down
in
the
bottom
left
there
that
cross
section
showing
that
the
parapet,
the
flat
roof
and
the
skylight
there.
C
So
in
terms
of
our
considerations
of
the
application
just
to
clarify,
we
received
31
letters
of
representation
and
they
were
from
13
different
households.
So
quite
a
few
people
wrote
in
more
than
once,
but
we
we
have
had
revised
plans
over
the
course
of
the
application,
and
the
points
raised
within
the
letters
are
covered
in
paragraph
13
of
the
officer
report
and
so
in
terms
of
the
the
officer's
consideration
for
the
impacts
of
the
application.
C
Firstly,
as
I
previously
highlighted,
the
extension
is
located
within
a
conservation
area
and
the
statutory
test
requires
us
to
pay
special
attention
and
to
the
desirability
of
preserving
our
enhancing
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
conservation
area.
We've
also
had
regard
to
the
mppf
requirements
relating
to
development
in
conservation
areas
and
offices.
Agree
that,
whilst
proposes
flat
roofed
in
nature,
it's
subordinate
and
does
not
unduly
dominate
the
real
elevation
of
the
property
are
the
terrorists.
C
The
extension
will
be
constructed
of
brick
to
match
and
harmonize
with
the
existing
rear
elevation,
and
that
will
be
carefully
controlled
by
a
planning
condition
which
will
require
a
sample
panel
of
brickwork,
including
the
mortar,
to
show
that
ensure
that
a
suitable
match
is
achieved
and
the
fenestration
pattern,
including
the
coping
detail,
is
considered
to
sit
comfortably
within
the
terrace
and
the
existing
character
of
the
rear.
Elevation
of
that
terrace
is
partly
formed
by
an
array
of
different
single-story
rear
editions
of
different
heights
depths
materials,
roof
pitches
detailing
and
window
design.
C
So
there's
a
lack
of
uniformity
in
that
regard
and
consequently,
the
proposed
extension
is
not
considered
to
be
in
congress.
C
Given
that
that
character
and
as
you'll
have
seen
from
the
photos
as
well,
the
rear
elevation
is
also
well
screened
and
it
will
have
very
little
impact.
It's
not
a
prominent
position
within
the
conservation
area
and
overall
that
the
extension
is
considered
to
be
sensitive
and
sympathetic
to
the
original
dwelling
and
local
character,
and
it
will
preserve
the
character
and
appearance
of
a
conservation
area.
So
it
it
meets
that
statutory
test
in
terms
of
the
impact
on
on
the
neighbours.
C
So
this
is
probably
a
good
one
here.
So
if
you
look
at
the
site
on
the
right
hand,
side
there,
that
shows
that
the
extension
will
not
come
out
further
than
the
existing
extension
to
number
four.
So
there's
not
going
to
be
an
impact
in
that
regard.
In
relation
to
the
property
to
the
north.
At
number
two
you'll
note:
I've
previously
mentioned
that
there's
a
slight
land
level,
differences
of
neighboring
properties
on
a
on
a
slightly
lower
land
level.
C
But
the
extension
will
be
only
two
meters
deep
and
we
usually
allow
three
meter
deep
extensions
in
relationships
in
this
regard
in
relation
to
the
household
of
design
guide,
the
neighbouring
property
also
benefits
from
a
a
good
sized
rear
garden
and,
as
you
can
see
there,
it's
got
some
fully
glazed
doors
with
an
additional
light.
C
So,
overall,
for
those
reasons,
we're
recommending
that
this
application
is
is
approved.
Thank
you.
A
We
have
two
speakers
four
and
against
so
we've
got
marjorie
betterman
better
in
attendance.
Who
wishes
to
speak
against?
Could
you
please
come
to
the
table?
Marjorie.
A
G
Thank
you.
I
intend
to
present
reasons
why
further
consideration
based
on
additional
detailed
plans
is
required.
