►
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).
B
B
B
I
would
like
to
start
the
meeting
today
by
confirming
that
this
meeting
of
the
north
and
east
plans
panel
meets
the
requirements
of
the
council's
constitution.
Even
though
members
of
the
panel
are
in
remote
attendance,
while
items
today
will
be
fully
discussed
as
usual,
remote
attendance
requires
a
few
slight
changes
to
how
I
manage
the
debate.
B
Therefore,
can
all
attendees
mute
their
microphone
unless
they
invite
them
to
speak?
This
will
avoid
disruption
from
background
noise.
Can
all
participants
please
keep
their
cameras
on
during
the
meeting.
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
if
there
are
connectivity
issues
and
the
bandwidth
is
low,
videos
will
cease
to
be
shown
and
will
be
replaced
by
the
participants
initials.
B
B
B
I've
seen
councillor
almas
indicate
actually,
but
thank
you
councillor,
so
that
seconded
I'll
assume
silence
as
approval.
B
I
see
that
so
thanks
again
to
councillor
nash
for
offering
to
be
the
deputy
right,
so
we'll
start
off
with
introductions.
B
A
B
Thank
you
all.
The
members
onto
offices
now,
jonathan
first.
G
Good
afternoon,
david
newbury
lead
planning
officer
for
the
plans
panel.
B
A
B
E
A
B
Sure
I
can
see
two
hands
raised:
councillor
smith
and
councillor
mitchell:
go
ahead.
Council
smith.
E
Thank
you
chair
I'd
like
to
declare
that
my
son
is
a
company
director
of
event
homes,
although
he's
in
not
in
the
region
that
this
covers
he's
in
another
region,
and
I'd
like
to
further
confirm
that
I've
not
discussed
this
point
with
him.
B
C
Thank
you
chair
just
like
to
make
my
non-community
interest
known
regarding
item
seven
on
the
agenda.
I'm
a
board
member
for
the
area
under
discussion.
My
fellow
wood
colleagues,
councillors,
lewis
and
harland
are
representing
our
residents
regarding
this
item,
and
so
I'm
able
to
approach
it
with
an
open
mind.
Thank
you.
C
Yes,
certainly
chair,
both
members
have.
B
Thank
you
so
on
to
item
six
and
that's
the
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting
held
on
the
18th
of
february.
So
the
members
accept
these
minutes
as
a
true
and
a
correct
record
I'll
assume
correct.
Unless
otherwise,
then
we'll
go
through
our
matters
arising
councillor
collins.
C
Sorry
chair,
I
was
just
a
bit
concerned
after
our
meeting
last
time
about
the
wind
issue
regarding
application:
twenty
zero,
three
five
one
nine
and
also
was
a
little
bit
disappointed
when
I
read
the
minutes
that
it
didn't
give
enough
information
about
potential
wind
issues.
I'd
like
to
request.
C
If
officers
agree
that
I
am
accurate,
that
we
mentioned
under
the
list
of
items
that
miss
mchale
brought
forward,
that
she
brought
forward
the
concern
about
wind
and
I'd,
also
like
it
clarifying
that
it
seems
a
bit
off
hand
just
to
say
wind
tunnel
issues,
but
the
story
level
proposal
for
this
development
is
not
such
that
a
wind
assessment
would
have
been
expected.
I'd
like
a
bit
more
detail
in
there
that
at
the
present
we
don't
have
a
policy
that
covers
that.
C
B
C
Yes,
joe,
it
was
challenged
and
we
were
told
by
officers
there
wasn't
enough.
There
was.
There
was
a
high
high
building
policy
regarding
wind,
but
nothing
to
say
any.
There
was
no
policy
about
buildings
of
any
level
on
high
mounts,
so
I
I
think
it
just
needs
clarifying
that
there
wasn't
policy
there,
not
that
we
dismissed
it,
because
we
didn't
think
there
would
be
a
wind
issue.
It's
because
there
was
no
policy
that
we
could
actually
request
a
wind
assessment.
C
It
in
yeah
sure
so
the
the
list
of
from
mrs
mchale
is
on
page
10
towards
the
top,
and
then
the
statement
from
officers
regarding
wind
tunnel
issues
is
on
page
11
about
a
third
the
way
down.
G
Yes,
that's
fine!
Thank
you,
chair
yeah,
council,
collins,
summary
is
quite
correct
and
we
can
amend
the
the
minutes
it
was
raised
by
members
and
the
advice
that
officers
gave
was
that
it
didn't
hit
the
trigger
to
require
a
win
survey
to
be
undertaken,
but
it
was
members
did
note
and
raised
concerns
about
the
position.
The
exposed
position,
position
and
situation
of
the
site
so
we'll
correct
the
minutes
to
reflect
that
position.
Chair.
B
B
B
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
wondered
whether
officers
had
any
feedback
regarding
the
two
of
the
bullet
points
under.
In
addition,
halfway
down
page
12.,
the
first
was
what
prow
felt
regarding
the
steps
and
the
future
maintenance,
and
the
second
was
clarification
of
ownership
of
the
wall.
I
just
wondered
whether
we
progressed
with
that
at
all.
Thank
you.
G
I
haven't
got
any
information
to
hand
chair,
but
unless
david
can
david
jones
can
add
anything,
we
can
email
members
with
update
on
progress
following
the
meeting.
B
A
B
No
okay,
that's
the
minutes
done!
Thank
you.
So
we
go
on
to
our
first
substantive
item.
Item
number:
seven,
which
is
the
application
for
the
reserve
matters,
approval
of
appearance,
landscape
and
layout
on
scale
for
the
dwellings
163
dwellings
in
mickelfield.
So
I
think
david
is
presenting
the
report.
G
The
presentation
that
we'll
see
across
all
of
the
items
will
be
different
to
that
which
was
disputed
with
the
panel
papers
to
members
prior
to
the
the
meeting,
something
we
noticed
that
the
quality
of
some
of
the
slides
was
lacking
somewhat.
So
we
put
better
quality
slides
in
there.
G
So
hopefully
that
will
better
provide
more
clarity
in
terms
of
the
images
and
we've
also
provided
some
additional
information,
additional
slides
on
some
of
the
presentations
which
hopefully
aid
members
understanding
of
the
proposals
and
and
the
implications
and
impacts
that
arise
from
them,
so
that
it
is
a
bit
of
a
different
and
longer
presentation.
B
Thanks
for
that
david,
I
hope
members
have
got
sight
of
the
screen
with
with
the
updated
presentations
on
and,
as
david
says,
we're
not
sure
what
happened
in
the
print
shop
or
as
maybe
it
was
on
the
transfer.
B
But
it's
first
time
that's
happened
to
us,
I
think
so,
hopefully
the
last
okay
over
to
david
jones.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you
chair,
so
this
is
a
reserve
matters
application
and
for
housing
on
land
off
church
lane
in
mickelfield.
Can
we
just
move
on
to
the
first
slide
and
just
so
that
you
can
have
sight
of
that?
F
Aerial
photo
and
I'll
just
quickly
run
through
some
updates
for
the
report,
and
we
aren't
recommending
just
a
clarification
on
condition
number
two
and
just
to
make
members
aware
that
it
should
actually
read
that
we
need
to
secure
both
the
landscape
details
in
the
first
instance
and
also
the
long-term
maintenance,
and
currently
it
just
references
maintenance,
and
we
are
also
suggesting
another
condition
to
deal
with
access
control
measures
to
the
public
rights
away
and
for
those
details
to
be
agreed
just
because
we
we
need
to
to
run
them
by
the
public
rights
away
section
in
the
first
instance.
F
So
there
are
some
proposals
shown
on
the
plan,
but
again
we
just
want
to
to
run
those
past
the
relevant
officers
before
formally
agreeing
them
in.
In
terms
of
some
additional
third
party
comments,
there
has
been
some
additional
correspondence
from
the
parish
council.
I
understand.
F
Councillor
crossley,
who
would
normally
attend
and
speak,
is
unable
to,
but
he
did
actually
point
out
that
one
of
the
plans-
the
layout
plans
in
particular
referenced
a
1.5
metre
wide
footpath
on
the
southern
public
right
away
and
that
actually
should
be
two
meters
in
accordance
with
the
section
106
requirements.
F
So
they
were
correct
to
point
that
error
out
and
and
on
the
plans
you'll
see
today
and
that
has
actually
been
addressed
and
is
now
shown
at
the
the
correct
width
all
be
at
the
scale.
You're
looking
at
you'll,
you'll,
probably
not
be
able
to
to
pick
that
up
necessarily
and
and
the
paris
council
have
also
welcomed
the
opportunity
to
be
involved
in
consideration
of
the
detailed
proposals
and
for
any
planting
along
that
southern
boundary
and
that's
off
the
back
of
an
offer.
F
Officers
have
made
to
formally
consult
the
parish
council
and
ward
members
in
the
in
the
event
of
a
condition
discharge
on
those
particular
applications.
F
And
the
final
point,
and
that
they
generally
want
to
make
is
that
they
accept
that
a
number
of
the
original
concerns
have
been
addressed
in
the
revised
plans
and
but
others
still
remain,
namely
density
materials
and
the
quality
and
content
of
the
new
play
facility.
F
F
Two
from
people,
we've
who've
commented
before
and
again
flagging
concerns
with
the
attenuation
basin
and
what
that
might
look
like
and
will
it
be
safe
and
how
how
much
water
is
it
likely
to
have
in
it
concerned
about
the
relationship
between
the
new
houses
and
the
bungalow
and
actually
the
the
new
proposed
pedestrian
link
onto
churchville
terrace
will
be
dangerous
because
that's
currently
a
private
driveway
and
the
final
comments
from
a
new
person
as
it
were
and
relates
to
primarily
to
hedgehogs
and
there's,
obviously
a
lot
of
hedgehog
activity
in
the
area
and
with
regular
visits
to
residents
gardens.
F
So
the
proposal,
the
suggestions
are,
that
there's
some
concern
about
the
boundary
treatments
and
whether
they
will
include
appropriate
holes
etc
for
for
hedgehogs
to
to
get
through.
So
that's
something
we're
happy
to
pick
up
in
terms
of
condition:
number
11
on
the
outline
permission
and
that's
referenced
in
the
report.
For
other
reasons
already,
so
that's
that's
the
formal
update
in
terms
of
the
report
and
just
whilst
this
aerial
photo's
up
and
just
really
to
for
members
information
in
the
absence
of
a
site
visit.
F
Essentially
the
road
in
the
top
left
hand,
corner
is
church
lane
itself
and
that's
where
the
access
comes
in
and
that's
been
agreed
as
part
of
the
the
outline
application
you'll
see
from
the
report,
there's
reference
to
an
access
track
and
that
a
number
of
the
residents
use
for
vehicular
access
so
that,
whilst
a
lot
of
them
have
already
got
parking
to
the
front,
they
also
use
this
access
at
the
back.
F
There
are
some
photos
of
that,
but
it's
essentially
on
the
the
red
line
boundary
and
it's
the
in
terms
of
that
plan
and
it's
basically
relating
to
hall
field
avenue
which,
on
that
plan,
is
the
first
road
that
comes
off
church
lane
in
a
north
and
south
direction.
F
So
it's
those
properties
there
that
back
on
and
that's
where
the
access
is
and
again
a
number
of
the
representations
were
concerned
about
what's
going
on
in
terms
of
that
particular
area
and
just
within
that
residential
area
to
the
east
and
north
of
the
the
application
site.
And
there
is
proposed
to
be
two
further
pedestrian
links
from
the
sort
of
northern
part
of
the
site
and
where
it
kicks
around,
and
you
essentially
formalizing
an
existing.
F
It's
not
not
an
adopted
right
away
at
the
moment,
but
it's
clearly
of
long-standing
nature.
So
the
proposal
is
to
formalize
that
and
then
also
there's
an
additional
link
which
was
secured
as
part
of
the
outline
permission
and
again,
that's
the
the
particular
link
that
that
neighbor
has
raised
some
concerns
about,
but,
like
I
say,
that's
secured
through
the
outline
and
just
within
that
little
estate
there
and
that's
where
the
medical
center
and
the
local
shop
is
just
to
the
the
right,
which
is
the
east
of
the
application
site
boundary.
F
F
Side
of
the
screen
of
the
image
is
where
the
local
primary
school
is
so
along
that
southern
red
line
boundary
is
where
the
public
right-of-way
runs,
and
that's
the
one
that's
proposed
to
be
upgraded
and
widened
to
two
meters
and
and
hard
surfaced
and
the
funding
for
that
and
the
mechanism
for
that
is
all
agreed
through
the
the
outline
application
in
terms
of
the
106.
F
So
this
is
just
an
image
from
church
lane
of
the
access
track
that
the
residents
take
advantage
of,
and
it's
not
adopted,
as
you
can
see,
and
by
its
condition,
but
clearly
residents
have
had
long-standing
use
of
that
and
the
proposals
are
for
that
situation
to
remain
next
slide.
Please
luce
and
that's
a
view
just
looking
back
up,
so
the
application
site,
essentially,
is
where
the
the
plowed
field
is,
and
the
proposals
are
to
basically
put
a
fence
along
the
boundary
and
leave
that
access
track
essentially
alone.
F
F
So
this
is
just
an
image
of
the
southern
footpath,
and
so,
as
you
can
see,
it's
very
informal
at
the
moment
that
the
the
gateway
is
to
the
recreation
ground.
But
essentially
the
footpath
is,
is
just
running
along
the
line
of
those
trees
and
then,
where
you,
where
it
opens
up,
it
is
where
the
the
application
site
boundary
is.
