►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
afternoon
everyone
and
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
north
and
east
plans
panel.
My
name
is
councillor
caroline
gruen
and
I'll
be
chairing
today's
meeting.
Could
I
remind
everyone
that
today's
meeting
is
being
live
streamed
on
the
city
council
youtube
channel,
so
that
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
needing
to
be
present?
A
A
B
Thank
you
chair.
I'm
glenn,
allen,
principal
planning
officer
for
the
northeast
of
leeds.
A
Could
I
ask
the
clerk
now
to
take
us
through
gender
items,
one
to
five,
please.
I
Thank
you
chair,
so
under
gender
item
one.
There
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
agenda
item
two.
There
is
an
intention
for
the
meeting
to
go
into
private
session
as
appendix
1
of
agenda
item
9,
which
is
the
single
story.
Side
extension
at
the
large
news
and
green
road
is
designated
as
confidential
under
part
4f
of
the
council's
constitution
and
provision
of
access
to
procedure,
rule
9.2
under
agenda
item
3,
I'm
not
aware
of
any
late
items
of
business
under
agenda
item
4.
I
Could
I
ask
members
to
declare
any
interests
and
I
don't
see
any?
Thank
you
very
much
under
agenda
item.
Five.
Apologies
have
been
sent
and
received
from
councillor
stevenson
and
councillor
cohen,
is
in
attendance
as
his
substitute
today.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you
welcome
councillor
cohen,
thank
you
very
much
for
substituting
today
and
can
we
turn
to
the
minutes
of
the
last
meeting
and
could
I
thank
councillor
mckenna
in
his
absence
for
chairing
that
meeting
on
that
occasion,
can
I
ask
if
the
minutes
are
a
correct
record,
please
any
matters
arising.
A
I
don't
see
any
hands,
so
I
think
we
can
move
straight
on.
Thank
you
so,
on
to
item
number
seven,
and
in
your
own
time,
whenever
you're
ready.
B
Thank
you,
sir.
This
is
an
application
for
planning
permission
with
a
recommendation
to
refuse
for
a
single
story,
rear
extension
to
the
rear
of
number
532-534
scott
hall
road.
The
application
has
been
reported
to
plants
panel
because
we
received
a
request
from
a
local
ward
council
that
complied
with
the
council
standing
orders
for
referrals
to
plans
panel
and
the
the
council
who
wishes
to
express
their
support
for
the
development.
B
B
B
As
you
know,
from
the
site
visit
this
morning,
the
application
site
relates
to
a
double
retail
unit.
That's
at
the
end
of
a
row
of
single-story
units
on
scott
hall.
Road
is
indicated
on
the
location
plan.
That's
before
members.
At
the
moment,
I've
got
a
few
pictures
to
show
the
generality
of
the
area.
B
The
the
actual
application
site
is
where
it
says
liquid
recovery
on
on
that
particular
slide
and
members
will
note
the
the
boundary
trees.
This
is
the
frontage
and
some
of
the
activities
that
are
taking
place
on
the
frontage
on
a
fairly
regular
basis.
The
actual
application
site
is
in
that
photograph.
B
The
sign
that's
in
orange,
just
to
the
far
right
of
the
of
the
william
hill
property,
there
there's
some
photographs
of
the
trees
that
are
in
the
back,
which
will
be
relevant.
When
I
give
my
brief
presentation
on
the
merits
of
the
proposal,
as
members
will
be
aware
from
the
report
and
the
site
visit
this
morning,
the
impact
on
these
trees
to
the
rear
of
the
property
are
of
significant
concern
to
officers
and
that's
just
some
general
views
through
the
trees
of
the
neighbor
next
door.
B
So
that's
the
site,
as
it's
laid
out
at
the
moment,
there's
a
right
of
way
to
the
south
of
the
site,
but
but
that's
pretty
much
blocked
off
every
time.
I've
visited
the
site
to
take
make
an
assessment
of
proposals
on
this
society
that
right
of
way
would
just
not
be
accessible,
but
there's,
generally
speaking,
a
one-way
system
through
the
frontage
of
the
site.
