►
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
Welcome
like
to
welcome
you
all
this
afternoon
to
south
and
west
platform.
Again,
my
name
is
councillor
eileen
taylor
and
I
will
be
chairing
today's
meeting.
Today's
meeting
has
been
live
stream
and
the
city
council
youtube
channels
so
that
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
needed
to
be
present.
A
The
aim
of
the
panel
is
to
hear
all
the
relevant
information
from
applicants,
members
of
the
public
and
council
offices
to
help
members
of
the
panel
to
make
their
decisions
before
we
go
further.
Could
I
ask
all
members
and
officers
to
introduce
themselves
again,
I'm
councillor
taylor
and
I
represent
chapel
ellington
ward,
I'm
looking
around.
I
think
I'll,
go
to
the
right
today
for
a
change.
G
A
C
Thanks
chad
agenda
item,
one
there's:
no
appeals
against
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents;
agenda
item
two
there's
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
and
the
public
agenda
item.
Three.
I'm
not
aware
of
any
formulated
items
of
business
agenda.
Item
4
can
ask
members
to
declare
any
interests.
A
A
Now,
you're
all
happy
lovely.
Thank
you.
I
will
now
move
on
to
agend
item
7
15
stone
bridge
mail
only
cannot
end
over
to
the
offices
to
represent
this
example.
G
Thank
you
chair.
The
first
application
for
considerations
is
listed,
building,
consent
for
the
reduction
of
the
chimney
and
the
existing
chimney
at
stonebridge
mills
slide.
One
here
is
the
block
plan
of
the
site.
G
Just
to
give
some
visual
context
of
the
site
itself,
obviously,
is
the
chimney
in
question
as
you'll
see
there
on
the
slide.
This
view
is
from
stonebridge
lane
and
close
to
the
roundabout
on
the
main
ring
road
itself.
As
you'll
see,
the
chimney
is
a
prominent
feature
within
the
valley
bottom,
along
with
a
smaller
water
tower,
which
is
just
visible
there
in
the
picture
to
the
side
of
the
existing
chimney.
G
Again,
another
view
from
the
site
access
the
new
access
into
the
site
from
stonebridge
lane.
In
essence,
this
is
the
site
frontage.
The
chimney
stands
as
existing
at
34.5
meters
tall.
It's
constructed
in
natural
stone,
with
steel
banding
around
the
lower
portion
of
it.
G
There's
a
further
view
here
from
the
top,
but
not
the
top
from
further
up
stone,
bridge
lane
providing
a
view
down
from
the
north
towards
the
development
you'll
see.
Obviously,
the
chimney
itself
there
in
in
the
picture
behind
the
mill
building
the
chimney
are
scaffolded
in
sections
and
just
to
provide
you
with
some
context
and
obviously
the
reduction
in
height
is
looking
at
a
total
of
six
meters,
and
that
relates
to
approximately
two
of
those
runs
of
scaffolding,
which
you'll
see
the
platforms
there.
G
The
plan
shows
the
elevational
side
section
from
stonebridge
lane
and
indicates
the
proposed
chimney.
Height
will
be
lowered,
and
the
plan
outlined
by
the
applicants
is
to
lower
the
chimney
by
a
total
of
10
meters,
so
10
meters
will
be
removed
from
the
top.
However,
the
section
will
be
built
back
up
in
natural
stone
and
that's
to
facilitate
the
the
works
outlined
within
the
application,
so
the
chimney
will
be
reduced
by
a
total
of
four
sorry
by
six
meters.
G
G
In
addition
to
these
recommendations,
its
overall
height
is
to
reduce
by
six
meters
with
additional
steel
banding
to
the
lower
section,
approximately
eight
to
ten
meters
in
order
to
confine
further
crack
existing
cracking
and
add
further
stability
to
the
bottom
sections,
given
the
technical
nature
of.
Obviously,
the
report
which
was
submitted.