So
the
section
106
does
cover
for
that
entire
stretch,
including
this
this
bit
in
the
foreground,
for
that
to
be
upgraded
next
slide,
please.
F
So
in
terms
of
the
layout
plan,
it's
itself
essentially
the
I've
mentioned
already,
and
the
access
is
fixed
off
the
back
of
the
outline
permission
and
it's
an
application
for
163
units
now
and
that
is
down
from
172
was
originally
submitted.
F
And
hopefully
you
can
just
pick
out
the
access
lane
and
to
the
rear
of
horfield
avenue
on
the
the
eastern
side
of
the
most
northernly
part
of
the
site,
and
just
really
to
to
point
out
you,
you
won't
be
able
to
pick
it
up
on
due
to
the
scale
of
the
plan,
but
essentially
the
the
width
for
that
particular
access
track
varies.
F
So
what
we
have
agreed
with
the
applicant
is
to
where
it
gets
a
bit
tight
and
it
might
have
been
a
little
bit
more
difficult
for
residents
to
get
in
and
out,
and
the
applicant
has
actually
agreed
to
move
the
boundary
off
where
the
current
field
ends,
as
it
were,
to
give
them
a
bit
more
space,
so
that,
hopefully,
should
address
all
of
the
residents
concerns
in
that
respect
and
highway
officers
are
happy
with
that
improvement
as
well.
F
There's
some
small
cul-de-sacs
off
the
spine
road
and
you've
got
two
main
pos
areas,
one
of
which
has
got
now
got
some
informal
play
equipment
in
which
it
didn't
originally
and
that's
that's
a
concern,
as
originally
expressed
by
the
members,
and
they
may
still
have
some
concerns
on
that
particular
aspect
and
the
most
easterly
pos
area
is
where
the
drainage
infrastructure
is
proposed,
and
you
want
to
pick
that
up
from
the
from
the
officer
report.
F
So
members
are
essentially
being
asked
to
consider
all
the
reserve
matters
bar
access
and
so
layout
is
obviously
one
of
those
key
key
matters.
F
So
this
is
just
a
coloured
plan
and
the
landscaping
proposals
are
indicative
only
and
hopefully,
members
have
picked
up
on
that,
and
just
really
the
the
section.
That's
in
the
bottom
bottom
left
hand
side
side
of
the
the
image
there
just
to
to
highlight.
That's
the
one
that's
been
corrected,
and
so
essentially
the
brown
feature
is
is
what
would
be
the
rear
garden
fence
and
to
the
properties
that
back
on
to
that
southern
boundary,
you've
then
got
a
gap
of
a
meter
and
a
half.
F
Then
there's
two
meters
for
the
actual
hard
surface
footpath
and
then
there's
six
six
meters
worth
of
opportunity
for
planting
again
final
details
to
be
agreed.
So
could
we
just
move
on
to
the
next
slide?
Please?
F
So
this
this
plan
really
just
highlights
that
we've
got
both
a
red
line
boundary
on
this
particular
application
and
that's
what
the
reserve
matters
relate
to,
but
the
land
just
slightly
beyond
that
on
the
western
and
southern
boundaries
is
blue
line.
So
it's
in
the
applicant's
control
and
that's
the
area
that
condition
number
two
would
relate
to
that's
where
the
buffer
planting
is
proposed
and
their
10
meter
corridors.
F
Next
slide,
please
so
in
terms
of
the
play
equipment,
as
I've
mentioned
too,
this
was
alluded
to
in
some
of
the
representations
originally
and
in
response
to
that,
and
some
equipment
has
now
been
proposed
and
that's
an
idea
of
the
the
type
of
things
they
were
thinking
about.
So
there's
a
log
cabin
there
and
one
of
these
trim
trails.
F
F
Next
slide,
please
in
terms
of
the
drainage
attenuation
basin-
and
this
has
been
picked
up
in
the
new
representation
received
today-
about
what
what
form
would
that
take
etcetera
and
just
really
for
members
information
again,
the
detailed
drainage
scheme
is,
is
still
covered
by
conditions
on
the
outline,
but
essentially
they
are
proposing
a
combination
of
underground
tanks
and
then
for
any
over
spill.
F
That
would
go
into
a
basin
for
the
really
more
severe
events,
and
we
often
see
that
as
a
proposal
on
these
types
of
schemes,
in
terms
of
the
section
it's
quite
difficult
to
read
at
that
scale,
but
just
to
give
that
members
an
idea
of
what
it
might
look
like
in
in
real
terms
and
its
total
depth
is,
is
only
1.3
meters
and
the
the
bankings
to
the
side
would
be
one
in
three.
F
So
for
the
vast
majority
of
the
time
that
won't
have
any
water
in
and
will
be
perfectly
usable-
and
perhaps
members
may
be
familiar
with
alton
bywater
millennium
village
and
on
that
particular
development.
There's
a
number
of
these
and
they
form
part
of
the
the
public,
open
space
and
and
they've
rarely
got
water
in
so
it'd.
Be
that
sort
of
proposal
and
that's
why,
as
officers
were,
were
content
for
that
to
represent
part
of
the
green
space
area
next
slide.
Please.
F
Just
back
on
to
the
layout
plan,
really
just
it's
it's
difficult
to
point
things
out
without
a
pointer
but
really
just
to
to
draw
attention
to
the
colors
really
on
that
particular
plan.
Essentially,
the
the
the
orange
ones
are
the
one
bed
flats,
the
light
coloured
are
two
beds.
F
The
green
is
three
beds
and
the
blue
is
four
beds,
so
you
can
just
see
that
how
they're
sort
of
distributed
throughout
the
site
and
there's
more
information
on
on
housing
mix
in
the
in
the
report
itself-
and
you
may
just
be
able
to
pick
out
the
the
ones
with
the
sort
of
dots
on-
are
the
affordable
units
and
a
much
closer
scale,
and
it
also
identifies
things
like
the
ones
that
have
got
chimneys,
etcetera
and
but
you
can't
really
pick
that
up
on
this
particular
particular
scale.
F
Next
slide,
please
so
moving
on
to
the
the
house
types,
and
these
were
the
images
that
were
particularly
poor
in
in
the
papers
you
received
this.
This
is
really
these
are
the
the
elevations
for
the
flats
and
so
they're
actually
designed
to
look
like
essentially
a
house,
but
it's
a
single
bedroom
flat
on
each
floor.
Basically,
and
these
particular
units
and
the
ground
floor
ones
are
the
ones
that
would
be
wheelchair
accessible.
F
So
the
next
layout
plan
will
show
that
yep
so
that
that's
just
demonstrating
that
that's
one
of
the
accessible
units
and
so
the
m43.
So
this
is
one
of
the
smaller
units.
Just
a
two
bedroom
next
slide,
please,
and
it's
quite
simply
a
kind
of
two
up:
two
down
with
bathroom
on
the
house,
bathroom
on
the
first
floor,
wc
on
the
ground
floor
and
that's
just
the
normal
house
floor
layout
next
slide.
F
Please-
and
this
is
just
the
same
house
type
with
the
accessible
version
and
so,
broadly
speaking,
it's
exactly
the
same
floor
plan.
I
think
the
only
difference,
practically
speaking
is
the
ground
floor.
Wc
is
enlarged
so
that
it
can
be
used
as
a
shower
room,
but
you'll
see
from
the
report,
and
we've
now
got
the
requisite
number
of
accessible
units,
so
that
was
that
was
good
to
see
next
slide.
Please!
F
So
I'll
I'll
go
fairly
quickly
through
these
house
types,
but
we
can
obviously
come
back
to
any
they're
all
of
the
same
family
and
they've
got
some
some
detailed
elements
in
them
in
terms
of
heads
and
sills
and
soldier
courses
and
canopies
to
the
roof,
to
the
front
doors
etc.
F
So
that's
just
a
three
bed
version
next
slide:
please
you've
got
some
more
ones
with
with
a
bit
more
detail
in
terms
of
projecting
gables
and
but
again,
all
from
the
same
sort
of
family.
Next
slide.
Please
and
again,
that's
the
corresponding
floor
plan
and
again
that's
an
accessible
version.
F
F
F
Next
slide,
please
that's
the
corresponding
floor
plan
next
slide,
please
so
just
on
on
this
particular
slide.
I've
kept
this
in
just
for
members
information.
F
This
is
one
of
the
house
types
that
is
no
longer
proposed
and
the
reason
we
got
this
particular
house
type
removed
was
because
it
didn't
have
any
natural
surveillance
at
ground
floor.
So
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we've
we've
looked
to
design
out
and
the
civic
trust
specific,
specifically
we're
raising
concerns
about
that
particular
house
type
as
well,
which
is
fair
enough
and
that
that
particular
one's
no
longer
proposed
within
the
layout
next
slide
please.
F
So
this
is
one
of
the
two
bed
affordable
units,
so
I've
just
got
elevations
now
a
few
more
next
slide.
Please
and
next
slide.
Please
and
next
slide.
F
And
again,
please
sound
like
I'm
on
countdown
next
slide.
Please
and
again,
please
so.
I've
I've
just
put
that
again
on
the
on
the
screen,
because
it's
easier
to
to
not
have
to
go
through
all
of
them,
but
if
we
can
just
go
to
the
very
last
slide
and
because
everyone's
seen
that
really
that's
just
to
give
you
an
idea
about
the
street
scene.
F
So
probably
the
things
to
to
highlight
on
that
particular
one
is
the
second
street
scene
down
which
is
bb
and
that's
the
church
lane
frontage
and
you
you
will
picked
up
from
the
report
that
things
like
materials
are
still
yet
to
be
finalized
and
some
there's
some
concerns
being
expressed
from
third
parties
about
materials.
F
F
But
we
do
think
it's
important
that
the
church
lane
frontage
should
be
all
in
red
brick,
but
you
could
so.
You
can
hopefully
see
that
and
you
can
again
pick
out
the
use
of
chimneys
on
on
corner
locations,
the
the
other
sections,
so
the
one
below
that
cc.
F
That's
that's
sort
of
internal
to
the
site
and
there
it's
proposed
to
have
a
contrasting
brick
to
pick
out
corners
and
plots
on
corners,
for
example,
and
that
just
helps
with
wayfinding
etc,
but
again,
chimney's
sporadically
placed
so
hopefully
they'll,
they're
helpful
for
members,
and
it
gives
you
an
idea
also
that
the
site
does
sort
of
slope
down
from
from
north
to
south,
so
that
also
helps
in
terms
of
the
street
scene
and
the
roof
scape
in
particular.
F
So
in
terms
of
the
presentation,
I
think
I've
I've
finished
there.
Obviously
the
reserve
matters
are
on
the
main
issues
for
consideration
and
I
won't
go
through
the
report,
but
it's
it's
recommended
for
the
permission
be
granted
with
the
change
to
condition
two
and
that
additional
condition.
B
So
we
have
a
speaker
in
objection
has
alluded
to
and
it's
local
award
member
councillor
james
lewis,
if
councillor
lewis
is
with
us,
I
can
see
him
just
to
say
council
lewis,
another
congratulations
from
us
on
your
election
to
leader,
but
of
course
it
counts
for
nothing
here
and
we
listen
to
both
sides
of
the
arguments
and
then
to
our
decisions.
B
I
Thank
you,
chair
and
good
afternoon
to
you
and
all
members.
I've
come
to
speak
in
objections.
This
application,
I
recognize
in
doing
so
that
this
site
was
first
allocated
potentially
for
housing
in
the
1990s,
and
that
has
been
confirmed
in
site
allocation
processes
and
the
granting
of
outline
planning
permissions.
So,
although
I
know
many
residents
in
the
area
would
like
a
discussion
around
building
houses
on
this
site
or
not,
I
understand
that,
like
I
say,
given
the
previous
permissions
that
have
been
granted,
that
is
not
a
discussion
we
could
have.
I
However,
I
don't
think
that
means
that
that
we
have
to
accept
any
application
that
is
put
forward,
and
I
still,
although
I
recognize
there
have
been
many
revisions
to
this
application
since
it
was
first
submitted.
I
still
believe
there
are
some
areas
that
make
it
unacceptable
for
approval
at
this
stage.
I'd
just
like
to
pick
up
the
key
ones
of
those.
I
First
of
all,
the
density
of
the
development
it
is
it
was,
it
was
granted
outline
permission,
250
houses,
and
it
now
stands
at
a
higher
figure
than
that,
and
I
don't
believe
that
is
in
necessarily
in
keeping
with
mickelfield.
I
think
it
causes
some
of
the
other
problems
that
I'm
gonna
come
on
to
discuss.
There's
an
issue
that
normally
on
a
mickelfield
issue.
I
Councillor
john
crossy
will
be
speaking
to
the
panel
from
the
field
parish
council
again,
something
I
think
would
have
benefited
from
a
site
visit
and
I
fully
understand
why
they're
not
taking
place
at
the
moment,
the
brick,
the
majority
brick
buildings
are
not
in
keeping
with
the
village,
which
has
a
large
element
of
magnesium,
limestone
housing
and
given
the
prominence
of
the
site,
which,
had
there
been
some
photographs
from
taken
from
further
locations,
you
would
have
been
able
to
see.
This
will
be
a
very,
very
prominent
site.
I
The
land
falls
away
to
the
south
and
to
the
west
of
the
site
and
visible
from
roads
around.
It
needs
to
sit
very
comfortably
with
both
the
landscape
and
the
surrounding
village,
and
I
don't
believe
this
design
does
yet
as
clear
some
steps
that
can
be
taken.
Changes
on
the
boundary
treatment.
The
third
issue
that
really
concerns
me
is
the
provision
of
green
space
and
the
idea
that
a
drainage
attenuation
basis
is
substantial,
green
space.