Following
the
revised
plans,
two
critical
areas
remain
to
be
addressed
before
a
decision
is
made.
Firstly,
a
major
concern
and
a
significant
emission
is
the
complete
lack
of
finished
levels
on
the
plans
objectives
alluded
to
this
issue.
However,
it
has
not
been
recorded
as
a
material
objection
in
the
report.
Thus,
the
finished
external
scale
and
impact
cannot
be
accurately
determined.
G
The
terrace
also
sits
on
a
hill,
each
property
tiered
approximately
30
centimeters
higher
than
the
next
lack
of
scaled
measured
plans.
Make
makes
it
impossible
to
assess
how
the
design
addresses
this
issue.
It
is
possible.
The
finished
extension
extends
beyond
four
meters
in
height,
based
on
current
garden
levels.
G
G
The
external
overall
height
of
the
extension
could
be
significantly
higher
than
the
stated
3.15
metres
leading
to
undue
impact
regarding
over
dominance
and
overshadowing
the
french
doors
at
number.
Two
are
already
impacted
by
the
45
degree
rule
causing
a
level
of
overshadowing
which
is
in
part,
mitigated
by
the
existing
pitched
roof.
G
Secondly,
is
the
impact
that
this
development
will
have
on
the
unique
character
and
appearance
in
a
conservation
area?
The
revised
plans
responded
to
the
conservation
officer's
comments.
However,
the
comments
fail
to
give
due
consideration
to
the
situation
of
the
property
within
the
terrace
designated
as
positive
buildings
within
the
conservation
area.
G
The
proposals,
including
a
flat
roof
full
width
frontage,
neither
preserves
nor
enhances
the
character
or
appearance
of
the
area.
Although
a
level
of
uniformity
at
the
back
of
the
terrace
has
been
lost,
there
remains
significant
design.
Consistency
we'll
specifically
highlight
the
consistent
use
of
pitch
slate
rules
on
all
properties.
G
G
We
request
accurate,
measured
drawings
to
understand
the
finished
scale
and
impact
that
contextual
plans
be
provided
for
a
section
through
the
house
showing
finished
floor
and
garden
level
elevation
drawings,
showing
the
relationship
to
adjacent
houses,
levels
against
neighboring
properties,
finish
levels
included
as
a
planning
condition
on
any
future
approval.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you
for
coming
this
afternoon,
you're
concerned
about
the
levels.
Would
it
help
at
all?
If
you
had
the
measurement
from
the
gutter
line
down
to
the
new
extension,
because
that
could
be
a
consistent
length?
Couldn't
it
rather
than
if
you're
saying
the
ground
floor
is
a
bit
up
and
down
would
would
that
help
to
have
the
dimension
from
the
gutter
to
the
rooftop
of
the
new
extension?
G
A
F
You
good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
panel.
My
name
is:
louise
sun,
I'm
a
chartered
town,
planner
and
senior
associate
at
knights
plc,
and
I
have
an
excess
of
20
years
experience
as
a
planning
consultant,
I'm
speaking
today
on
behalf
of
the
applicants
who
live
in
the
property
subject
to
the
application,
the
applicant's
in
the
process
of
refurbishing
the
property
for
use
as
a
family
home.
It
is
their
intention
to
retain,
preserve
and
enhance
the
historic
character
of
the
building.
F
They
have
had
properties
in
the
far
headley
conservation
area
for
the
last
20
years
and
they
have
renovated
three
yorkshire
stone
properties
and
have
excellent
experience
in
this
area.
They've
taken
on
this
property
in
a
state
of
disrepair
and
are
looking
to
vastly
improve
it,
including
its
carbon
footprint,
through
the
upgrades
that
they're
looking
to
make.
F
They
have
experience
of
renovating
historic
buildings
elsewhere,
including
the
grade
two
list
of
building
in
cheltenham,
and
have
a
desire
to
continue
that
work
here
in
leeds,
where
they're
from
as
that
has
been
set
out
in
your
office's
comprehensive
report.