B
The
the
four
courts
accessed
just
off
the
roundabout
as
you're
traveling
south
down
scott
hall
road
and
because
of
the
nature
of
the
road
being
a
dual
carriageway
where
the
the
vehicles
can
only
turn
left
into
it
and
right
out
of
the
side.
That
tends
to
be
a
bit
of
a
one-way
system,
but,
as
you
can
see,
to
fairly
simple
nondescript
building
at
present
and
the
proposed
extension
to
the
rear
fits
in
with
the
form
and
character
of
that
building
in
terms
of
visual
immunity.
B
Officers
have
no
concerns
because
the
location
of
it
around
the
rear
of
the
property.
So
in
terms
of
the
principle
of
development
and
subject
to
detailed
planning
consideration.
Officers
are
quite
comfortable
with
the
principle
of
the
development
and
in
respect
of
the
design
of
the
extension
again
largely
because
of
its
compliance
with
the
nature
of
the
existing
building
and
its
location
that
there
are
no
problems
with
the
design.
B
The
the
report
that
members
will
have
read
they'll
now
go
into
details
about
the
potential
impact
on
the
neighbors
amenity
and
there's
only
one
real
neighbor
that
can
could
conceivably
be
affected
by
this
and
they're
to
the
south
of
the
application
side
and
because
of
the
nature
of
the
building.
The
existence
of
a
dense
belt
of
planting
does
not
consider
to
be
any
immediate
immunity
issues
for
occupiers
of
that
property.
B
B
The
the
only
way
to
access
the
rear
is
from
the
north
of
the
access
way,
just
off
scotland,
road
at
the
north
end
of
the
parade
of
shops
and
there's
a
an
approximately
three
metre
gap
from
the
corner
of
the
northernmost
property
to
the
boundary
of
the
site,
which
has
a
concerns
in
terms
of
forward
visibility
and
certainly
wouldn't
allow
two
vehicles
to
pass
going
in
opposite
directions.
B
So
the
major
concerns
from
a
highways
point
of
view
in
terms
of
the
impact
that
the
development
will
have
on
highway
safety.
The
other
aspect
which
we're
of
concern
about
and
is
reflected
in
the
one
of
the
reasons
for
refusal
is
the
impact
that
the
development
will
have
on
the
trees.
B
B
So
in
terms
of
carbon
sequestration
and
their
impact
on
the
climate
emergency
declaration
that
their
demise
is
not
to
be
encouraged
in
our
view,
so
it's
it's
on
that
basis
that
we've
taken
the
the
the
approach
that
we
think
that
this
development,
whilst
it
will
have
some
relatively
minor,
benefit
in
terms
of
possibly
moving
activity
from
the
frontage
to
the
rear,
although
that's
not
by
all
means
100
clear
that
it
will
actually
do.
B
A
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.
Are
there
any
questions
to
officers?
We
don't
have
any
speakers
on
this
item.
Counselor
almas.
F
F
B
F
I
measure
it
off
at
two
meters,
the
trunk
from
the
back
of
this
new
extension,
two
meters,
so
very
close.
Thank
you.
D
I
I
noticed
that
this
service
in
our
vehicles
is
on
the
car
park
at
the
front
of
the
parade.
Has
there
been
planning
permission
for
this.
B
In
short,
no,
but
whether
that's
an
ancillary
activity
to
the
main
unit
is
something
that
we
would
need
to
discuss
with
legal
as
to
whether
it
would
actually
need
planning
permission.
It's
not
a
straightforward,
but
in
the
straight
answer
your
question
is
no.
A
I
was
interested
in
the
comments
from
highways
on
the
site
visit.
I
just
wondered
if
you
would
like
to
comment
on
the
access
and
entry
point.
C
I
think
there's
several
issues
with
the
proposed
access
around
the
rear.
One
is
when
I
went
on
a
site
visit.