The
recreation
field
that
was
referred
to
in
the
presentation
is
actually
the
school
field.
I
It's
not
one
that
the
public
are
encouraged
to
you
so
clearly
getting
quality
green
space
on
its
development
is
significantly
important,
and
I
have
seen
no
evidence
so
far
that
a
drainage
attenuation
basin,
how
how
how
how
many
times
during
the
year
it
will
be
full
and
given
that
I
am
unable
to
accept
that
a
drainage
attenuation
base
is
suitable,
green
space,
where
development
is
clearly
aimed
to
large
number
of
families.
I
And,
finally,
though,
I
welcome
to
find
out,
I
think,
in
less
than
48
hours
ago,
that
the
developer
intends
to
provide
play
equipment.
Neither
I
nor
nobody
else
in
the
community
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
suitability
and
the
design
of
that
and
well,
that
might
not
be
a
significant
matter.
Overall.
I
think
I
would
put
two
questions
to
the
planning
committee
in
terms
of
deliberating
application.
First
of
all,
given
the
information
that's
come
in
the
late
stages.
The
last
design
was
put
on
the
planning
portal
less
than
10
days
ago.
I
Is
it
ready
for
determination
even
given
the
applications
decided
and,
secondly,
like
I
said,
there's
a
number
of
issues
away,
but
particularly
around
the
provision
of
green
space?
Is
it
a
suitable
amount
of
green
space
to
sail
at
a
drainage
basin
with
no
evidence
of
what
how
long
during
the
year
it
will
be
full
or
not?
Is
that
suitable
green
space
for
the
community
in
question?
I
don't
believe
it
is.
I
I
don't
believe
you
know
have
an
innovative
condition
like
providing
each
family
with
a
little
set
of
children's
wellington
boots
or
something
as
a
planning
condition.
I
actually
believe
we
could
have
quality
green
space
on
this
application
if
the
density
was
lower
or
if
alternative
arrangements
were
made.
Those
are
the
points
I
wish
to
make
sure.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
councillor
lewis.
I'm
always
helpful
to
have
local
members
knowledge,
particularly,
as
you
say,
the
lack
of
site
visits
at
the
moment,
although
I
think
the
officers
do
do
the
best
with
the
photographs.
B
Okay,
so
we've
got
questions
for
councillor
lewis
from
members.
So,
if
you'd
like
to
indicate
and
then
I
will
bring
you
in
councillor
anderson
first
of
all,.
A
Counselor
lewis,
on
page
21
of
our
papers
in
paragraph
18,
it
outlines
comments
made
by
yourself
and
counselor
harland
you've
made
reference
to
the
second
bullet
point
in
respect
of
green
provision.
But
are
you
satisfied
that
officers
have
now
given
you
a
clear
explanation
on
the
other
points
that
have
been
raised
in
that
section.
I
A
I
I,
as
I
explained,
we've
been
seeing
revisions
of
this
application
coming
forward
and-
and
these
comments
refer
to
version
two
of
four,
so
there
have
been
revisions
since,
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
other
bullet
points
I
mean,
I
say
I
touched
on
the
density
of
the
site
in
the
old
development,
which
is
the
first
one
I'd
like
to
say.
I
do
believe
in
terms
of
addressing
the
green
space
provision.
I
The
number
of
houses
proposed
to
the
site
is,
is
part
of
that,
although
the
number
of
houses
is
lower
than
the
version
of
plans
that
these
comments
refer
to
in
terms
of
the
access
track.
Again,
that's
something
that
is
something
that
we
need
to
seek
clarity
from
in
terms
of
its
functionality
for
residents
in
terms
of
getting
it
in
the
church,
lane
junction
will
be
dealt
with
through
a
highway
condition,
as
you
can
see
from
the
site
plan.
I
That
was,
there
aren't
many
options
around
that
and
that
was
actually
settled
as
a
matter
in
the
first
application
I
think,
being
addressed
by
highways
and
finally,
on
the
public
rights
of
way,
one
in
terms
of
public
rights
of
way
bullet
point.
This
is
one
where
I
think
we
have
seen
changes
that
do
do
mean
our
objection
falls
away
and,
finally,
I
did
touch
on
landscaping,
materials
and
particularly
the
sensitivity
of
this
site
like
to
say
we
had.
I
We
had
a
the
normal
length
of
time
to
submit
comments.
I
believe
we
could
have
given
some
up-to-date
written
comments,
but
that's
why
I
wish
to
give
a
verbal
presentation,
just
to
like
say:
we've
had
so
much
late
information
coming
on.
I
wanted
to
give
the
most
up-to-date
response.
D
Yes,
when
I
first
looked
at
the
the
plan,
it
struck
me
straight
away
that
there
there
were
an
awful
lot
of
houses
on
this
site,
so
I
am
from
the
outset
concerned
about
the
density
of
housing,
but
quite
rightly
councillor
lewis,
you
mentioned
about
the
importance
of
a
sufficient
play
space
for
that
number
of
houses.
D
I
I'm
afraid
I'm
going
to
give
a
politician's
answer
and
maybe
not
directly
answer
that
council
enough.
It's
a
good
question,
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
play
space,
I
would
be
more
satisfied
if
not
the
the
significant
eastern
play
space
wasn't
also
a
drainage
base,
and
that
would
I'd
be
more
satisfied
with
that
space.
It's
have
the
single
purpose
as
green
space
in
terms
of
spacing
out
the
houses.
I
think
one
of
the
issues
is
again
the
design.
I
If
you
look
at
the
comparison,
if
you
look
at
the
plans,
it
is
very
different
from
the
neighboring
estate,
which
is
a
former
council
estate.
I
would
also
suggest
that,
in
terms
of
the
number
of
properties
reduced
and
some
of
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
by
public
objectives
around
the
closeness
of
some
of
the
proposed
houses
to
existing
houses
could
be
could
be
addressed.
I
Like
I
said,
my
main
concern
around
the
green
space
is
is
dual
use
with
a
as
a
drainage
base,
and
I
I
I
don't
think
given,
given
that
the
history
of
this
site,
given
the
history
of
this
site,
let's
say
the
fact
is
adjacent
to
a
housing
estate
that
currently
doesn't
have
any
green
clay
space,
others
other
than
some
open
space
near
some
shelters.
Bungalows.
B
B
I
In
terms
of
the
two
parts
that
in
terms
of
design
of
the
houses
I
know
the
applicant
and
and
they
may
cover
it-
mr
dunbar
may
cover
it
when
he
comes
to
speak.
I've
spoken
to
the
parish
council
about
the
housing
designs,
although
it's
clear
from
email
correspondence
that
the
parish
council
still
aren't
satisfied
in
terms
of
the
play
equipment,
there
was
nothing
proposed
until
I
received
an
email
where
I
received
it
after
I
concluded
my
meetings
on
tuesday.
I
I
think
it
arrived
during
the
day
so,
like
I
say,
for
either
myself
to
make
a
comment
on
what's
proposed
or
actually
the
residents
of
mikkelfield,
for
whom
this
is
a
benefit
for
to
come
on
on
on
the
proposed.
I
I
think
it's
very,
very
late
in
the
day,
so
the
principle
of
play
equipment
is
positive
but,
like
I
say,
none
of
us
have
a
chance
to
really
like
say,
look
at
it
or
or
or
certainly
residents,
and-
and
there
are
a
number
who
have
to
br,
who
supplied
regular,
have
been
good
citizens
and
comments
on
every
version
of
this
planning.
Application
residents
in
the
area
have
not
had
the
opportunity
to
comment
from
it
as
it's
for
the
benefit
of
the
community.
D
It's
just
come
back
to
me:
I'm
I'm
staring
up
at
the
map
when
you
say
that
the
green
space
you'd
be
satisfied.
If
it
wasn't
a
drainage
attenuation,
a
dual
thing,
is
it
going
to
be,
would
you
like
it
to
be
a
formal
playing
field
or
just
grassed
open
space.
I
I
think
it
would
be,
I
mean
grassed,
open
space
does
give
opportunities
for
for
children
and
young
people
to
play
on
my
again.
I
The
nature
of
the
basin
suggests
it's
it's
not
it's
not
level,
so
you
know,
for
you,
know,
kids,
to
kick
a
footballer
rider,
I'm
a
bike
around
on
things
like
that.
It
wouldn't
be
the
case.
David
jones
referred
to
attenuation
basins
on
the
millennium
village
and
by
watching
our
award,
and
they
are.
I
They
are
a
very
pleasant,
green
space
to
look
at
one
of
them
made
news
earlier
on
in
the
pandemic,
when
somebody
mowed
the
letters
nhs
into
it
into
the
grass
on
there,
but
it's
not
a
it
is
not
a
playing
field.
As
such,
it
is
an
area
of
open
space.
And
again
I
think
this
you
know
in
terms
of
giving
you
know
giving
space
for
children
to
play
somewhere.
Like
I
say
well,
I
could
fall
around
rather
than
it
just
being
green
space.
I
think,
would
be
a
positive.
Let's
say
it's.
I
The
other
aspect
of
well
about
it
is
is
its
character.
I
know
not
everywhere
that
children
like
to
play
is
perfectly
level.
I
think
it's
a
concern
around
how
often
it
will
be
it,
how
often
it
will
serve
as
a
drainage
base
and
versus
how
often
it
will
serve
as
green
space,
and
that's
my
concern
on
this
one
we've
seen.
I
Obviously,
all
of
us,
as
ward
members
have
seen
worsening,
flooding
in
in
in
different
forms,
and
obviously
you
and
I
counseling
national
river
air
through
our
world
which
causes
river
flooding,
but
we've
also
seen
substantial
surface.
All
of
us
have
probably
seen
substantial
surface
drainage,
given
we
seem
to
have
heavier
rainfall
at
the
moment.
So
it
is
a
concern
around
like
say:
will
it
be
full
of
water?
I
Will
it
be
damp,
or
will
it
be
the
kind
of
space
that
young
children
can
play
without
needing
wellington
boots
and
coming
back
with
muddy
knees
and
hands.
B
B
A
Sorry
so
I've
had
to
switch
computers
and
I
haven't
got
a
raised
hand
on
my
other
computer.
So
now
it's
really
a
question
about
road
speed.
I
think
I
saw
was
it
30
miles
an
hour
and
is
that
an
appropriate
speed
for
the
that
road
within
the
new
estate
area
and
are
the
road
widths
wide
enough
for
two
cars
to
go
around
some
of
these
areas?
Sometimes
you
need
one-way
traffic.
Almost
I
don't
know
if
you
can
comment
on
that
or
if
I
have
to
leave
it
for
highways.
A
I
I
think
in
in
terms
of
the
internal
layout,
it's
not
something
we
have.
We
have
objected
to
councillor
jenkins.
I
am.
We
have
highways
in
terms
of
well
estate,
road
joint,
existing
church
lane
at
the
top
of
the
site,
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
satisfied
that
that
is
a
a
suitable
and
safe
junction
to
the
west
of
the
to
the
west
of
the
site.
I
So
the
left-hand
side,
if
you
look
at
the
plan
on
the
road,
leads
the
village
completely
and
his
national
speed
limit
again,
it
has
been
a
concern
for
as
long
as
I've
been
a
councillor
for
mickelfield,
which
is
nearly
20
years
now
around
vehicles
not
slowing
down
to
an
appropriate
speed
when
they
hit
the
residential
area
and
I'd
like
this
application
and
the
subsequent
highways
works
to
address
this
for
the
safety
of
the
residents
of
the
new
development.
I
Obviously
you
need
to
either
walk
cycle
or
drive
out
of
the
estate,
but
also
for
the
on
the
wider
benefit
of
residents
in
the
area.
B
B
B
So
if
you'd
like
to
introduce
yourself
first
then
we'll
start
the
clock.
When
you
get
into
your
four
minutes
worth
of
presentation.
J
J
We
found
out
about
council
lewis's
concerns
just
a
couple
of
days
ago
and
we
did
reach
out
to
him
several
times
to
try
and
speak
to
him
over
that
time
period,
but
in
the
interim
looked
to
address
the
various
comments
that
were
made
where
we
could,
in
terms
of
the
footpath
width
and
also
giving
him
details
of
the
play
equipment.
I
just
like
to
focus
on
the
four
factors
he's
raised
in
terms
of
the
scheme
density.
We
have
reduced
it
down
from
172
to
163
the
scheme
of
the
site
in
the
site.
J
J
J
We
had
a
discussion
with
john
crossley
at
the
parish
council
and
he
raised
the
issue
about
the
magnesium
limestone,
which
you
don't
get
until
you
get
to
the
historic
core
of
the
village,
much
further
down
church
lane,
but
we
agreed
to
introduce
some
elements
of
buff
brick,
which
we
thought
was
the
right
approach,
and
that
has
been
done
in
terms
of
green
space.
J
First
thing,
I'd
point
out
is
the
green
space
we
have
provided
on
site
exceeds
your
policy
requirement
under
policy
g4
in
terms
of
the
attenuation
basin.
It's
a
dry
attenuation
basin
and
it's
a
shallow
scraper
for
one
of
the
better
phrase,
and
it
is
a
level
area
within
it.
These
are
quite
common
within
open
space
and
have
been
part
of
open
space
calculations
for
for
numerous
applications
within
leeds
that
we
have
had
approved.
J
It
is
safe,
it
is
usable,
it'll
only
have
water
in
it
in
extreme
events
and
that'll,
be
once
in
a
blue
moon
it'll
be
dry
for
99.9
of
the
year
coming
on
to
play
equipment
we
have
provided
what
we
thought
was
right
for
the
area
and
right
for
this
green
belt
edge
and
setting,
and
we
are
very
happy
to
take
that
away
and
discuss
it
with
members.