The
applicants
have
worked
with
the
case
officer
and
the
conservation
officer
throughout
the
termination
process
to
make
changes
to
the
proposal
in
line
with
their
expert
suggestions.
F
The
forehead
in
the
conservation
area
appraisal
identifies
the
frontages
on
the
building
at
the
buildings
on
glebe
terrace
as
the
positive
aspects
due
to
their
uniformity
and
stone
bay
windows
with
decorative
lintels.
As
the
officer
has
pointed
out,
the
appraisal
recognises
that
the
rear
of
the
terrace
is
not
uniform,
given
the
conversion
of
the
outbuildings
and
the
various
rear
extensions
undertaken
over
previous
years
to
provide
more
spacious,
living
accommodation
for
all
of
the
properties
and
has
been
seen
in
today's
presentation.
F
F
The
proposed
extension
will
not
extend
out
beyond
those
rear
extensions
of
the
neighboring
properties
and
would
not
actually
extend
as
far
as
those
at
numbers,
one
and
number
nine,
as
your
office's
report
confirms.
The
single-story
extension
would
not
therefore,
have
any
overbearing
impacts
on,
nor
would
it
result
in
a
loss
of
light
or
amenity
to
any
of
the
neighbouring
properties.
F
The
extension
would
retain
a
usable
rear,
courtyard
garden
with
all
boundary
screening
retained,
and
this
could
also
be
improved
and
strengthened
over
time.
The
site
is
largely
screened
from
public
view,
as
you've.
Seen
in
the
presentation
today,
the
flat
roof
which
has
been
commented
on
does
not
detract
from
the
character
of
the
original
house
or
the
terrace,
as
has
been
suggested
by
some
neighbours
in
their
objections.
F
It
is
therefore
considered
that,
by
virtue
of
its
scale,
sighting
design
and
use
of
synthetic
materials,
the
proposed
single
story
extension
will
be
subservient
to
the
original
house.
It
will
respect
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
house,
the
quality
of
the
terrace
and
the
wider
conservation
area
concerns
have
been
raised
by
neighbours
over
the
future
use
of
the
property
as
a
hmo
which
is
based.
Without
fact,
I
can
confirm
that
this
is
not
the
applicant's
intention
and
the
proposal.
F
F
We
hope
that
you
can
see
the
proposal
would
not
be
harmful
to
the
existing
house,
the
terrace
or
indeed
the
wider
conservation
area,
and
it
would
not
have
any
adverse
impacts
on
the
amenity
of
the
applicant's
neighbours.
The
pro-single-story
extension
is
modest
and
meets
with
all
of
the
relevant
planning
policy
requirements.
F
I
will
therefore
respectfully
ask
you
to
follow
your
office's
recommendation
and
the
advice
of
the
council's
conservation
expert
and
approve
the
application.
I
would
also
add
leading
on
from
the
comments
that
we've
just
heard,
that
the
applicant
would
be
willing
to
upset
any
pre-commencement
condition
relating
to
finnish
floor
levels.
Thank
you.
B
What
communication
and
consultation
have
you
had
with
the
local
residents?
Have
you
met
with
them?
Have
you
discussed
anything
with
them
or
because
of
covered?
It's
been
proved
difficult,
I
mean
so.
In
other
words,
how
often
have
you
spoken
to
the
residents
that
have
got
a
concern
to
try
and
come
up
with
a
way
forward?
How
often
have
you
done
that.
F
So
the
applicant
has
tried
to
speak
to
the
local
residents
on
a
number
of
occasions
when
the
queries
have
been
put
to
about
what
what
she's
doing,
whether
she's
just
a
property
developer
who's
looking
to
make
some
money
or
whether
you
know
what
what
this
is
and
also
the
question
keeps
arising
about
future
intentions
as
hmo
or
something
like
that.