There
were
cars
parked
at
the
entrance
to
there,
so
that
would
be
one
concern
that
is
displacing
parking
onto
the
parade
and
then
there's
a
really
right
angle:
bend
basically
around
the
back
of
the
building.
So
there's
no
foreign
visibility
at
all
the
sort
of
the
distance
between
the
corner
building
and
there's
posts
where
there's
a
telecoms
equipment.
So
there's
there's
pulse
and
ballard's,
protecting
that
and
that's
about
a
three
meter
gap.
C
So
there
really
is
very
little
room
to
get
any
vehicle
around
this.
You
could
get
a
vehicle
around
there,
but
there's
no
power
visibility.
The
track
is
not
made
up.
It
can't
even
really
be
described
as
a
track
and
there's
no
there's
a
lack
of
clarity
on
what
access
rights
they
have
for
vehicles
there.
So
there
is,
we
do
have
significant
concerns
if
this
proposal
was
to
take
that
sort
of
vehicle
servicing
around
the
rear.
C
Because
of
that,
unsafe
access
and
all
the
paradise
shops
do
have
some
kind
of
access
to
the
rear,
some
of
which
might
be
forming
emergency
sort
of
exit.
So
I
think
you
know
all
on
their
own.
We
do
have
significant
concerns
about
the
proposal.
F
A
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.
I
will
ask
for
other
comments
and
we'll
come
back
to
your
your
proposal.
Thank
you.
Any
further
comments
on
this
application.
G
Thank
you
chair.
Well,
I
just
formally
second
councillor
cohen's
proposal.
I
just
make
the
comment
as
to
the
I'm
sure
we've
all
had
frustrations
when
officers
haven't
wanted
to
bring
reports
that
we
think
should
come
to
panel
to
panel.
I
would
perhaps
ask
for
some
clarification
as
to
what
what
the
basis
was
for
this
coming
eggs.
It
seems
pretty
clear
to
me
and
it's
whether
this
panel
needed
to
make
the
decision.
A
D
J
Yes,
thank
you,
council
nash,
we'll
talk
to
our
complaints
team
when
we
investigate
the
matter
and
we'll
inform,
inform
you
and
share
the
outcome.
B
So
I'll
just
clarify
the
point
council
and
I'm
raised
about
the
reasons
for
bringing
it
to
planned.
Parenthood
is
because
it
was
requested
of
a
ward
member
who
wanted
to
support
the
local
business
and
so
that
the
economic
benefits
outweighed
the
planning
issues
so.
J
Yes,
thank
you
chair
and
just
to
explain
like,
like
all
requests,
we
do
consider
it
against
the
officer
scheme
of
delegation
and
the
key
test
is
whether
the
ward
member
raises
material
planning
considerations
and
then,
secondly,
whether
those
material
planning
considerations
go
wide
than
the
impact
on
than
on
immediate
neighbours
and
because
of
what
councillor
dowson
has
raised
in
in
terms
of
their
broader
material
planning
considerations.
J
Then
it
comes
to
comes
to
when
it
comes
to
plans
panel
right,
okay,.
B
B
The
the
original
application
to
which
this
appeal
decision
related
to
was
actually
debated
at
length
by
the
north
and
east
plans
panel
on
the
13th
of
august
in
2020.
B
The
recommendation
of
the
officers
at
that
time
was
to
unbalance
approve
the
development
and,
following
the
the
debate
that
took
place
at
that
plans
panel
meeting,
there
was
a
a
decision
to
defer
and
delegate
the
decision
to
officers
so
that
we
could
negotiate
hopefully
further
with
the
developers
to
improve
a
particular
relationship
of
the
development
with
the
next
door.
No,
the
next
door,
neighbours
property.
B
The
applicants
flatly
refused
to
negotiate
further
with
us
at
that
point
in
time
and
asked
us
to
determine
the
application
as
submitted,
and
so
on.
The
basis
of
the
concerns
of
plans
panel
that
had
been
expressed.