If
you
were
able
to
defer
and
delegate
the
application-
and
we
can
just
discuss
that-
and
we
can
discuss
the
landscape
details,
we
have
tried
very
hard
to
engage.
J
We
have
amended
the
scheme
and
we
tried
to
ensure
that
all
parties
views
have
been
taken
on
board
through
the
process.
We
are
fully
policy
compliant
in
terms
of
housing
mix,
affordable
housing,
accessible
homes,
national
space
standards
and
sustainability
as
well.
So
we
would
invite
you
members
to
support
the
officer
recommendation
if
you
can,
if
you
have
any
queries,
I'd
happily
answer
them.
Thank
you.
B
D
Hello,
I
noticed
that
the
player
for
children
is
in
the
opposite
corner
from
the
the
open
space
with
the
attenuation
square.
D
Wouldn't
it
be
better
to
put
the
two
together,
because
I
know
families
like
the
children
to
to
keep
together
if
they're
going
out
to
play,
and
that
would
therefore
give
a
little
more
green
space
for
older
children
to
kick
a
ball
about,
etc.
D
J
Yeah
yeah,
sorry
castle
nash.
What
we
try
to
do
is
to
make
sure
that
everybody
has
open
space
within
a
very
short
walking
distance,
both
for
existing
and
proposed
residents
here.
So
we
thought
the
distribution
of
that
open
space
was
right.
Clearly,
in
terms
of
surface
water
attenuation,
you
need
to
have
those
facilities
in
in
the
lowest
part
of
the
site.
J
Hence
why
we've
got
the
those
facilities
and
the
open
space
to
the
south
east,
and
then
we've
got
the
other
area
of
open
space
to
the
south
west,
which
again,
is
is
part
of
the
open
aspect
of
this
site,
as
you
view
it
from
the
green
belt
and
again
we
thought
that
distribution
was
right.
We
discussed
it
with
officers
and
overall
give
it
given.
You
know
those
sort
of
criteria
and
the
positions
of
footpaths
as
well,
because
horfield
avenue
the
the
the
track
that
comes
around
at
the
back.
J
D
Right,
I
I
have
got
an
audience
survey
map
here
and
I
I'm
I'm
well
aware
of
the
public
rights
of
way,
but
there's
a
school
on
on
my
map,
which
is
just
to
the
south
of
the
attenuation
site,
and
I
understand
some.
I
think
I
read
in
the
report
that
somebody's
pointed
out
it
was
a
school
playing
field.
Whether
this
is
true
or
not-
I
I
don't
know,
but
nevertheless
it
undoubtedly
the
school
will
be
using
it.
D
But
even
so,
looking
at
the
scale
and
I'll
take
your
point
about
spreading
out
the
the
the
green
space
amongst
the
estate,
but
it
would
perhaps
be
useful
to
the
school
if
the
playground
was
nearer
to
it,
which
is
also
green
space.
I.
J
I've
visited
the
school
a
couple
of
times
many
moons
ago
actually,
and
I've
been
on
that
playing
field
and
it's
quite
a
sizable
playing
field.
J
My
understanding
of
how
schools
operate
is
they
like
to
be
safe
and
secure,
so
any
adjacent
open
space
to
those
school
playing
fields
wouldn't
be
encouraged
for
the
use
of
during
during
school
time
again
I
come
back
to
the
distribution
and
making
sure
that
people
don't
have
to
walk
too
far
and
children
don't
have
to
walk
too
far
to
two-play
spaces.
We
think
the
distribution
of
the
two
play
spaces
is.
Is
the
right
thing
to
do.
B
Thank
you,
okay,
thanks
for
that,
and
just
through
my
members,
it's
on
page
seven,
if
you
just
want
to
glance
at
your
site
layout,
just
to
refresh
your
of
up
the
green
space
and
paths,
so
I've
got
councillor
smith
next,
then
councillor
collins,
thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
chair,
I'd
like
to
go
back
to
the
the
row
of
houses
that
will
front
onto
church
lane
a
discussion
around
that.
If
I
may,
I've
had
a
quick
look
on
google
maps
with
not
having
had
the
benefit
of
a
site
visit
and
a
lot
of
the
houses.
In
fact,
almost
all
of
the
houses
appear
to
have
chimneys,
where
yours
don't,
and
I
wondered
whether
there
was
any
particular
reason
why
you
didn't
carry
that
design
aspect
through.
Please.
J
Sorry,
sorry
councillor:
if,
if
you
look
at
the
street
scene
that
that
we
have
prepared-
which
I
think
was
bb
for
the
for
the
the
frontage
we've
put
some
chimneys
on
there
on
the
key
entrance
plots
and
thank
you
lewis-
that's
that's
helpful.
J
So,
yes,
scene
bb
is
the
the
entrance
in
so
what
we
have
done
is
used
chimneys
in
key
locations.
So
on
the
entrance
to
the
to
the
site,
we've
got
chimneys
on
either
side.
J
E
Yeah
I'd,
I
just
think
that
it
would
be
more
in
you
know
more
fitted
and
more
in
keeping
if
it
if
it
had
more
of
the
original
design
elements
carried
through
as
as
you've
discussed
previously,
I
don't
feel
that
you
know
a
chimney
either.
Side
of
the
entryway
is
necessarily
enough,
but
I'll
leave
that
to
the
to
the
ward
members
to
argue
the
point,
and
my
other
comment
was
around
play:
equipment
yeah
and
it's
great
that
you've
provided
it.
I
think
it's
it's
very
necessary.
E
It's
you
know.
The
housing
estate
is
is
very,
very
largely
dominant
of
four
and
three
bedroom
properties,
which
would
suggest
that
you
would
have
children
there.
I
looked
at
the
the
slide,
I'm
not
sure
how
far
along
in
the
design
of
it
you
are,
but
I
don't
in
my
opinion
I
don't
particularly
like
the
wooden
log
structures.
E
I
feel
that
they
don't
offer
the
same
longevity.
I
feel
that
there's
a
maintenance
issue.
They
become
slippery
and
and
can
be
quite
dangerous.
So
again,
you
know
I'll
leave
that
up
to
the
ward
members
to
pick
up,
but
I
wondered
if
you'd
considered
that
in
your
in
your
thoughts
along
those
lines,
please.
J
Yeah,
absolutely
council
smith,
I
mean
I
mean
these
are
designs
which
are
implemented
right
across
the
uk.
They
are
safe
and
they
are
incredibly
durable
and
and
would
be
maintained.
There
will
be
a
management
company
on
on
site.
That
said,
you
know
we're
not
wedded
to
this
exact
design
and
we're
very
happy
to
take
this
away
and
discuss
it
post
resolution
with,
with
with
the
various
parties
and
trying
to
agree,
you
know
we're
very
happy
to
do
that.
We
have
a
good
relationship
with
the
parish
council.
B
Okay:
okay
with
that
council
smith;
yes,
it
looks
like
it
councillor,
collins
and
then
councillor
mitchelly.
C
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
is
about
the
affordable
housing
just
reading
the
list
and
what
you're
going
to
providing
regarding
affordable
housing.
You
said
you're
going
to
provide
one
two
and
three
bedroom
houses,
but
the
biggest
the
biggest
chunk
of
this
estate
is
going
to
be
four
bedroom
houses,
and
I
always
thought
it
was
the
intention
of
the
council
to
try
and
reflect
in
the
affordable
houses
the
the
basic
split
of
those
house
types
throughout
an
area.
So
my
question
is:
why
are
there
no
four
bedroom
houses?
J
No
it
it's,
it's
certainly
not
a
viability
issue,
it's
about
what
properties
the
registered
providers
want
and
will
take,
and
when
we
bring
the
scheme
forward,
we
talk
to
the
registered
providers
and
they
give
us
a
steer
on
the
types
of
units
they
want
and
the
size
of
units
they
want,
and
it
was
a
very
clear
steer
from
yorkshire
housing
as
they
wanted
one
two
and
three
beds.
The
issue
with
the
larger
properties
is
the
bedroom
tax.
J
They
find
it
difficult
to
find
occupants
for
them
and
don't
like
taking
them
on,
and
they
know
the
demographic
and
the
the
waiting
list
they've
got.
So
it
is
very
much
aimed
at
meeting
a
local
need
and
we've
provided
that
information
to
officers
so
that
so
they've
got
that
for
for
their
files.
B
Thank
you
for
that.
Counselor
mitch,
lee.
C
Thank
you
chair.
My
query
already
is
just
around
some
of
the
concerns
that
civic
trust
and
I
think
local
residents
have
made
regarding
loss
of
wildlife,
potential,
loss
of
wildlife
and
the
permeability
to
the
site,
and
I
do
know
in
michael
field
that
we
have
already
have
a
hedgehog
charity
there.
So
it's
an
issue
already,
so
I
just
wonder
what
work
or
or
work
can
be
done
regarding
protecting
wildlife
in
the
area.
Thank.
J
You
a
good
question.
Obviously,
we've
done
detailed
ecological
reports
on
the
side.
The
site
is
actually
pretty
neutral,
being
agricultural
land.
That
said,
we
believe
there
is
the
opportunity
for
enhancement
and
protection
of
what
what
what
what
we
can
retain
there
so
again,
we'd
be
happy
to
talk
to
the
parish
council
about
how
we
can
deal
with
the
likes
of
hedgehogs
and
and
so
on,
and
and
we
can
provide
a
biodiversity
enhancement
plan
as
well.
J
So
we'd
be
very
much
open
to
that
and
again
a
continuing
dialogue
but
yeah
the
baseline
level
for
ecology
on
the
side
is
pretty
low,
as
as
you
would
normally
expect,
with
agricultural
land.
J
Absolutely
you
know
it's,
it
is
something
we
would
commit
today.
Thank.
F
B
C
Thanks
chair,
just
in
terms
of
the
water-basing,
you
said
it
it'd
be
dry
99.9
of
the
year
yeah.
What
are
you
basing
that
information
on.
J
Basically,
we've
we've
had
a
detailed
flood
risk
assessment
carried
out
what
the
the
dry
basin
is
only
going
to
hold
water
for
a
very
short
period
of
time,
only
during
very,
very
extreme
events.
So
if
we
have
days
and
days
of
rain,
you
will
get
an
inch
or
two
of
water
in
there,
which
will
then
drain
out
with
within
a
matter
of
24
hours.
So
it's
only
in
the
extreme
events.
Remember,
we've
also
got
a
an
attenuation
tank
on
site
as
as
well
so
it's
not
the
only
drainage
facility.
J
We've
got
it's
it.
It's
a
safety
net,
it's
a
capsule-
and
this
is
a
very
typical
feature
that
we
see
for
for
sustainable
urban
drainage
these
days
and
and
it
appears
in
every
application
we
submit,
because
it's
the
way
people
deal
with
it.
It's
a
very
sustainable
and
green
whale
of
dealing
with
it
and
creating
additional
areas
open
space.
B
Thank
you,
okay.
Thank
you
for
that,
any
more
questions,
no
just
to
follow
up
on
council
sharps.
I
was
going
to
ask
a
similar
question
because
I
I'm
quite
impressed
surprised
by
your
optimism
about
99
of
the
time
being
usable,
because
I
I'd
say
most
football
pitches
and
playing
fields.
B
You
have
done
that
a
few
times
to
other
members.
I've
not
quite
finished
my
point
so
and
you've
not
lost
my
threads
rather
now,
which
isn't
helpful.
So
what
I'm
basically
saying
is
under
normal
circumstances,
we
often
lose
the
use
of
football
pitches
etc
due
to
the
wet
weather.
So
are
you
saying
this
will
actually
drain
better
than
a
normal
football
or
rugby
pitch
or
green
space.
J
Yes,
yes
chair,
I
am
this-
is
this?
This
is
designed
to
drain
and
has
a
specific
outfall
for
that
so
yeah.
This
is
designed
to
drain
in
that
way,
a
lot
of
football
pitches
and
rugby
pictures.
Unless
you
actually
have
you
know,
sort
of
underground
drainage
built
into
it,
don't
don't
drain
properly,
and
I
think
that's
the
issue,
and
I
do.
A
Thanks
chair,
my
question
is
around
the
the
size
of
the
of
various
sizes
of
the
property
and
dwellings.
I
mean
there's
quite
a
few
different
four
bedroom.
A
Square
meters,
in
terms
of
size
is
is,
is
is
quite
different
as
well
from
one
to
the
other
in
terms
of
the
actual
room
size.
How
I
mean,
are
you
just
simply
meeting
the
minimum
if
you
like
size,
minimum
standards
in
terms
of
the
size
or.
H
How
big
bigger
are
they
because,
obviously,
we've
been
looking
at
the
looking
at
the
the
paperwork?
You
know
you
have
increased.
A
J
No
counselor
what
we've
done:
we've
we've
applied,
the
national
described
space
standards
and
every
one
of
the
dwellings
proposed
meets
those
nationally
described
space
standards
in
terms
of
all
of
the
rooms
and
then
the
overall
size
within
them.
So
we
meet
the
nationally
described
space
standards
which
are
reflected
in
your
policy
within
the
course
strategy
as
well.
So
we
are
fully
compliant.
B
Okay,
anything
else,
counselor
almas,
is
that
okay
right
well,
I
can
see
no
further
requests
for
questions.
I'm
smiling
because
counselor
lovely
dog
just
appeared
on
on
screen.
There
always
a
distraction,
but
thank
you,
mr
dunbavin.
Your
your
work
here
is
done
as
well.