G
G
In
essence,
this
is
the
front
of
the
mill
building
and
the
chimney
from
an
internal
view
within
the
site
again
in
indicating
the
six
meter
reduction,
which
you'll
see
there
dashed
in
red
as
part
of
the
application,
conservation
officers
have
been
consulted,
given
the
heritage,
significance
and
enlisted
building
itself
conservation
officers
raised
no
objections,
and
this
is
mainly
based
on
public
safety
considerations
conservation
officers
summarize
that
the
harm
created
by
the
alterations
is
considered
less
than
substantial,
and
therefore
paragraph
201
of
the
mppf
applies,
and
this
requires
that
the
harm
should
be
weighed
against
public
benefits
of
the
proposal,
including,
where
appropriate,
securing
and
optimal
viable
use
so
ie.
G
This
is
the
final
elevational
view
from
the
north
side
of
the
mill
building
again
just
for
information
dashed
in
red
by
the
reduction
on
the
picture.
We
have
had
a
total
of
six
objections
to
the
application.
These
raise
concerns
with
the
following
issues:
the
harm
created
upon
visual
amenity
through
the
reduction
of
the
chimney,
the
chimney's
historical
importance
and
it
being
a
local
landmark
within
the
area
that
the
chimney
should
be
rebuilt
back
to
its
full
height
as
original
as
outlined
at
the
approval
stage
of
the
original
application,
and
issues
surrounding
that
perception.
G
G
These
require
exit
the
the
use
of
existing
stone
where
possible
or
sympathetic
stone
samples
are
required
and
will
be
approved
by
condition.
A
further
condition
is
to
be
attached
to
the
proposals
which
ensure
that
the
steel
banding
or
the
proposed
steel
banding
is
sympathetic
and
again
samples
or
specifications
would
need
to
be
provided
to
to
ourselves.
Obviously,
in
order
to
recommend
approval
on
those
final
details.
B
Chair
just
briefly,
could
I
ask
mike
just
to
use
the
the
laser
pointer
on
here
just
to
show
members
on
this
particular
photograph,
exactly
the
height
relative
to
the
the
banding
just
for
the
ones
that
weren't
on
site
today?
Thank
you.
G
Yes,
no
problem
and,
as
I've
touched
on,
the
the
chimney
itself
is
scaffold,
as
you
will
see
in
this
picture
here
in
various
platforms.
G
So,
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
actual
reduction
in
the
height,
the
reduction
is
six
meters
and
each
of
those
runs
which
are
obviously
these
sections
here,
they're,
roughly
three
meters
in
height,
so
the
actual
reduction
in
the
chimney's
height
will
be
two
of
those
scaffolding
runs
from
the
top,
and
that
will
be
obviously
the
finished
level
once
the
works
are
complete
up
at
the
top
of
the
chimney
here.
So
in
essence,
that
one
and
the
lower
one
will
give
it
a
reduction
of
six
meters
in
height.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
We
have
got
counselor
david,
blackburn
speaking
against
the
application.
K
I
don't
think
you're
necessarily
neat
four
minutes.
I
think
it's
a
fairly
simple
application.
This
we're
talking
about
a
chimney,
but
we're
talking
about
a
chimney.
That's
of
significant
importance
importance
as
regards
this
little
building
and
the
area
involved,
I've
gotta
say
I
first
became
involved
with
lodge's
mill,
which
is
what
somebody's
got.
K
The
name
was
about
20
odd
years
ago,
when
mr
lodge
invited
myself,
former
council
of
bedford
and
former
councillor
tower
to
a
meeting
about
his
aspirations
from
the
site
and
after
many
many
years,
we've
actually
got
an
application
on
site.
That
broadly,
is
acceptable,
but
we've
had
to
make
a
lot
of
compromises.
K
I
think
the
issues,
the
key
issues
all
along
with
this
site
was
the
old
cottages
which
unfortunately,
were
pulled
down
and
rebuilt,
which
is
not
what
the
original
permission
was.
The
mill
pond,
which
we
retained
but
didn't
retain
it
the
size
that
it
originally
was
the
water
tower
which
we've
got
in
place
and
we've
got
agreed,
it's
be
kept.