The
application
was
actually
refused
and
the
developer
appealed
that
decision-
and
this
is
the
the
summary
of
the
outcome
of
that
of
that
appeal.
B
B
Under
the
adoption
of
the
core
strategy
and,
more
specifically,
the
site
allocations
plan,
the
site
was
looked
at
again
as
to
its
contribution
towards
green
space
provision
and
because
largely
because
it's
under
private
ownership
and
he's
unlikely
to
come
into
the
public
realm,
and
also
the
fact
that
there
was
the
the
proceeds
to
be
sufficient
green
space
in
the
in
the
local
area.
Already
it
was
that
protection
was
removed
and,
to
all
intents
and
purposes,
the
site
became
what
we
would
refer
to
as
whiteland.
B
B
B
The
second
was
the
living
conditions
of
nearby
residents
with
regards
to
privacy,
outlook
and
light,
and
the
third
item
was
the
supply
of
housing
and,
in
particular,
with
regards
to
the
fact
that
the
scheme
seek
to
provide
a
particular
age
range
of
housing
provision
targeting
the
55
age
plus.
If
we
can
just
go
back
to
the
location
plan,
take
taking
the
living
conditions
of
the
nearby
residents.
First,
sorry
taking
them
out
of
order.
B
But
this
was
one
of
the
hot
topics
of
the
discussion
and
debate
that
was
held
by
members
at
the
august
planned
panel.
It's
the
the
property
to
the
the
left
of
the
inset
of
that
the
red
line
area
there.
That
was
a
particular
concern.
B
It's
it's
a
little
cottage
property
which
has
got
a
commercial
frontage
with
the
living
accommodation
to
the
rear,
as
members
can
see
on
that
that
plan,
but,
as
can
also
be
seen
on
that
location
plan,
which
perhaps
wasn't
as
apparent
when
you're
looking
at
it
on
site,
they
do
have
a
very
generous
garden
and
the
appeal
inspector
took
the
view
that
the
the
the
the
location
of
the
side
wall
of
the
proposed
building
with
the
safeguards
that
have
been
negotiated
anyway,
which
was
the
removal
of
windows
serving
up
serving
habitable
rooms,
largely
in
line
with
that
building
being
removed,
that
there
were
only
windows
to
things
like
bathrooms
and
staircases
that
can
be
obscurely
glazed,
that
there
was
actually
going
to
be
no
loss
of
privacy
sufficient
to
justify
refusal,
planning
permission
to
the
occupiers
of
that
residential
property.
B
That
would
no
doubt
be
a
change
to
the
outlook
from
that
garden,
but,
as
members
will
be
aware,
nobody
actually
has
a
right
to
review
under
the
planning
system.
So
the
the
inspector
can
consider
that
that
wasn't
a
justifiable
reason
for
refusal
in
that
instance,
in
terms
of
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
area.
B
With
due
regard
to
the
green
infrastructure,
the
the
appeal
inspector
agreed
that
it
was
correct
for
the
the
council
to
consider
that,
notwithstanding
that,
the
provision
of
its
statutory
protection
under
the
adopted
local
plan
had
been
removed,
but
that
it
was
still
a
material
consideration
but
considered
that
the
benefits
that
the
development
would
bring
in
terms
of
biodiversity
improvement
and,
in
particular,
the
supply
of
housing
to
the
55
plus
age
range
outweighed
that
particular
harm
as
identified.
B
That
was
also
a
key
consideration
in
another
aspect
of
this
appeal,
which
was
that
the
appellants
applied
for
costs
against
the
council,
arguing
that
we
had
acted
unreasonably
as
a
local
authority
in
considering
green
space
as
a
consideration
and
the
appeal
inspector
dismissed
that
part
of
the
appeal-
and
we
didn't
actually
get
costs
awarded
against
us.