So
I
just
again
ask
you
to
remain
quiet
for
the
rest
of
the
meeting.
Unless
we
we
may
bring
you
in
to
answer
a
technical
question.
B
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
my
main
concern
is
the
what
officers
refer
to
as
the
wreck?
Is
this
public
space,
or
is
this
fenced
off
playground
area
for
the
straw?
Only
because
there's
a
big
difference
between
a
wreck
and
a
sports
playing
field
for
a
school
could
we
have
clarification,
what
that
designation
is
and
whether
it
is
open
or
fenced
off?
Thank
you.
F
F
I
don't
honestly
know
if
that's
exclusive
use
of
that
area,
but
I
guess
you
know
they
would
only
be
using
it
during
school
hours.
C
B
Just
to
jump
in
there
it's
a
fair
question:
most
schools
aren't
open
to
the
public.
I
think
mr
dunban
talked
about
the
security
and
what
have
you
said
places
do
any
of
the
world
members
know
if
it
is
available
publicly.
So
that's
councillor
lewis,
if
he's
still
with
us,
I'll,
be
helpful.
If
you
could
answer
that,
if
you
know
the
answer
may
not
be
with
us
of
course,
well,
council
lewis
is
with
us.
Do
you
know
if
it's
available
to
the
public.
I
I
don't
believe
it
is,
but
the
point
I
would
make
is
the
school
is
currently
undergoing
forced
academization,
so
any
academy
trust
taking
it
on
in
the
future
may
wish
to
close
it
off
completely.
So
I
wouldn't
like
I
said
I
I
can't
answer
definitively
at
the
moment.
The
gate
is,
the
gate
is
branded
as
a
school
gate.
Has
it
been
part
of
the
school
but
certainly
like
to
say
the
scores
on
the
going
academization,
so
it
could
well
be
a
change
of
regime.
I
B
You
that
helpful-
and
I
think
we
we
determine
what's
in
front
of
us-
and
I
think
we
determine
it
on
the
two
green
spaces
that
before
is
on
on
the
plan
within
the
red
line.
I'm
sure
the
david,
eva
david
will
clarify
that's
the
case
with
that
council
collins.
I
think
you're
done
so
counselor
anderson,
then
councillor
smith,.
A
Hopefully,
just
quickly
two
things
one
am
I
correct
that
there
is
no
neighborhood
plan
and
secondly,
we've
heard
that
there's
been
a
number
of
changes
made
recently.
Obviously,
since
even
this
report
was
written,
are
they
material
enough
that
you
do
need
that
you?
You
think
that
you
should
actually
be
reconsulting
people
on,
or
are
you
saying
that
you
don't
feel
the
material
enough
and
that
there's
no
need
to.
F
Reconsult,
thank
you,
council,
anderson.
Sorry,
my
alarm
was
just
going
off
in
the
background
there
yeah
in
terms
of
neighborhood
plan.
There
is
no
neighborhood
plan
for
the
area.
As
for
revisions,
what
I
would
say
is
in
terms
of
the
the
play
equipment.
F
The
intention
to
provide
play
equipment
has
been
shown
on
revised
plans
for
for
some
time
to
be
fair,
though,
what
didn't
include
what
wasn't
included
was
the
detail
of
what
they
actually
look
like,
so
it
was
referenced
on
a
plan,
but
not
the
actual
detail
of
the
product.
So
that's
the
more
recent
change
and
in
terms
of
changes
more
generally,
we
we've
we've
come
to
the
view
that
actually,
all
the
revisions
that
have
been
undertaken
that
haven't
necessarily
been
formally
reconsulted
on,
have
made
an
existing
relationship
only
better.
F
So,
for
example,
so
some
of
the
houses
have
moved
further
off
the
boundary.
Some
gardens
have
got
bigger
and
the
only
exception
to
where
we
that's
not
necessarily.
The
case
is
for
the
access
track,
and
there
we
have
agreed
with
the
applicant
to
move
the
boundary
fence
of
the
ax,
the
rear
gardens
of
the
new
houses
off
the
off
the
access
track
by
0.75
of
a
meter
and
that's
for
the
benefit
of
the
the
residents
specifically
in
terms
of
aiding
with
their
access.
F
A
I
mean
where
I
was
coming
at
is
that
council
lewis
felt
that
he
had
not
been
kept
fully
in
the
loop
now,
so
what
I'm
asking
is,
do
you
feel
that
it?
You
could
have
done
more
to
keep
the
local
ward
members
in
the
loop.
I
accept
because
I've
been
I've
debated
this
with
planning
in
my
own
word,
but
the
need
to
properly
go
out
and
do
another
reconsultation,
but
do
you
feel
that
maybe
another
briefing
to
counselor
lewis
and
his
colleagues
would
have
been
beneficial
or
not.
F
F
F
F
E
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
is:
it
is
going
to
go
back
to
the
potential
flood
in
slash
marshy
areas
of
the
site,
so
we've
done
a
we've
done
a
flood
risk.
We've
decided
on
an
attenuation
drainage
system,
which
is
absolutely
great.
Have
we
taken
that
any
further
forward?
Have
we
looked
at
the
good
old
water,
but
for
each
property,
have
we
looked
at?
E
You
know
suitable
drainage
throughout
the
site,
in
terms
of
permeable,
hard
standing
areas,
etc.
All
of
those
things
with
a
a
little
bit
of
clever
water,
loving
planting,
would
probably
mean
that
that
attenuation
area
would
be
more
usable
for
more
of
the
time,
and
I
just
wondered
if
those
things
have
been
considered.
Please.
F
Thank
you,
yeah
in
terms
of
the
what
what
members
have
got
in
front
of
them
today
is
essentially
the
the
principle
of
they
want
to
put
an
attenuation
basin
in
and
that's
served
by
underground
tanks
and
the
detailed
lands
drainage
scheme
that
serves
that
hasn't
specifically
been
designed.
Yet
because
things
like
the
houses
have
been
moving
around,
so
they
they
haven't
gone
to
the
effort
of
designing
the
finer
elements
of
the
drainage
connections.
F
They've
just
said.
Well,
if
you
have
this
much
these
many
houses,
this
is
the
likely
outputs,
and
this
is
in
principle
what
you
want
to
do
so
details
like
permeable,
paving
hasn't
yet
been
considered
and
specifically
on
water
bots.
There
is
a
condition
on
the
outline
about
sustainability
and
as
part
of
that,
it
includes
water
efficiency.
F
So,
as
as
part
of
that,
and
you
you'll
see
from
the
report,
they
haven't
sought
to
to
provide
any
real
details
on
that.
Essentially,
what
we
would
look
to
do
as
officers
is,
make
sure
that
they
comply
with
the
the
optional
water
efficiency
numbers.
I
think
it's
110
liters
per
person
per
day.
I
think
that's
it
and
I
think
we'd
also
because
it
it
crops
up
quite
regularly
now
and
it's
it's
an
easy
win
is
required.
F
Water
butts
as
well
as
part
of
discharging
that
condition
discharge,
and
we
can
certainly
take
away
the
general
message
about
permeable
paving
because,
as
you
say,
it
does
also
help
with
the
overall
drone
drainage
of
the
site.
B
I
see
none
so
we're
on
to
comments
again
so
once
again,
if
people
give
give
us
their
views
on
where
they
are
with
this,
if
they're
thinking
about
emotion,
alternative
motion,
any
you
know
additions,
etc.
B
Before
moving
in
motion
give
everybody
who
wants
to
speak
an
opportunity
to
to
speak,
please,
and
then
you
know
you,
may
you
may
they
may
come
up
with
a
nugget
that
makes
you
change
your
mind
about
something?
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
realize
that
this
is
just
more
outline
at
this
stage
and
it
doesn't
look
to
be
too
bad
a
scheme.
In
fairness,
however,
I'd
like
to
see
some
more
consultation
with
ward
members
and
the
parish
council,
because
I
feel
that
things
have
changed
an
awful
lot
quite
quickly
by
the
sounds
of
what
we're
hearing
today,
and
I
don't
think
that,
what's
before
us
is
necessarily
what
what
will
come
before
us.
So
I
think
it
all
needs
a
little
bit
more
clarification.
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
do
have
a
concern
about
a
drainage
area
being
used
as
a
public
space.
In
that
I
think
residents
like
residents
will
see
it
first
and
foremost
as
a
drainage
space
just
by
the
by
the
way
it
looks
so
whether
it
would
get
the
best
use.
I
don't
know,
and
that's
obviously
just
a
personal
opinion.
C
Nickel
field
is
an
area
where
it's
had
an
awful
lot
of
development
recently,
and
I
think
it's
really
important
that
as
much
consultation
with
local
residents
is
done,
and
I
think
there's
quite
a
few
areas
still
that
could
do
with
a
bit
more
consultation
with
local
residents
again
engaging
with
local.
As
I
mentioned,
the
hedgehog
group
has
won,
but
obviously
the
parish
council
just
to
they
may
not
necessarily
pick
up
on
the
plans
when
they're
on
the
system,
but
to
have
that
more
dialogue,
I
think,
is
really
important.
D
Sorry,
it
took
a
bit
to
find
the
icon.
Well,
it
has
got
outline
permission
for
150
and
I
haven't
heard
anything
today
which
demonstrates
that
the
number
of
houses
should
be
increased
and
I
don't
think
it's
fair
to
local
people.
D
If,
if
we
do
do
that,
as
I
said
earlier
on,
when
I
look
at
the
plant,
the
houses
to
me
look
very
very
close
together
and
I
I
know
that
there
are
relatively
fewer
four-bedroomed
houses.
D
But
if
I
was
buying
a
four-bedroom
house,
I
wouldn't
want
to
be
so
bang-up
against
no
matter
how
good
the
neighbours
are,
and
I
think
that
we
are
to
defer
this
and
ask
the
officers
to
negotiate
a
lower
density
of
houses
in
accordance
with
the
original
outline
permission.
B
Okay,
just
before
we
do
that
david,
I'm
gonna
bring
you
in
on
a
technical
point
here,
because
can
you
just
clarify
what
the
outline
position
gave
because
the
150
from
my
understanding
refers
to
the
site
allocations
plan
and
mr
dunban
did
address
our
policy
and
dwellings
per
hectare
etc?
So
could
you
just
clarify
the
position
on
the
outline
approval.
F
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
yeah.
I
think
this
similar
issue
came
up
on
the
pit
lane
application
as
well
to
be
fair
and
and-
and
it
does
often
quite
crop
up
essentially
when
they
allocate
the
sites
for
housing,
they
they
do
a
sort
of
rough
calculation
and-
and
I
think
the
important
thing
to
to
remember
or
remind
members
of
is
at
the
time
those
calculations
were
undertaken.
F
There
was
a
different
green,
green
space
requirement
and,
broadly
speaking,
that
used
to
equate
to
about
a
third
of
the
site.
So
by
default
you
often
get
an
indicative
number
for
the
for
the
site,
that's
lower
than
what
actually
comes
forward.
F
The
outline
was
for
access
only
with
all
other
matters
reserved,
so
essentially
planning
permission
has
been
granted
for
the
principle
of
housing
on
this
site
and
the
the
actual
number
is
still
to
be
agreed
as
part
of
this
application
and
jonathan
alluded
to
the
fact
that
the
density
is
actually
32
units
per
hectare
and
what
we'd
expect
to
see
is
around
that
density.
For
for
a
site
like
this,
and-
and
I
guess
the
wider
point
is
as
an
allocated
site-
we
do
want
them
to
be
developed
out
efficiently.
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
I
was
going
to
support
what
david
said
in
a
lot
of
way,
but
I
think
we've
we've
noticed
that
other
planning
applications
over
the
last
few
months
that
the
figure
that
the
sap
has
caught
on
a
lot
of
these
sites
is
underestimates,
what
what
is
likely
to
actually
go
on
to
them.
C
So
I
think
the
applicant
has
said
that
he's
compliant
with
policy
regarding
density
of
hands-
and
I
don't
haven't
heard
david-
contradict
that
I
think
the
applicant
has
also
been
considerate
to
a
large
degree
if
the
number
of
homes
was
in
the
170s
and
he's
now
reduced
it
further.
C
Even
though
it's
not
down
to
the
150,
I
think
they
have
been
reasonable.
I
did
have
concerns
initially
about
the
number
of
four
bedroom
homes
on
the
site,
but
again
it's
policy
compliant
again.
If
the
applicant
is
working
with
the
housing
federation
to
provide
what
they
need
regarding
the
affordable
housing
and
it's
been
policy
compliant
there.
I
I
cannot
see
any
advantage
in
deferring
this,
and
I
would
prefer
that
we
vote
on
it
chair.
Thank
you.
B
Okay
thanks
thanks
for
that
at
the
moment,
then
I've
got
obviously
counseling
the
deferral
suggested
on
the
table.
Counselor
collins,
they're,
suggesting
we
don't
defer.
There
was
scope,
I
believe
in
conditioning
a
slightly
alternative
motion
and
defer
and
delegate
so
that's
another
opportunity,
but
I'll
bring
cancer
nash
in
to
see
what
our
current
thoughts
are.
D
If
I
didn't
pick
up
from
the
report,
which
I
did
I
thought
thoroughly
read,
I
thought
it
was
established
that
planning
outline
permission
had
already
been
given
for
150
rather
than
the
spatial
strategy
I
mean
I
have
been
present
when
in
mickelfield
we
did
increase
the
number
of
houses,
because
I
I
thought
the
houses
were
well
spaced
out
on
the
application,
but
we've
to
look
at
what
is
in
front
of
us,
and
it
is
my
view
that
those
houses
are
very
very
close
together.