I
think
the
only
thing
without
one-
and
I
think
this
is
this-
is
outside
of
planning.
K
The
developer
wants
to
put
storm
bridge
on
it
and
most
locals
wanted
to
retain
what
he's
had
on
it
for
the
last
hundred
years
lodge
because
it
was
mill,
but
that's
a
non-planning
issue,
but
it
hasn't.
I
don't
think
it
hasn't,
hasn't,
helped
in
locality,
making
any
changes
more
popular
and
obviously
listed
building
and
the
chimney,
and
basically
ever
since
the
start,
it
has
been
the
particular
right
for
the
chimney
retaining
it
for
for
life.
It's
a
landmark
wound
out
ring
road,
it's
sort
of
the
border
between
finally
and
wurtly.
K
It's
a
key
structure
in
that
development,
and
if
you
look
at
what
so
trust,
says,
they're
they're
fully
in
agreement
with
that
and
it's
important
that
it's
retained.
The
previous
planning
committee
that
gave
the
for
the
full
application
did
so
and
made
particular
reference
to
the
fact
that
the
chimney
should
be
the
the
older
the
size
it
is
and
as
far
as
I
can
see,
you
know,
and
I've
been
to
a
number
of
meetings
with
developer.
K
It's
more.
It's
not
that
you
can't
do
it
it's
the
little
well,
I
must
have
probably
cost
that's
involved
and
they
don't
want
to
do
it.
There's
that
engineering
solutions
to
make
sure
you
can
keep
it
at
that
eye
and
rebuild
it
at
the
height.
As
far
as
I
can
see-
and
that's
always
been
the
situation
and
that's
always
been
the
argument
all
along
and
I've
got
to
say
going
back
to
the
planning
committee
at
that
time,
I
think
that
might
will
have
produced
a
different
decision.
K
K
I
think
I've
been
there
on
a
couple
of
occasions
recently
and
the
development's
coming
on
well,
but
is,
is
the
soft
pointless
there's
been
enough
compromises,
and
this
is
too
far
and
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
we've
always
known
there's
a
problem
with
structured
at
chimney,
and
surely
this
could
have
been
done
before
we
built
the
houses
and
that's
all
I've
got
to
say
jeff.
A
Now,
councillor
blackburn,
I
can
I
just
make
a
comment.
I
think
the
developers
would
have
loved
to
kept
the
chimney
the
way
it
is,
but
is
it
not
for
public
safety?
You
think
that
the
rm
trying
to
condense
it
down.
K
I
mean
well,
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
this
chapter
this
chap
put
an
objection
in,
but
I
told
him
to
do
so.
He's
got
a
bit
disillusioned
because
there's
been
a
couple
of
other
changes
where
he's
he's
objected
and
nobody's
setting
any
notice,
and
I've
tried
to
encourage
him
to
involve
himself
with
process,
because
if
you
don't
involve
yourself,
it
will
say
he
can't
sail.
Can
you,
but
I
mean
he's
at
each
other's
walls
worthless
to
me
so
we've
always
known
about
this.
K
We
have
a
number
of
years
to
do
something
about
it.
Why
haven't
we
done
it
and
why
haven't
we
dealt
with
it
at
an
earlier
stage?
And
that
is
my
point.
As
I
say,
we
always
knew
there
were
structural
problems
with
it
and
it
should
have
been
dealt
a
different
stage
and
maybe
we
might
have
found
solutions
that
would
have
made
it
more
acceptable.
F
Thanks
chair,
listen
to
council
blackburn's
comments,
and
I
I
appreciate
what
he's
coming
from
to
a
certain
point:
canceled
blackburn,
but
don't
in
planning.
Don't
we
often
really
need
to
apply
a
test
of
reasonableness
to
what
either
developers
are
proposing
or
counsel
or
the
community
is
asking.
So
I
guess,
do
you
think
he's
reasonable
to
say
that
that
six
meters
shouldn't
be
lost
given
that
that
will
be
enquired
further
costs
for
sure,
but
also
a
risk
to
public
safety?