B
But
I
think
from
from
our
point
of
view
and
as
a
learning
point,
that's
a
validation
of
the
fact
that
when
officers
bring
cases
to
members
and
members
raise
these
issues
and
discuss
them
and
debate
them
they're
within
their
rights
to
do
that
and
make
reasoned
decisions
on
those
bases
without
fear
of
having
costs
awarded
against
the
council
and
then
the
the
final
point
really
was
that
the
this
in
terms
of
the
supply
of
housing
overhaul,
it
would
be
a
good
windfall
contribution
to
the
five-year
housing
land
supply,
but
specifically
again
it
made
reference
to
the
55
plus
housing
market
niche
and
that
it
would
provide
a
significant
contribution
towards
a
need
there.
B
So
those
are
the
the
points.
I
think,
in
summary,
that
the
report
tries
to
bring
out,
and
hopefully
you
know
not
not
an
ideal
to
lose
an
appeal,
but
certainly
not
not
a
bad
outcome.
Overall.
A
H
That's
there,
and
I
know
I
think,
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
I
think
counselor
nash
actually
did
go
on
site,
so
I
think
she
had
the
benefit
at
the
time,
but
I
don't
think
the
rest
of
us
visited
on
site
in
our
own
time.
So
I'm
not
saying
that's
the
reason
why
we
made
the
decision,
but
it
was
far
more
apparent
when
we
saw
it
today
than
my
recollection
as
to
when
we
discussed
it
online.
It
must
have
been
about
one
of
the
first
applications
we
just
looked
at
online
quote
after
covert.
D
I
think
that
shows
the
importance
of
site
visits.
Unfortunately,
this
morning
I
wasn't
on
a
site
visit
because
I
didn't
get
the
notification.
I
I
don't
know
whether
it
was
my
computer
or
not,
but
I
didn't
get
it.
I
I
did
visit
the
site
because
I
knew
it
was
online
and
I
I
I'm
not
polishing
up
my
halo,
but
I
did
support
the
officer's
recommendation
at
the
time,
and
that
was
just
because
I
had
been
on
the
site
visit
and
see
what
was
what.
A
Thank
you.
I
would
like
to
say
lessons
learned,
but
we
didn't
have
a
choice.
Did
we
when
it
was
all
virtual,
so
we
had
to
get
on
with
the
job,
but
thank
you
for
that
context.
Is
everybody
happy
then,
to
to
note
and
receive
that
that
result?
Thank
you
very
much
indeed,
and
can
I
ask
panel
members
now
just
to
take
two
or
three
minutes
break
while
I
explain
to
the
applicant
the
procedure
for
the
next
item.
A
From
the
meeting
so
can
we
proceed
now
with
item
nine?
Please.
A
E
Right
lovely.
Thank
you,
members
for
those
that
were
on
the
site
visit
this
morning.
This
is
authentic.
Does
it
work
on
the
site
visit
this
morning?
This
gives
you
a
general
context
and
I'll
take
you
through
some
site
photographs
and
then
we'll
just
take
a
quick
look
at
the
plans.
E
E
E
This
is
a
view
of
the
property
taken
from
the
roadside
you
can
just
move
on.
This
is
actually
the
principal
elevation
of
the
property.
So
actually
it's
the
opposite
side.
Elevation
is
the
critical
elevation,
because
this
was
originally
the
access
into
the
listed
hall,
so
you're
picking
up
on
this
elevation,
the
party
coast
of
neoclassical
partico,
which
references
the
plagiarism
design
of
the
listed
building.
E
Can
we
move
on
again?
Please?
Is
it
just
moving
around
the
property?
So
that's
the
principal
elevation
you've
seen
the
end
of
there.
This
is
the
rear
elevation,
the
existing
conservatory
and
if
we
could
just
move
on
again.
Thank
you.
That's
comes
over
to
the
other
side,
and
this
is
where
the
extension
is
going.
E
It
follows
the
form
of
this
existing
outbuilding,
which
is
historic,
outbuilding
becomes
a
little
bit
wider
and
then
runs
into
this
space
here
as
a
single
story
structure.
So
just
move
on-
and
this
is
just
giving
a
wider
context
shot
and
again
you
can
see
where
the
extension
is
being
tucked
in
behind
here.