D
They
are
all
detached
houses,
or
most
of
them
are,
but
they
might
as
well
be
terraced
houses,
and
I
think
there
are
just
too
many
on
this
side
and
I
I
would
like
to
move
that
further
discussions
take
place
to
reduce
the
density
of
housing
somewhat.
A
A
D
Could
I
say
that
I
I'm
not
sure
about
the
delegate
business
I
I'd.
Rather,
it
came
back
to
committee
to
the
panel
for
final
approval.
D
G
G
We
obviously
have
to
take
a
vote
on
that
first
and
then
we've
got
the
recommendation,
which
is
before
members
also,
and
the
recommendation
before
members
is
subject
to
the
conditions
set
out
on
pages
17
and
18
of
the
papers,
plus
an
amendment
to
condition
two
to
secure
landscaping,
details
as
well
as
landscaping
management
plan,
which
is
referenced
in
the
condition,
an
additional
condition,
details
of
access
measures
to
the
public
right
away.
To
be
sorry,
access,
control
measures
to
public
right-of-way
to
be
agreed.
G
If
this
helps
members
also
that
there
has
been
a
commitment
made
that
there
are
obviously
a
number
of
conditions
on
the
original
outline
planning
permission
to
deal
with
such
matters
as
landscaping,
details
and
biodiversity
and
sustainability,
and
there
is
a
commitment
there
to
consult
with
the
ward,
the
ward
members
and
the
parish
council
on
those
details
when
we're
just
considering
and
discharging
those
details
that
we
will
carry
out
that
consultation.
B
Thanks
david,
that's
helpful,
so
we
moved
to
the
vote
then,
on
councillor
nash's
motion
to
defer
the
the
application
for
at
least
a
cycle
to
deal
with
the
number
of
houses
so
seconded
by
councilman
mitchell.
B
B
And
my
vote
is
against,
but
I
believe
the
motion's
been
carried.
If
you
just
give
us
the
numbers
debbie,
please
fought
against
abstentions.
A
B
Abstentions:
okay,
so
the
the
motion
is
as
proposed
by
counselor
nash,
as
has
passed,
which
is
to
defer
for
further
discussions
about
the
numbers
housing
numbers
on
the
sides.
David.
Is
there
anything
you
need
to
add
to
that.
G
Thank
you
chair,
probably
anything
is
that
well
just
a
couple
of
things
that
we'll
obviously
bring
that
back
to
plans
panel
in
accordance
with
the
the
deferral
and
my
understanding
in
terms
of
the
density
is
to
look
to
increase
degree
of
separation,
spatial
qualities,
as
it
were,
of
the
particular
development,
and
that's
that's
the
matter.
We
will
concentrate
on
it's
very
difficult
to
put
a
figure
to
that.
What
we'll
aim
for,
but
we'll
we'll
look
to
improve
the
general
spatial
setting
of
the
dwellings.
G
B
B
A
A
E
I'm
just
checking
to
see
if
people's
cameras
are
back
on.
There
are
a
few
still
waiting.
E
E
B
All
right
ready
to
go.
Welcome
back
everybody
and
we're
on
to
agenda
item
eight,
which
is
the
change
of
use
of
a
dwelling
into
a
house
and
multiple
occupation
at
41,
spencer
players,
chapel
town
and
glenn
is
going
to
present
this
report
so
glenn
when
you're
ready.
H
Thank
you
chair
if
you
could
just
move
the
screen
on
please
lewis.
H
Thank
you.
This
is,
for
the
change
of
use
of
number
41
spent
a
place
to
a
house
in
multiple
occupation,
just
at
the
very
beginning
to
to
point
out
a
slight
amendment
to
the
report.
Typo
that
slipped
in
on
paragraph
20,
the
reference
to
the
emergence
spd
should
reference
2021
and
not
2020,
so
hopefully
that
will
will
make
more
sense
given,
given
that
minor
change
there,
the
proposal
is
brought
for
planned
parenthood
determination
as
a
result
of
request
from
all
of
the
ward
members
covering
this
area.
H
For
the
reasons
outlined
in
the
in
the
report.
I
think
it's
just
some
very
brief
points
that
I
really
want
to
make
about
this
proposal,
because
I
think,
on
the
whole,
it
is
fairly
self-explanatory.
H
First
of
all,
I
think
it's
important
to
to
to
re-emphasize
the
the
comment
made
in
respect
to
the
article
for
direction
that
takes
away
the
permitted
development
allowance.
That
would
have
allowed
this
to
be
converted
into
a
house
under
multiple
occupation
that
article
for
direction
does
not
in
itself
introduce
an
assumption
for
refusal
of
any
subsequent
applications.
Following
the
declaration
of
that,
it
simply
takes
that
right
away
that
the
the
automatic
change
of
use
exists.
H
It's
up
to
the
decision
maker,
obviously
planned
parenthood
in
this
case,
to
to
decide
on
the
merits
of
the
case.
That
has
been
the
the
planning
merits
in
front
of
members
at
the
moment
are
the
the
proposed
layouts
of
the
property
and
it
its
location
plan,
as
you
can
see
in
the
sort
of
bottom
right
hand,
part
of
the
of
the
drawings
there,
and
the
second
important
point
I
think
it's
important
to
draw
out
is
that,
as
is
quite
difficult,
sometimes
with
these
kind
of
conversions
to
meet
the
internal
space
standards.
H
The
case
office
has
actually
been
able
to
negotiate
a
layout
on
this
one
where
those
internal
space
standards
are
not
only
met,
but
in
some
cases
exceeded
and
those
details
again
are
in
the
report,
and
there
are
certain
safeguards
in
terms
of
the
conditions
that
we
are
recommending
to
ensure
that
those
space
standards
are
retained
so
that
the
internal
layouts
over
time
don't
get
changed
so
that
smaller
rooms
turn
into
bedrooms.
H
For
whatever
reason
in
in
order
to
maintain
that
level
of
immunity
and-
and
I
think
that
that's
quite
a
strong
thing
that
goes
in
favor
of
this
particular
proposal,
could
we
move
to
the
next
slide?
H
Please,
just
just
some
photographs
now
of
the
general
area
for
members
together
feel
free
to
who
don't
know
the
area
in
detail
the
it's
an
end,
victorian
terrace,
as
can
be
seen
from
that
photograph,
and
the
the
thing
with
this
location
is
that
on
street
car
parking
is
generally
speaking,
something
that
happens
as
a
matter
of
course,
because
the
very
nature
of
the
age
of
the
dwellings
that
dominate
the
location
means
that
there
is
no
provision
for
sd
card
parking
by
and
large.
H
For
for
the
individual
plots,
so
we
have
actually
had
this
proposal
assessed
by
our
highways
colleagues
and
the
conclusion
that
they
come
to
is
that,
in
terms
of
the
intensity
of
car
parking,
what
would
expect
with
this
kind
of
hmo
compared
to
its
use,
to
be
occupied
as
a
conventional
c3
dwelling
house?
There
is
no
difference,
and
so
they
have
actually
raised
no
objection
to
the
the
proposed
change
of
use.
In
this
instance.
H
Could
we
move
to
the
next
slide?
Please?
This
is
the
property
to
the
rear.
As
you
can
see,
the
the
roof
space
has
already
been
converted
and
benefits
from
a
dormer
window
in
the
roof
extension
there
could
move
to
the
next
slide.
Please,
and
this
final
slide
is
to
help
members
to
come
to
or
try
to
come
to
terms
with
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
by
the
ward
members
in
terms
of
intensity
of
these
kind
of
uses
that
are
in
the
local
area.
H
Whilst
this
looks
like
the
area
is
suffering
from
the
measles
at
the
moment,
and
the
red
dots
tend
to
stand
out,
if
you
take
into
account
the
scale
of
this
this
plan
and
that
a
lot
of
those
grey
patches
are
actually
long
runs
of
terraced
houses,
the
the
number
that
have
actually
been
converted,
either
through
the
grant
of
planning
permission
or
through
the
through
the
permitted
development
rights,
or
simply
because
they
are
not
development
compared
to
the
number
of
standard
housing
that
are
left
as
conventional
family
housing
that
the
density
or
the
intensity
of
those
change
of
use
is
is
actually
quite
low.
H
Even
though
there
might
be
sort
of
identifiable
little
little
pocket
marks
and
just
to
put
into
context.
The
the
big
blue
arrow
is
to
indicate
the
location
of
the
application
site.
So,
given
the
the
contents
of
the
report
and
the
details
that
that
goes
into
that
it
concludes
my
presentation,
and
I
would
just
advocate
that
we
recommend
the
proposal
for
planning
permission.
Thank
you,
chair.
B
Thanks
for
that,
glenn
appreciate
it
now
we
don't
have
any
speakers
against
and
therefore
for
this
application.
So
we
move
straight
on
to
questions
to
officers
from
members.
So
in
the
usual
way,
if
you
raise
your
hands-
and
I
will
bring
you
in-
and
it's
counselor
collins
again-
quickest
off
the
mark,
virtually
all
the
time.
C
Just
a
couple
of
things
on
the
drawings,
it
shows
existing
a
basement
floor
plan.
Can
I
just
have
confirmation,
I
presume
that's,
staying
as
a
separate
flat,
because
it's
not
doesn't
show
any
proposed
changes.
So
just
if
officers
can
confirm
or
explain
that
bit
and
then
I
just
wondered
the
front
of
the
building.
It
looks
like
it's:
it's
actually
paved.
C
It
was
there
any
reason
why
that
wasn't
considered
for
off
street
parking.
Was
that
discussed
with
the
applicant's
talk.
H
Yeah
in
respect
of
the
first
point:
yes,
the
the
the
basement
flat
has
been
granted
consent
for
a
separate
unit
of
accommodation
some
time
ago,
and
this
application
relates
only
to
the
ground
floor
upwards.
It's
all
the
housing,
multiple
occupation
will
sit,
atop
the
the
separately
accessible,
independent
flat
underneath
in
terms
of
the
ostic
car
parking.
H
As
I
understand
it
now
we
didn't
mention
the
idea
of
using
that
frontage
for
for
car
parking.
H
The
there
are
any
number
of
reasons
for
that,
and
not
least
of
all
is
if
the
intensity
of
the
impact
of
the
use
of
the
unit
as
a
whole
is
now
worse
than
what
the
existing
impact
is
of
it.
As
a
separate
house
because
of
the
car
park,
requirements
that
relate
to
housing,
multiple
occupation
against
c3
dwelling
houses,
then
we
wouldn't
necessarily
want
to
be
rolled
the
positive,
the
positive
impact
that
that
frontage
has
to
the
street
scene.
H
We
would
have
gone
down
that
route
had
there
been
a
significant
shortfall
in
car
parking
provision,
no
doubt,
but
I'm
crystal
ballgazing
now,
but
given
that
the
impact
is
neutral,
there's
no
real
reason
or
justification
for
us
doing.
That
for
something
that
visually
visually
would
be
proven
from
our
point
of
view.
E
Thanks
chair,
it
could
just
be
an
oversight,
but
bedroom
three
doesn't
seem
to
have
any
bathroom
facilities.
It
is
a
large
room.
I
wondered
whether
that
was
an
oversight
or
whether
they
had
to
share
with
a
one
of
the
other
rooms.
H
That
that
is
the
nature
of
hmos
in
some
instances
whereby
there
are
shared
facilities,
some
some
rooms
will
have
certain
limited
access
to
facilities
such
as
maybe
a
toilet
or
a
wash
basin,
and
then
other
rooms
will
be
reliant
on
communal
facilities
for
for
those
provisions-
and
it's
not
unusual
for
there
to
be
a
mixture
of
provision
within
the
within
the
same
property,
but
that
is
the
nature
of
hmos
anyway,.
E
Yeah,
I
understand
that
it's
just
the
other
four
bedrooms
all
have
an
ensuite
and
there
is
no
reference
to
shared
facilities
anywhere.
E
Provide,
I
think,
he's
answered
my
question
which,
which
room
is:
is
the
bedroom
three
occupant
going
to
share
with
these
facilities
with
sorry,
I
don't
mean
to
be
obtuse.
I
just
can't
see
where
you
know
where
he's
gonna
go,
because
if,
if
I
had
an
ensuite
bedroom,
I
wouldn't
be
happy
if
somebody
else
had
to
then
come
in
and
use
my
facilities
if
it's
a
jack
and
jill
fair
enough.
E
But
obviously
I
don't
want
somebody
walking
through
my
bedroom,
who
I
wouldn't
necessarily
know.
Sorry,
sorry,
I
don't
mean
to
be
awkward.
H
No,
no!
No,
not
at
all
my
understanding
was
that
there
was
communal
toilet
facilities
for
all
the
occupants
to
to
no
sorry
bed
space.
Three.
G
Yeah,
I
might
be
able
to
help
here
actually,
just
if
you
go
to
bed
space,
three
there's
a
kitchen
which
sticks
out
the
back
and
just
to
the
right
of
that
there
is
a
bathroom
yeah
which
looks
to
be
for
the
exclusive
use
of
bed
space.
Three,
so
I
think
they
they
all
do
have
their
own
wash
shower
facilities.
B
B
D
D
Houses
in
multiple
occupation
generally
do
cause
problems
for
the
area,
but
I
I'm
the
longest
serving
member
on
this
council
and
I
can
count
on
one
hand
one
hand,
only
people,
constituents
who
come
to
me
and
say
we
want
a
single
person
flat
or
single
person,
accommodation,
but
all
of
us
all
the
time
misguidedly
from
housing
applicants
come
to
a
counsellor
because
they're
so
desperate
to
get
a
house,
and
this
is
happening
all
the
time,
and
here
we
are
taking
a
house
out
of
circulation.