F
And
I
got
to
actually
as
someone
in
full
disclosure
chair,
I
spent
10
years
living
about
a
kilometer
and
a
half
from
this
location.
So
I
know
very
well:
do
you
really
think
the
lived
experience
of
people
who
live
in
that
area
will
be
affected
by
the
loss
of
six
meters
from
a
pretty
non-descript
victorian
industrial
chimney?
Given
the
fact
it
will
still
remain
a
significant
structure.
K
Unlike
your
council
of
wall
street,
I
actually
come
from
the
area
originally.
So
the
the
beauty
of
this
industrial
building
is
my
views
on
the
beauty
of
that
industrial
building
might
be
different
to
yours.
But
quite
clearly
I
was
well.
You
were
doing
your
site
visit
this
morning.
K
I
was
on
the
other
side
of
the
ring
road,
doing
more
mundane
things
to
do
with
the
path,
replacements
and
stuff
like
that
on
a
site
visit,
and
that
is
a
view
from
that
side
of
the
ring
road,
the
family
side
of
the
ring
road,
and
if
I
could
have
been
doing
that,
and
they
took
the
top
bit
off
the
chimney,
you
wouldn't
have
been
able
to
see
it
from
where
we
where
we
were
so
it
has
an
impact,
and
it's
always
going
way
way
back
through
even
the
days
when
tesco
wanted
to
change
some
of
it
into
a
supermarket
on
on
applications
there.
K
It's
always
been
a
major
issue
with
people
and
and
I've.
I've
got
to
say,
there's
been
that
many
applications
on
this
site
that
basically
people
probably
got
fed
up
of
sending
applications
in,
but
it's
always
been
an
issue,
as
is
the
eye
of
that
chimney,
and
it's
important
locally
and
I'll.
Just
make
a
point
I
mean,
as
as
council
of
also
knows,
I
sit
on
city
plans.
K
Well,
as
I
commented
to
something
just
imagine
somebody
coming
about
one
of
the
italian
sellers
in
old
beck
and
say
we
wanted
to
cut
cut
top
half
of
that
off.
Well,
as
far
as
I
am
as
a
family
resident
for
most
of
my
life.
That
is
something
that
is.
I
do
not
want
to
say.
J
J
J
In
addition,
the
chimney
was
previously
surveyed.
The
top
of
the
chimney
was
previously
surveyed
by
steeple
jacks,
and
the
condition
of
the
chimney
was
found
to
be
very
poor.
Such
the
top
10
meters
were
always
going
to
be
taken
down
and
rebuilt,
and
the
liner
inside
the
chimney
had
partially
collapsed
and
there
was
heavy
cracking
down
both
fa
all
four
faces
of
the
chimney
below
the
banding
level.
J
It
may
have
stood
for
150
years,
but
it
hasn't
stood
with
factors
of
safety
that
we
require
now
in
accordance
with
current
building
standards,
and
it
is
unlikely
it
would
have
stood
for
another
50
years.
As
an
illustration,
the
the
roofs
of
the
adjacent
building
built
mill,
building
15
in
the
previous
five
years
had
partially
collapsed,
and
the
floors
inside
a
dorset
partially
collapsed
as
an
illustration
of
how
quickly
deterioration
can
take
take
hold.
J
J
So
that
is
the
only
grounds
that
we
are.
We
are
requesting
this
amendment,
which
is
on
the
grounds
of
public
safety.
D
I've
got
three
feelings.
I
mean
I'm
not
an
expert
on
this,
but
what
other
methods
could
you
use
as
an
alternative
other
than
demolition,
and
the
reasons
you
discounted
those?
You
know,
what
were
they?
The
second
one?
Is
you
said
that
at
the
application
stage
you
weren't
able
to
get
access
to
the
bottom
of
it
because
of
the
buildings
with
asbestos
in
them?
D
How
quickly
was
that
suddenly
was
that
cleared
away?