E
There
are
two
main
issues
which
I'll
just
talk
about
while
we're
looking
at
this
slide,
because
it's
a
useful
slide,
which
is
the
impact
of
the
developments
upon
the
green
belt
and
the
impact
upon
the
listed
building
I'll
take
the
list
of
building.
First
members
can
see
the
character
of
the
building.
E
The
other
key
issue
is
the
green
belts
members
can
see.
The
property
has
already
been
quite
extensively
extended.
The
original
building
is
that
elements
there
and
the
secondary
gable
running
back.
So
all
this
section
here
this
link
edition
and
the
conservatory
and
this
outbuilding
are
all
extensions
taken,
cumulatively,
with
the
new
edition.
It
is
inappropriate
development
in
the
green
belt,
which
has
the
policy
consequences
of
being.
We
have
to
take
that
as
causing
harm,
and
we
have
to
give
it
substantial
weight.
E
E
This
is
the
extension
in
the
elevation
that
was
that
slide.
We
were
lingering
on
and
the
extension
here,
that's
the
bit.
You
can
see
it
just
juts
out
slightly
beyond
the
existing
cable
and
perhaps
if
members
do
wish
to
discuss
the
applications,
it's
quite
a
nice
slide
to
linger
on
you're,
showing
the
area
currently
on
sites
and
the
extension,
just
as
a
3d
form
happy
to
take
questions.
A
A
F
Thank
you
chair.
I
was
just
wondering
if.
E
Yes,
the
the
nature
of
any
very
special
circumstance
case
is
that
it
has
to
be
unique
to
that
development
if
it
could
be
replicated
either
on
another
application
on
this
site
or
on
future
applications.
It
wouldn't
be
very
special
and
it
would
be
kind
of
general
really.
So
we
don't
believe
this
is
setting
any
kind
of
precedence.
E
It
is
the
balance
of
the
very
unique
factors
in
this
particular
instance
for
this
particular
extension.
E
So,
even
if,
because
the
the
report
does
identify
that
there
was
a
listed
building
application
about
three
or
four
years
ago
for
an
extension
in
a
very
similar
location,
which
is
going
to
form
a
kitchen
that
we
wouldn't
support,
because
there
were
no
very
special
circumstances,
so
that
hopefully
gives
you
some
comfort
that,
even
if
the
same
a
very
similar
development
came
but
for
a
different
reason,
it
would
be
inappropriate,
but
there
wouldn't
be
that
balancing
of
the
personal
circumstances.
D
Well,
I
have
to
say
I
I'm
concerned
about
the
current
mess
that
this
listed
building
is
in.
At
the
moment
I
mean
there's
been
various
extensions
and
how
they
got
planned
permission
in
the
first
place.
I
don't
know
that
we
are
where
we
are
I'd.
I'd
just
like
to
ask
a
question
on
the
proposed
the
new
bedroom.
D
If
you
want
to
bring
up
the
plan
it
does
jut
out.
I
I
don't.
I
know
there's
a
scale
here,
but
I
can't
work
out
that
scale.
D
Could
it
not
be
in
line
with
the
with
the
bathroom
so
that
you
know
you're
looking
straight
down
and
not
seeing
a
further
jutting
out
bit.
E
Right
but
my
suspicion-
and
I
haven't
asked
that
question
directly
of
the
agent
and
the
amount
it's
jutting
out
would
be
approximately
300
millimeters.
It's
approximately
a
wall
thickness.
Yes,
I
think
so
kind
of
story.
Council,
I'm
not
used
to
that
conversion
and
my
suspicion
is
that
because
the
extension
is
designed
to
meet
a
particular
need
that
that
size
is
determined
by
that
information.
Again,
quite
often,
we
do
see
on
plans
a
lot
of
detail
showing,
for
instance,
where
items
within
a
room
will
be
positioned
in
this
instance
that
detail.
E
Isn't
there
again
it's
to
do
with
the
kind
of
very
sensitive
nature
of
that?