The
applicant
has
spoken
to
a
number
of
the
neighbours
and
it
really
explained
her
situation
that
no.
F
This
is
this
is
a
family
home
for
her
to
live
in
she's
from
leeds
she
wants
to
stay
in
leeds.
She
has
a
conservation
background,
art,
history
and
conservation.
This
is
this
is
what
she's
been
doing.
She's
been
been
doing
up,
properties
within
leads,
and
this
is
where,
where
she
wants
to
continue
to
live,
I
think
what's
happened
over
time.
Is
these
discussions
have
been
in
her
view,
they've
been
ignored
and
people
have.
B
And
that
was
more
than
material
planning
concerns.
I
mean
what
the
intentions
are
is
what
the
intentions
are
right,
but
I'm
talking
about.
We
heard
from
the
previous
objector
about
the
lack
of
detailed
plans,
so
I
mean
is
that
something
that
your
client
has
tried
to
address
by
showing
better
sketches
more
detailed
sketches
in
order
to
try
and
give
the
residents
a
better
understanding.
F
Yeah
I
mean
the
information
that's
just
been
provided
is
is
as
detailed
as
we
think
is,
is
necessary
and
which
we
think
I
think
gives
gives
that
information
and
makes
it
very
clear
what
is
proposed.
I
think
there's
always
going
to
be
an
interpretation
of
different
views
on
that,
but
our
viewer,
my
professional
view,
is
that
there
is
sufficient
information
there
to
explain
to
the
neighbours
what's
actually
being
proposed
and,
as
I
say
she
has,
she
has
tried
to
address
these
issues
with
them.
B
F
It's
purely
a
design
feature.
It
fits
with
what
is
proposed
in
terms
of
primary
accommodation
providing
the
lights
that
they
want
to
have
into
to
provide
it
because
of
the
nature
of
the
terrorist
properties
and
the
narrowness
of
them.
It
gives
them
the
light
that
they
require
and,
as
as
we've
said,
to
just
recreate,
what's
along,
there
is
sort
of
a
pastiche
design
and,
as
conservation
officers
said,
there's
nothing
with
with
this
scheme
that
causes
a
problem,
and
actually
it
adds
to
the
value.
B
Yes,
so
this
is
just
you
mentioned
about
having
a
improving
the
carbon
footprint,
and
I
just
wondered
whether
the
intention
would
be
to
include
air
sourced
or
ground
source
heating
in
the
property.
E
E
If
you
look
at
the
proposed
rear
elevation
that
you
you've
given
us
this
one
here,
it
does
show
that
the
ground
is
flat,
but
we've
also
heard
from
officers
that
the
the
ground
isn't
actually
flat
it's
on
a
bit
of
a
hill.
So
I
can
see
why
objectives
are
a
little
bit
concerned
because
you've
given
a
dimension
there,
but
it
might
be
completely
different
at
the
other
end.
E
F
I
haven't
seen
it
so
the
the
late
term,
the
late
comments
that
the
officer
referred
to,
I
haven't
actually
had
sight
of
that
information.
So
I
don't
know
if
there
is
a
comment
on
that
from
the
officer.
F
We
are
happy
to
accept
a
pre-commencement
condition
for
any
finnish
floor
levels
to
be
agreed
with
with
the
the
council
to
ensure
that
there's
there's
no
issue
and-
and
it's
not
perceived-
I
think
you
know,
as
it's
been
set
out,
the
difference
in
floor
levels
is
quite
quite
small
and
because
of
the
existing
outbuilding,
that's
there
that
this
extension
will
replace.
You
can
see
at
what
point
that
that
change
in
floor
levels
is
looking
at
it
on
site
at
the
moment.
So
you
can
take.
F
C
Yes,
thanks
chair
just
to
just
to
further
clarify
in
terms
of
the
the
land
level,
so
this
is
enabling
property
again
and
in
terms
of
land
level
differences.