So,
in
other
words,
we've
been
through
an
application
stage.
I
can
remember,
having
pre-application
discussions
on
all
of
this
I'll,
be
asking
officers
to
clarify
whether
it
went
straight
from
it
was
out
whether
it
went
outline
and
then
reserved
matters
or
whether
it
was
a
full
application
from
the
very
beginning,
because
the
timeline
makes
a
difference.
The
timeline
makes
a
difference.
D
The
timeline
makes
a
difference
so
officers
if
they
can
clarify
that
one
when
it
comes
to
it
and
then
the
final
thing
is
where
actually
are
the
weak
points,
because
when
the
officer
was
on
site
this
morning,
he
was
pointing
out
weak
points
quite
near
the
bottom
of
the
chimney.
D
You
know
that
that
was
where
in
the
way
he
was
getting
so
in
other
words,
if
the
weak
parts
at
the
bottom,
is
it
not
likely
to
fall
down
from
the
bottom
or
fall
down
from
within.
I
mean
it's
just
as
a
layman.
Explain
it
to
me
why
I'm
wrong
in
saying
if
the
weak
points
at
the
bottom,
that's
where
you
should
be
putting
your
energies
into.
J
If
I
could
take
those
in
reverse
order,
if
you
don't
mind
the
weak
point
at
the
bottom,
when
the
wind
is
when
the
chimney
is
subject
to
wind
load,
the
wind
load
tries
to
push
it
over,
so
it
pushes
it
over
like
that
and
the
taller.
The
chimney
is
the
bigger
the
overturning
moment
at
the
bottom.
J
J
J
In
terms
of
other
ways
of
dealing
with
it,
we
did
consider
whether
we
could
put
straps
on
it
to
pull
it
down
into
into
compression,
but
they
would
need
to
be
attached
to
something
very
heavy
at
the
bottom.
That
would
then
add
load
to
the
foundation.
J
We
don't
believe
it's
got
a
very
big
foundation.
These
chimneys
were
built
often
by
rules
of
thumb,
and
they
built
them
taller
and
taller
until
the
odd
one
fell
over
and
then
stopped
building
them
that
tall.
You
know
it
goes
that
way,
it's
all
by
rule
of
thumb
and
past
history,
so
it's
the
foundation,
probably
wouldn't
have
taken
taken
that
load
comfortably
without
further
settlement.
Further
movement
and
the
the
banding
to
hold
pull
it
into
compression
would
have
been
quite
significant
and
quite
visible.
J
J
We
considered
guy
ropes
or
an
exoskeleton.
You
know
a
steel
structure
around
the
outside,
but
that
would
have
been
even
more
visually
intuitive,
so
the
only
other
way
to
retain
it
at
its
full
height
would
have
been
to
actually
take
it
down
completely
and
rebuild
it
off
a
new
foundation
off
a
new
structure,
a
completely
different
structure,
probably
a
lot
more
lightweight,
probably
steel,
and
we
would
have
lost
all
the
heritage
value
of
the
the
chimney
that's
remaining
being
retained
in
terms
of
time.
J
The
report
that
we
produced
was-
I
I
couldn't
tell
you
exactly,
but
probably
within
two
months
of
the
base
of
the
chimney
being
cleared
such
that
we
could
get
to
see
it
and
measure
through
the
flu,
the
wall
thickness
of
it
and
measure
the
base
diameter
base
base
size
because
the
it
was
only
after
after
they
cleared
the
asbestos
and
then
cleared
the
buildings
that
we
could
actually
get
to
it.
So
the
report
was
within
a
couple
of
months
of
that.
D
Access
to
the
papers
we've
got
just
now
or
not.
You
don't
right.
Well,
on
page
22
of
the
papers,
paragraphs
six
and
seven,
it
says
an
application
seeking
redevelopment
of
the
site
was
submitted
in
april
2018
by
if
we
could
then
go
forward
to
paragraph
seven,
it
says
a
listed
building.
Application
seeking
to
reduce
the
height
of
the
chimney
was
submitted
on
the
29th
of
may
2018..