D
It's
a
pity
really
that
this
wasn't
an
outline
application
in
the
first
place,
because
clearly,
a
lot
of
work
has
gone
on
designing
a
bedroom,
ensuite
bedroom
spaces
and
obviously
has
taken
up
quite
a
bit
of
officer
time.
So
it's
a
pretty.
This
wasn't
an
outline
application
in
the
first
place,
but
I
cannot
support
this
application.
B
C
Thank
you
chair,
I'd,
just
like
to
say
congratulations
to
the
planning
officers
really
if
they
have
truly
negotiated
these
bedroom
sizes
with
the
applicant,
it's
actually
nice
to
be
able
to
see
that
the
bedroom
sizes
are
larger
than
the
minimum
that
our
policies
set
out.
I
can
appreciate
that
there
are
families
throughout
the
city
who
want
bigger
houses.
C
Smaller
houses
want
to
downsize,
but
we
can't
forget
that
there
are
also
a
lot
of
youngsters
who
want
to
leave
home
and
just
want
to
live
in
a
single
bedroom
or
are
moving
to
our
city
and
want
to
find
somewhere
quickly.
That's
just
a
signal
bedroom.
C
These
developers
would
not
be
putting
in
these
houses
of
multiple
occupancy
and
negotiating
at
length
with
our
officers
if
there
wasn't
a
requirement
for
it,
so
I
think
I
would
be
supporting
the
officers
I
mean
voting
in
favor
of
this.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Sorry
to
come
back
to
a
point
is
just
something
that
council
nash
said.
That's
made
me
raise
this
particular
point
now,
because
I
was
minded
to
support
the
officer
recommendation,
but
is
there
any
record
of
us
having
to
go
to
appeal
on
any
of
the
other
hmos
in
the
area
and,
if
so,
for
the
outcomes
of
these
appeals.
B
So
that's
back
to
a
question
there
which
I'm
happy
to
take
because
it
does
help
in
the
decision
making
progress
so
a
process
rather
to
make
progress.
So
sorry,
glenn,
can
you
answer
that
one
or
david.
G
I
can
help
with
that.
Actually,
chair
done
a
little
bit
of
research
looking
from
the
period
of
2014
to
the
period
up
to
september
of
last
year
across
the
city
with
we'd,
had
29
appeals
concerning
conversions
from
houses
to
hmos.
G
Only
a
to
those
appeals
related
to
areas
outside
of
northwest
leeds,
and
by
that
I
mean
headingley
hyde
park
and
the
meanwood
meanwood
area
of
those
eight
we've
actually
only
won
two
appeals
and
we
won
those
one
on
grounds
of
amenity
that
the
standard
of
accommodation
that
was
being
provided,
one
of
the
hmos
wasn't
sufficient
and
the
other
one.
G
We
won
on
the
fact
that
it
resulted
in
the
cluster
of
three
or
four
properties,
almost
next
door
to
each
other
in
a
particular
area,
and
the
inspector
came
to
the
view
that
that
would
have
a
harmful
effect
in
terms
of
the
general
character
and
the
amenities
of
the
area.
But,
interestingly,
the
inspectors
said
that,
generally,
it
didn't
result
in
an
overconcentration.
G
The
point
that
council
nash
raises
about
the
loss
of
the
the
house.
That's
picked
up
in
policy
policy
h6,
and
I
know
this
is
a
big
concern
for
for
members,
particularly
those
members
who
represent
inner
city
city
wards.
With
the
premium
that's
placed
on
family
housing,
we
can
only
the
policy
only
lend
support
to
protecting
family
housing
when
there's
a
high
concentration
in
this
area.
G
Looking
at
the
figures
that
reproduced
in
the
report,
if
I've
understood
those
figures
correctly
and
I'm
I'm
looking
at
page
page
49,
paragraph
37
and
paragraph
well-
it's
paragraph
30
37.
When
you
look
at
that
that
examines
the
concentration
of
a
number
of
properties
in
the
vicinity
of
the
application
site
and
then
the
wider
area.
If
you
take
those
together,
the
white,
the
application
site
and
the
wider
area,
it
looks
as
though
the
concentration
of
hmos
is
around
about
11
of
the
totality
of
of
properties.
G
Of
those
appeals
that
I
mentioned,
there
were
two
which
were
in
quite
close:
proximity,
grangeview
and
grange
terrace
to
the
application
site,
both
those
appeals
that
we
had-
and
this
goes
back
to
around
about
2017,
I
think
from
from
memory.
Sorry,
I
can't
find
my
note
straight
away,
but
yeah
there
were
2016
applications,
grangeview
and
grange
terrace
and
the
appeals
probably
would
have
been
dealt
with
in
2017
in
that
local
area.
In
that
vicinity,
the
concentration
was
around
about
10
percent.
G
G
When
you
look
at
when
I've
looked
at
the
other
appeals,
we've
been
typically
looking
around
about
the
10
to
13
mark
outside
of
the
north
in
a
northwest
area,
and
we
found
it
very
difficult
to
persuade
inspectors
that
that
figure
is
a
is
a
high
concentration.
So
that's
that's
the
appeal
background
that
that
we
have
chen.
G
A
That's
that's.
You
must
have
known.
I
was
going
to
ask
the
question:
that's
why
you've
done
the
preparation.
Mr
newberry,
I've
been
on
this
finals
to
too
long.
In
that
case,
I
will
be
endorsing
the
comments
made
by
councillor
collins.
D
D
If
members
are
satisfied
with
the
spatial
standards
inside,
I
think
I
I'm
prepared
to
move.
We
do
accept
it.
B
Thanks
for
that,
counselor
nash,
are
there
any
further
comments
from
members?
No
just
my
thoughts
again,
I'm
not
a
huge
fan
of
hmos,
but
I
do
accept.
There
is
a
market
for
them,
otherwise
developers
wouldn't
be
developing
them
and
there
is
a
need
for
family
homes,
but
it
doesn't
follow
that
staying
as
a
family
home
would
actually
deliver
an
affordable
unit
on
a
social
rent
for
people
itself.
In
terms
of
the
parking
issue
again,
that's
covered
in
the
report.
In
that
the
the
argument
is
that
it's
similar
to
a
family
house.
B
I
don't
particularly
agree
with
that
at
all
actually,
but
that
seems
to
be
established,
custom
and
practice
on
that
one,
and
here
article
four,
it
does
have
some
protection
through
article
four
and
it's
being
engaged
and
used
appropriately
in
the
way
that
it's
been
used
to
negotiate
those
extra
room
sizes.
G
B
B
A
B
C
B
B
Thank
you
and
I
think
that's
self-explanatory,
carried
as
per
the
purpose.
Okay,
don't
think
you
need
to
add
anything
david
shout
up.
If
you
do
no
okay,
then
we'll
carry
on
straight
into
a
gender
item.
Nine,
which
is
for
a
single
story,
front
extension
and
single
story,
rear
extension
at
141
or
woody
lane
and
glenn
is
going
to
present
this
report.
H
Thank
you
councillor
if
you
could
move
it
on
to
that
plan
thanks
thanks.
That's
great!
H
This
is
a
domestic
extension
which
is
brought
at
the
request
of
council
buckley.
For
the
reasons
outlined
in
the
report.
The
proposal
is
is
relatively
simple
and
straightforward.
It's
for
a
single
story,
front
extension
that
in
fills
the
gap
between
two
forward
projections
and
a
single-story
rear
extension,
which
will
project
out
from
the
rear
elevation
of
the
property
by
about
5.3
meters.
H
If
you
could
move
on
to
the
next
slide,
please
because
it's
zoomed
in
a
little
bit
closer
the
single
story,
front
extension
is
in
that
gap.
Members
can
see
pretty
much
roughly
in
the
middle
of
the
screen,
where
you've
got
a
play,
room
and
garage
to
the
left,
and
I
think
the
words
are
study
in
a
small
existing
projection
forward
at
the
front
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
screen
and
the
members
can
probably
see
the
main
entrance
door
to
the
property
in
the
center
there.
H
If
we
could
move
on
to
the
next
slide,
please
this
is
the
actual
foot
for
footprint
layout
of
of
that
projection.
Before
I
move
on
any
further,
there
is
a
couple
of
updates.
H
We
have
had
submitted
relatively
recently
a
plan
showing
the
retention
of
two
conifer
trees
close
to
the
boundary
to
the
neighbours
to
the
the
west.
As
as
we're
looking
at
that,
drawing
it
would
be
the
neighbor
to
the
right
hand,
side
and
the
conifer
trees
that
are
thought
to
be
protected
are
what
would
be
in
the
bottom
right
hand,
corner
of
that
drawing
and
are
nailed
out
on.
H
This
particular
plant
indicated
by
dotted
lines
they're
a
couple
of
conifer
trees
that
they
are
now
seeking
to
retain,
and
we
have
had
a
submission
of
representation
from
the
neighbor
number
165,
which
is
the
property
as
we're.
Looking
at
the
screen
at
the
moment,
to
the
left-hand
side,
who
was
hope,
hoping
to
be
able
to
make
it
to
the
plant
panel
to
make
representations
themselves
but
are
unable
to
make
it
due
to
work
commitments
and
so
they've
submitted
further
representations,
which
I
will
try
to
summarize
as
accurately.
H
And
briefly,
as
I
can
first
point
they
make,
is
that
they
regret
it
being
reported
to
the
plans
panel
in
the
first
place,
but
they
don't
expand
on
the
nature.
Of
that
regret.
H
H
Now
that
was
an
application
that
this
planned
panel
dealt
with
a
few
years
ago,
and
it
was
for
the
complete
redevelopment
of
the
plot
at
number
165
for
the
property
which
is
now
on
the
site,
and
they
there
are
a
number
of
objections
that
have
been
lodged
that
make
comparisons
between
the
criteria
that
that
particular
development
was
asked
to
go
through
compared
to
this
particular
development,
and
we've
obviously
taken
those
on
board.
But
really
we
are
dealing
with
two
different
types
of
development
proposal.
H
A
lot
of
the
comments
that
were
made
by
officers
in
relationship
to
the
development
of
165
was
to
talk
about
the
protection
of
vegetation
on
the
common
boundary
in
relationship
to
potential
overlooking
of
this
site,
and,
and
there
are
lots
of
subtle
differences
between
the
between
the
two
approaches.
H
They.
The
comment
that
the
the
objective
on
165
was
made
is
that
their
main
requests
were
to
have
the
side
extent
the
side
of
the
rear,
single
store
extension
pulled
back
from
the
common
boundary
and
for
a
british
standard
tree
report
to
be
submitted
in
respect
of
the
impact
of
this
development
on
the
existing
vegetation
on
the
common
boundary
with
165,
and
that
was
ultimately
dealt
with
and
submitted.
H
So
we've
got
in
front
of
us
a
scheme
which
is
slightly
variance
to
what
was
originally
submitted
at
the
time
of
dealing
with
the
application.
The
case
officer
didn't
feel
that
a
pullback
from
that
common
boundary
was
absolutely
necessary
and
usually
a
full-blown
british
standard
tree
report
is
not
considered
necessary
for
a
domestic
extension.
H
H
The
gentleman
at
number
165
has
commented
in
these
recent
submissions
that,
because
these
two
things
have
subsequently
been
submitted,
their
main
concerns
are
alleviated,
but
they
they
say
at
a
cost
to
them
in
expanding
expense
and
in
time.
H
They
would
also
like
to
draw
the
plans
panel's
attention
that,
although
their
main
concerns
are
dealt
with,
the
paris
council's
concerns
that
the
development
will
result
in
an
overbuilding
of
the
site
by
the
increase
in
floor
space
of
30
of
the
original
duolingos
should
continue
to
be
taken
into
account.
They
consider
that
the
extension,
particularly
the
single
story,
rear
extension,
is
being
shoened
into
a
narrowing
plot
and
again
making
reference
to
the
2019
application
he's
of
the
opinion.
That
extension
should
respect
the
rear
building
line
and
again
as
officers.
H
We
were
comment
on
that.
The
the
the
idea
of
a
real
building
line
is
something
that
we
we
discussed
with
the
developers
of
165
at
the
time
of
the
2019
application,
not
so
much
as
to
respect
that
as
a
matter
of
principle.
But
in
terms
of
minimizing
any
loss
of
privacy
to
the
neighbouring
properties
as
a
result
of
the
increase
in
size
and
bulk
and
massing
of
the
property
on
that
side.
So
again
it's
kind
of
apples
and
oranges.
H
There
are
similarities
but
they're,
not
on
all
fours
with
one
another
and
then
the
final
comment
that
he
makes
is
that
all
of
this
may
be
irrelevant
anyway,
because
the
covenants
that
exist
on
the
sites
and,
of
course,
as
members,
will
be
aware,
the
existence
of
covenants
aren't
a
material
consideration
in
in
dealing
with
planning
applications.
So
that
would
be
up
to
the
the
relevant
parties
to
those
covenants
to
pursue
independently
of
this
process.
H
So
again
on
to
office's
comments.
We
we
consider
this
to
be
a
fairly
large
plot,
with
a
reasonable
size
dwelling
on
it,
and
we
don't
consider
that
the
proposals
representing
over
development
of
the
site
at
all
the
single-story
rear
extension
of
5.3
meters
is
on
the
large
size.
H
If
you
can
move
this
slide
forward,
please
so
we
can
get
a
perhaps
a
zoomed
out,
look
at
it
in
in
its
wider
context,
there,
the
neighbours
to
the
right-hand
side
there
you
can
see,
there's
a
reasonable
gap
between
the
side,
boundary
of
the
rear
extension
and
certainly
to
the
left-hand
side.