We
take
a
proportionate
approach
within
planning
applications
and
we
only
require
plans
showing
that
the
land
level
differences
where,
where
we
need
that
information
to
to
make
a
consideration
really
so
the
planning
officer
who
the
case
office
for
the
application
and
myself
have
been
out
and
visited
the
sites
and
and
from
our
considerations.
C
It
was
considered
that
the
impact
of
a
proposed
extension
could
be
clearly
considered
because
the
impact
in
land
levels
was
was
minimal.
Really,
it's
not
like
the
extension's
gonna
have
the
impact
of
a
one
and
a
half
story,
or
a
two
story
because
of
that
changing
land
levels.
It's
only
a
slightly
increased
impact
upon
upon
their
existing
single
story.
C
Extension,
and
as
I
relate
to
the
fact
in
my
presentation,
is
that
the
extension's
only
projecting
two
meters
from
that
neighbouring
window,
whereas
the
usual
allowance
would
be
up
to
up
to
three
meters
there.
So,
in
terms
of
the
overall
impact,
when
we
look
at
everything
together
in
terms
of
the
heights,
the
projection,
the
land
levels,
we
don't
consider
that
that
extension
would
far
beyond
the
level
of
acceptability.
That
would
usually
allow
for
a
single
story.
Extension.
E
E
I
have
appreciate
that
officers
have
got
all
they
need,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
support
the
community
in
asking
for
a
little
bit
more
detail
so
that
the
community
around
that
that
property
is
is
confident
as
well.
That's
all.
B
Are
we
saying
that
if
you
look
at
the
roof
line
on
the
extension
on
the
applicant's
site
and
the
roof
line
on
the
single
story
extension,
we
turn
it
saying
that
that's
effectively
the
height
difference
between
the
gardens
to
all
intents
purposes,
because
actually
the
the
the
applicant's
extension
is
the
same
height
as
the
infill
extension
on
next
door.
B
B
C
Yeah,
just
picking
up
on
your
last
point
in
terms
of
the
the
height
compared
to
the
existing.
So
if
you
just
have
a
a
good
look
at
this
picture
now
and
I'll
I'll,
just
flash
to
the
to
the
plans
to
show
you.
But
if
you
look
there,
the
ridge
line
of
existing
outbuildings
at
the
eaves
level
of
the
the
inner
fill
and
if
I
go
along.
C
So
you
can
see
the
existing,
on
the
left
hand,
top
left
and
proposed
on
the
top
right,
so
there
is
a
an
increase
in
height
there,
however,
for
the
for
the
reasons
I've
previously
covered,
but.
C
B
C
It's
only
a
very
a
very
minor
increase
to
what
the
existing
ridge
level
would
be
on
that
single
story
outbuilding
and
in
in
terms
of
your
your
point
regarding
the
taking
the
line
across
to
to
to
note
the
difference
in
the
land
levels.
I
I
think
that's
that's,
potentially
a
good
way
to
see
them.
It
could
well
be,
however,
that
that's
more
of
an
original
outbuilding
to
the
rear
there,
so
so
that
eaves
level
looks
pretty
small
on
this
neighboring
property
they're.
C
Pretty
short,
I
think
I
still
think
the
best
image
to
see
the
does
it
stop
was.
C
B
D
Yeah,
I
I
find
the
extension
to
be
acceptable.
There's
there's
various
ways
of
getting
a
sympathetic
addition
to
a
historic
building
in
the
historic
context.
So
just
because
it's
in
a
conservation
area,
it
doesn't
stop
change,
it
controls
it.
It
makes
it
good
change,
positive
change,
so
there's
you
can
go
a
traditional
route
which
would
involve
a
pitched
roof,
but
to
get
the
angle
of
the
pitch
for
the
roof
required
the
height
at
the
junction
with
the
host
building
would
have
to
be
higher
to
get
the
right
throw
of
the
of
the
rain.