If
that's
a
significant
concern,
we
could
pose
that
question
to
the
agents.
Some
members
could,
for
instance,
different
delegates
for
that
question
to
be
asked,
but
one
comment
I
would
make,
which
is
from
a
a
character
perspective
actually
having
it
be
slightly
different
and
slightly
if
it
followed
as
a
run-on
from
that
historic
because
that's
where
it's
coming
from,
and
that
is
a
historic
store.
E
E
A
D
Thanks
chad,
can
I
just
ask
the
previous
planning
history
on
page
49.
E
F
This
probably
won't
surprise
anybody
I'd
like
to
commend
officers
for
again
for
the
report
and
for
taking
a
really
sensible,
pragmatic
approach,
I'm
personally
very
content
in
the
special
circumstances.
Colleagues
around
the
table
will
know.
I
have
gone
to
battle
on
greenbelt
on
many
an
occasion.
A
Thank
you,
councillor
cohen.
Anyone
else
with
comments
before
I
move
to
that
councillor
anderson
again.
D
I
didn't
realize
we're
on
special
on
comments
yeah.
I
take
your
point
about
special
circumstances,
but
my
main
concern
is
that
this
is
a
listed
building
and,
quite
frankly,
it
looks
a
mess
with
all
those
extensions
with
that
flat
roof
extension.
Who
agreed
to
that.
I
should
like
to
know,
but
we
are
where
we
are,
as
I've
said
in
my
view,
if
the
new
bedroom
could
be
in
line
with
the
bathroom,
I
think
it
it
would
help
to
stop
that
added
on.
D
Look
that
that
that's
what
this
this
large
house,
it's
just
been
add-on
and
adam
and
adam,
but
if
you
say
that,
because
of
the
circumstances
that
size
of
bedroom
is
required,
then
I'm
happy
to
go
along
with
that,
but
I
I
I
really
am
disappointed
that
in
the
past
planning
permission
has
been
given
for
all
these
various
add-ons.
A
D
Yes,
by
the
way,
so
the
officer
said
it's
300
meters,
a
300
centimeters
and
I
said
our
foot
actually
on
the
plan.
It
says
500
centimeters,
which
is
half
a
meter.
G
Yeah,
thank
you
chair.
Well,
I
I'm,
I
don't
I'm
an
informally
second
councillor,
cohen's
motion,
my
comment
initiation.
I
I
take
council
nash's
points
on
board
about
the
current
state
of
the
building,
but
that's
not
what
we're
here
to
deal
with.
I
I
think
I
disagree
actually
about.
I
I
take
the
officer's
point.
I
think
it
looks
better
in
the
context
of
the
building
as
it
is
to
have
it
slightly,
not
too
linear.
I
think
it
will
look
stranger
as
a
long
straight
line
than
but
that's
a
matter
of
of
judgment.
G
Isn't
it
so
and
yeah
as
councillor
cohen,
says
we
can't
redesign
by
committee
here.
So
I
I
similarly
with
my
both
of
all
my
backgrounds,
instinctively
against
development
in
the
green
belts,
but
having
carefully
considered
the
special
circumstances.
A
Well,
thank
you.
I
would
like
an
opportunity
to
express
of
you
and
make
a
comment
as
well.
My
feelings
very
much
echo
those
that
have
already
been
expressed
about
these
special
circumstances,
which
I
believe
trump
all
other
issues
in
this
context.
So
I'm
happy
to
take
the
proposal
for
the
recommendation:
okay
and
the
seconder,
all
all
those
in
favor.
J
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
just
to
confirm,
then
that
members
have
resolved
to
grant
planning
permission
and
that's
subject
to
the
conditions
set
out
on
page
47
as
a
report,
just
just
to
note
that
the
applicant
will
need
to
make
an
application
for
listed
building
consent.
So
it's
not
the.
H
J
Of
the
administrative
process
as
it
were,
and
if
members
are
content
we'll
deal
with
that
at
a
delegated
level,
okay.