With
with
165..
H
I
think
it's
safe
to
say
that
the
small
infill
front
extension
has
no
immunity
implications
in
terms
of
neighbours
at
all.
If
you
could
move
the
slide
forward,
please
these
are
the
elevations
that
will
be
afforded
the
south
elevation
is
the
one
front
in
orbiter
lane
again
it's
not
going
to
be
readily
visible
because
it
is
set
deep
into
the
site
and
there
is
a
gated
and
walled
access
to
the
application
side
cell,
not
readily
visible
from
public
vantage
points
and
well.
H
The
rear
extension
on
the
north
elevation
there
is
is
what
it
is
if
you
could
move
the
slide
forward.
H
These
are
some
of
the
extracts
from
the
the
tree
reports
that
have
been
submitted,
showing
where
there
is
vegetation,
the
t1
and
t2
reference
in
that
drawing
are
the
two
trees
that
are
now
attempting
to
be
kept
by
the
developer,
with
the
submission
of
the
more
recent
plan
that
we
had.
It
wasn't
part
of
the
tree
report,
so
these
are
extracts
from
the
original
tree
report.
H
If
we
could
move
this
slide
forward,
please
again
another
extract
from
the
from
the
tree
report
there,
showing
the
the
retained
vegetation
and
the
trained
teas
trees.
Sorry
between
the
the
properties,
if
you
could
move
the
slide
forward,
please
a
mono
version
of
the
same
thing
there
as
the
trees
exist
on
site.
At
the
moment,
you
can
see
the
outline
of
the
the
existing
footprint
of
the
application
site
in
red.
There
could
remove
the
slide
forward,
please.
These
are
just
some
photographs
for
members
to
to
get
the
scale
of
the
property.
H
As
you
can
see,
this
is
the
frontage
the
right
hand
side.
There
is
the
the
garage
projection
and
the
left
hand
side
is
the
single
story
projection?
That's
the
the
area
where
the
front
extension
is
going
to
infill.
If
you
could
move
the
slide
forward,
please
a
wider
view.
There
have
it
in
the
street
scene
move
the
slide
forward,
please
the
neighbor
to
the
left-hand
side,
which
would
have
been
on
the
planet.
We
were
looking
at
the
neighbor
to
the
right-hand
side
because
they
were
the
opposite
way
around.
H
Apologies
for
that
confusion,
just
the
way
that
the
planned
draw
was
drawn.
The
the
plans
would
all
woodley
rolled
to
the
top
of
the
drawing
so
with
north
and
south
of
the
opposite
way
around
to
what
we'd
normally
expect.
If
you
could
move
the
slide
forward,
please
a
close-up
of
the
infill
area
on
the
front
next
slide.
Please.
H
And
this
is
to
the
rear,
so
the
these
are
the
conifer
trees
that
are
now
seeking
to
be
protected
by
the
developer
and
the
next
slide.
Please
and
that's
the
common
boundary
with
165.
H
I
believe,
that's
probably
the
last
slide
if
you
could
just
move
it
forward,
just
to
double
check
that
yeah.
Thank
you,
so
it
it's
it's
on
the
basis
that,
whilst
we
have
taken
on
board
the
comments
of
the
neighbours
in
respect
of
the
objections
that
have
been
reported
in
the
plans
panel
report
that
you've
had
chance
to
read
and
the
the
update
that
I've
given
in
the
absence
of
the
neighbor
165
have
been
able
to
be
intent
in
attendance.
We
consider
that
the
proposal
is
acceptable.
H
B
Thanks
for
that,
glenn,
okay,
so
we
don't
have
any
speakers
against
the
recommendation,
but
we
do
have
mr
matthew
shepard
with
us.
If
he's
on
the
line
he's
on
my
list
and
stuart
uber,
who
I
did
inquire,
oh
yeah,
I
see
matthew.
Mr
shepherd
is
with
us
now
and
they're
in
attendance.
If
members
have
any
specific
questions
and
they're
well,
certainly
the
agent
mr
sheppard,
perhaps
stewart'll
mr
newbie,
will
enlighten
us
to
who
he
is.
B
I
can
now
yeah
thank
you
who
are
you,
mr
newby
student
you'll?
Be
the
architect
all
right?
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
okay,
so
we
have
agent
and
architect
here
for
any
questions,
but
we
start
off
with
questions
to
officers
and,
if
needed,
we'll
bring
mr
shepherds
and
mr
newbie
in
any
questions.
Counselor
anderson.
A
Just
quickly
chair
in
respect
of
paragraph
20,
the
adult
neighborhood
plan,
then
you
go
down
to
paragraph
21.
The
officer
mentions
three
potentially
relevant
policies.
I
don't
have
the
benefit
of
a
copy
of
the
neighborhood
plan
here.
So
he
says
these
are
relevant
ones.
What
are
relevant
about
them,
because
how's
that
you
know,
for
example,
be3
reducing
on
strike
on
street
congestion
how's?
A
How
does
this
application
imply
on
that
one,
because
I'm
usually
artistic
when
it
comes
to
objecting
against
applications,
even
I'm
struggling
to
try
and
think
how
I
could
use
that
one.
So
what
do
the
three
policies
actually
say
so
that
I
can
decide
whether
or
not
to
give
a
lot
of
weight
some
weight
or
no
weight
to
them?.
H
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
councillor.
The
the
thrust
of
the
two
of
the
policies
in
the
in
that
all
the
neighborhood
plan,
in
terms
of
domestic
extensions,
seek
to
actually
ensure
that
the
character
of
the
area
is
maintained
and
that
the
developments
don't
detract
from
the
character
of
the
local
area
and
then
the
other
thrust
that
combined
that
they
they
produce
is
to
ensure
that
onstreet
congestion
doesn't
get
any
worse
than
than
it
might
already
be
so
clearly.
H
Obviously,
the
the
congestion
one
is
relatively
straightforward
in
a
case
like
this,
because,
yes,
it's
a
material
consideration,
but
then
it's
a
big
non-entity
simply
because
we
know
that
the
amount
of
land
that
they've
got
on
the
garages
provision
that's
already
on
site,
is
not
being
affected
by
the
development
and
therefore
it
has
no
impact
in
terms
of
that
element
of
the
policy
in
terms
of
character.
Of
course,
that's
much
more
subjective,
but
we
would.
H
We
would
advocate-
and
apologies
if
this
isn't
explicit
in
the
report,
but
we
would
advocate
that
the
the
main
element
of
this
development
proposal
that
would
impinge
on
that
would
be
that
infield
development
on
the
frontage.
H
But
having
said
that,
we
don't
feel
that
that
relatively
minor
extension
on
that
frontage
in
any
way
detracts
negatively
from
the
character
of
the
overall
area
in
terms
of
its
contribution
to
the
street
scene
or
infilling
of
that
site,
so
that
that's
essentially
how
the
neighborhood
plan
does
does
fit
in
and
apologies.
If
we've
made
more
assumptions
in
the
writing
of
the
report
than
we
should
have
in
perspective,
explaining
those.
D
D
D
D
H
I
think
I
can
probably
only
comment
on
it
in
generalized
terms.
I
think
the
the
the
the
the
vegetative
boundary
between
particularly
165
and
the
application
site
is
complex.
H
Any
of
that
vegetation
actually
sits,
is
probably
a
much
more
difficult
task,
and
I
suspect
that
what
happened
in
the
drawing
up
of
the
documentation
in
order
to
address
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised,
a
best
attempt
has
been
made
in
order
to
plot
those
trees
and
and
the
bushes
and
vegetation
that
that
make
up
that
boundary
it.
It
is,
and
not.
H
Obviously
there
are
some
members
who
are
on
the
planet
panel
who
did
did
carried
out
the
site
visit
with
us
when
we
looked
at
the
redevelopment
of
165
and
also
casting
mine
back.
I
probably
remember
remember
exactly
how
mature
and
semi-mature
that
boundary
was
and
how
dense
it
was
of
vegetation.
And
obviously
the
same
is
sorry.
Is
this?
H
The
same
is
the
other
side
is
the
same
in
terms
of
it's
one,
vegetative
mass
along
that
boundary,
so
we
we,
we
obviously
as
officers,
are,
are
keen
to
encourage
the
retention
of
any
vegetation,
but
also,
we
obviously
have
to
walk
this
tightrope
as
it
were,
if
you
like,
whereby
in
this
particular
instance,
because
it
is
a
domestic
extension
and
because
there
is
no
absolute
requirements
under
this
particular
development
too,
to
to
to
have
any
retention
of
those
trees,
because
they're
not
protected
in
any
sense
other
than
when
the
165
was
to
be
built
there
when
they
were
to
be
protected
during
the
construction
period
of
walking
that
line
between
the
between
those
two
things.
H
So,
yes,
we
would
encourage
whatever
in
terms
of
vegetation
retention,
because
that's
just
a
good
thing
as
a
matter
of
principle,
but
then
in
terms
of
sort
of
making
the
assessment
of
the
impact
of
this
proposal
on
that
vegetation,
we've
looked
at
heaters
planning
offices,
we've
we've
had
our
trees
officers,
look
at
it
in
terms
of
the
reports
that's
been
submitted
and
we
have
concluded
that
yeah,
it's
acceptable
and
and
therefore
you
know
we,
we
would
move
forward
with
that
recommendation.
On
that
basis.
D
Yes,
well,
I'm
all
for
retention
of
vegetation
and
trees,
but
leilani.
I
do
nothing
to
support
british
wildlife
and
indeed
suppress
native
trees
and
vegetation.
So
what
I'm
saying
is
I
wouldn't
like
it
to
be
a
planning
condition
that
leilandai
trees
be
preserved
if
the
they're
left
all
well
and
good?
Well,
not
all
wearing
good,
but
I
wouldn't
be
concerned,
but
but
we
should
not
be
conditioning
the
retention
of
those
trees,
but.
H
H
And-
and
we
are
we
again
as
I
say
that
this
is
the
tiger-
we
are
walking
in
there
in
the
sense
that
we
are
not
recommending
explicit
conditions
that
require
the
retention
of
those
trees.
What
we're
doing
is
we're
accepting
on
face
value,
what
the
developer
has
said
that
they
will
do
and
said
yeah
we'll
we'll
base
the
recommendation
on
that,
but
we're
not
in
we're
not
asking
plans
panel
to
expressly
impose
a
condition
along
those
lines.
B
C
Thank
you
chair.
Just
a
brief
comment
to
the
applicant.
I
think
it
would
have
been
helpful
if
you've
actually
shown
the
size
of
the
two
properties
either
side
of
this
development,
because
unfortunately,
if
you
go
on
google
at
the
moment,
you
see
the
old
building
that
was
on
165
rather
than
the
the
new
one.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
really
have
a
question
at
this
point.
C
I
have
more
of
a
comment
that
this
does
not
look
out
of
keeping
with
the
properties
on
the
other
side
of
the
road
or
either
side
of
it.
But
I
was
just
wondering
whether
the
applicant
had
considered
whether
they
could
move
that
extension
edge
away
from
their
neighbor's
boundary
at
165.
A
We
have
through
dialogue
with
the
case
officer
and
your
landscaping
officer,
step
the
side
of
the
extension
in
front
165
to
ensure
that
it
complies
with
all
the
british
standards
in
relation
to
trees
and
offset
the
offset
dimension
to
the
dime
to
the
boundary
of
165
is
in
the
order
of
2.5
meters
to
the
extension
and
in
the
order
of
6.42
meters
to
the
property
165
at
the
narrowest
points,
and
I
think
that,
having
had
the
dialogue
with
both
the
case
office
in
the
landscape,
your
landscape
officer,
we
feel
that
we
have
gone
some
distance
in
which
to
ensure
we
have
worked
with
yourselves
to
achieve
a
acceptable
solution.
B
Or
not,
if
not
maybe
someone
move
a
motion.
Councillor
collins.
D
C
Oh
yeah,
sorry
chair,
I'm
just
repeating
myself
a
little
bit.
I
think,
having
looked
on
google
this
if
this
property
with
the
extension
doesn't
look
out
of
keeping
with
the
other
properties,
either
side
of
it
or
on
the
other
side
of
the
road.
So
I'm
minded
to
vote
in
favor,
chair.
E
Audrey's
chair,
I
was
a
little
late
there.
I
was
just
going
to
say
I
agree
with
councillor
nash,
where
I
don't
think
we
should
be
conditioned
for
any
of
the
cyprus
slash
lylandia
trees
to
be
saved
as
it
were.
Although
having
looked
at
this
slides,
we
were
shown,
I
suspect
one
has
been
damaged
in
the
in
the
recent
snows
and
is
likely
to
to
fail
anyway.
E
So
that
was
really
my
comment,
but
I
I
quite
like
it.
I,
like
I
like
this,
this
development,
I,
like
the
look
of
it
in
fairness,
sorry.
B
D
B
B
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.
So
we
have
the
office's
recommendation,
which
I'll
put
to
the
vote
proposed
by
councillor
smith
and
seconded
by
councillor
nash,.
B
A
C
B
B
Okay,
so
that's
passed
as
well,
so
thank
you
to
everybody
and
good
luck
with
the
build.
Thank
you
and.
I
B
G
B
With
that,
then
I'd
like
to
thank
everybody
who's
contributed
today.
Members
officers,
members
of
the
public
who've,
listened
in
I'm
sure,
there's
one
or
two,
and
just
to
remind
you
the
date
and
time
of
the
next
meeting
is
the
15th
of
april.
The
usual
time
of
1
30
so
have
a
good
afternoon.
I'll,
probably
see
some
of.