D
So
who
went
for
a
pitched
roof?
It
would
actually
be
higher
more
more
of
an
impact
on
the
extension.
So
therefore,
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
a
flat
roofed
approach
which
allows
it
to
be
subservient
and
sympathetic
to
the
setting
we're
controlling
the
material.
So
that's
going
to
be
a
good
match.
I
don't.
I
don't
consider
it
harmful
to
the
to
the
positive
building.
B
Just
a
couple
of
questions,
one
is:
did
any
of
the
three
ward
members
make
any
written
submissions?
I
can't
see
any
specific
emphasis
to
written
submissions.
I
accept
at
the
time
the
application
came
forward.
C
Just
in
terms
of
you,
your
first
point,
so
the
the
comments
from
councillor
bentley,
which
are
alluded
to
in
the
in
the
officer
report
they'll,
have
been
put
in
writing
for
the
panel
request.
So
but
apart
from
that,
we
didn't
receive
any
any
further
ones.
C
And
the
second
point
I
think,
we've
agreed
that
it'd
be
useful
to
put
a
condition
on
regarding
the
levels
just
to
check
that
they're.
What
we
assume
them
to
be.
C
Yeah.
Sorry,
yes,
so
in
terms
of
the
conditions,
you've
got
the
two
standard
ones
which
you
put
on
all
applications,
which
is
there's
the
three
year
time
limit
and
the
plans
to
be
approved.
And
then,
in
addition
to
that,
we've
we're
going
to
put
on
a
quite
prescriptive
condition
regarding
the
materials
to
ensure
that
that
brick
and
the
mortar
match
is,
is
a
good
match.
C
A
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
personally
don't
like
the
windows
that
they're
putting
in
on
the
first
floor
from
your
photographs,
it
looks
like
they've
already
done
it
good
reason.
E
I
would
have
thought
that
was
quite
important
in
the
conservation
areas
to
keep
the
window
styles
the
same
so
that
all
of
the
properties
maintain
the
sash
window,
design
that
we
actually
see
in
the
photographs
and
why?
Why
have
offices
allowed
those
window
designs
to
change
quite
significantly.
C
So
this
is
the
photo
that
I
took
probably
a
week
or
two
ago.
So
this
is
the.
C
C
Yes,
it's
so
so
this
neighboring
this
picture
from
the
neighboring
property.
Can
we
go
back
to
that?
One
lewis.
C
E
But
at
the
moment,
if
you
look
at
the
first
floor
window,
yeah
above
the
white
lean
to
extension,
it's
got
the
multi-pane
window,
but
the
one
that
you
show
in
your
photograph
has
got
the
traditional
sash
window.
C
E
F
E
A
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying
counselor
collins,
but
looking
at
the
windows,
you
have
to
be
walking
and
looking
up
really
to
notice
the
difference
as
such.
And
if
it's.
B
A
C
In
in
terms
of
conditions,
we
put
on
applications,
they've
got
to
meet
the
the
test
for
conditions
and
and
something
of
this
nature
for
a
householder
extension
that
wouldn't
be
proportionate
to
the
scale
of
development.
So
we
would
struggle
to
do
that
unless
there
was
the
the
intention
of
the
applicants
to
you
know
to
do
that.
In
the
first
instance.
A
Thank
you,
there's
members
of
any
other
comment.
B
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
So
there's
been
a
bit
of
a
discussion
around
the
detailing
in
the
finished
floor
levels,
in
particular
regarding
the
application
proposals
from
what
I've
gleaned
from
the
discussion.
There
is
suggestion
that
we
attach
additional
conditions
relating
to
finish
floor
levels
of
the
proposed
extension
and
also
a
condition
regarding
the
retention
of
the
existing
style
of
windows
at
first
floor
level.
A
Thank
you
now
we'll
ask
members
to
go
to
votes
more
as
a
motion.