D
So
only
a
month
later,
you
suddenly
were
aware
that
there
was
a
problem
with
the
chimney
and
yet-
and
that
was
that
was
subsequently
withdrawn.
That
was
subsequently
withdrawn,
but
then
we
then
went
through
the
planning
process
and
this
trip
till
2019
before
everything
was
approved.
So
why,
during
the
intervening
period,
was
that
not
brought
to
the
attention
of
plant's
panel
that
you
were
felt
that
the
chimney
was
no
longer
safe.
J
Our
report
was
on
dated
the
29th
of
march,
so
we
saw
the
bottom
of
the
chimney
for
the
first
time
in
about
january
2021,
and
it
was
only
after
that
that
the
request
was
made
to
reduce
it
by
six
meters
on
the
basis
of
the
structural
assessment.
A
Thank
you,
council
smith,.
E
Thank
you
chair,
so
we
know
that
the
mill
and
the
chimney
were
built
around
1800ish,
so
they've
stood
for
200
years
with
minimal
problems.
Shall
we
say
we
won't
say
no
problems,
because
we
can
quite
clearly
see
the
erosion
and
the
cracking.
E
However,
I'd
like
to
understand,
firstly,
what
loading
reports
were
created
and
has
the
offices
or
have
we
had
sight
of
those
loading
reports,
because
they
clearly
show
what
what
we
can
and
can't
do
and
then
I'd
like
to
go
a
little
bit
further
into
the
you
say
you
thought
about
doing
something
through
the
center
of
the
chimney
to
keep
it
at
its
current
height,
and
I
wondered
if
there
was
any
possibility
of
maybe
pouring
some
concrete
or
similar
through
and
then
strengthening
the
base
either
protecting
it
from
the
wind
or
strengthen
it
in
some
way,
because
I'm
sure
that
we
have
an
engineering
solution
to
this
that
could
help
that
chimney
be
maintained
for
future
generations.
E
It
is
very
visible.
You
know
it
is
a
heritage
structure
like
it
or
lump
it.
You
know
we
can't
erase
history,
and
I
just
think
that
you
know
we
need
to
explore
every
opportunity
and
and
every
thought
before
we
can
actually
make
this
yes
or
no
answer.
Thank
you.
J
J
We
did
investigate,
putting
a
strong
core
down
the
center,
but
when
we
were
able
to
get
to
it
to
measure
the
thickness
of
the
wall
with
the
liner
that
was
in
there,
it
wasn't
big
enough
to
to
put
structure
in
that
would
be
sufficient
to
stiffen
the
chimney
and
you
couldn't
safely
get
people
down
there
to
install
it
and
fix
it.
If
it
was
concrete,
we
couldn't
just
fill
it
with
concrete
would
have
to
be
reinforced,
concrete
and
it
would
have
have
to.
J
E
Thank
you,
surely
drilling
down
would
be
underpinning
which
we
do
regularly,
don't
we
and
as
for
not
being
able
to
get
inside,
you
could
replace
the
liner
and
go
down
through
the
liner
in
some
way.
J
The
liner
is
only
a
is
a
a
skin
of
brickwork
around
the
inside,
so
even
taking
the
line
around
which
had
partially
collapsed
and
when,
when
the
the
chimney
is
reduced,
10
meters,
that
line
will
be
rebuilt,
rebuilt
back
even
with
the
without
the
liner.
There
isn't
sufficient
room
for
people
to
get
down
there
and
safely
work.
J
J
Now
the
chimney
stops
the
the
shaft
in
the
center
of
the
chimney
stops
about
a
meter
above
ground
level,
where
the
flue
comes
in
from
where
the
old
boilers
were
so,
we
would
have
to
get
men
and
equipment
in
there
to
drill
down,
probably
four
meters
below
ground
level.
It's
just
not
practical,
I'm
afraid.
F
Thank
you.
Chair
can
just
confirm
on
the
steel
banding
you're
still
going
to
put
some
steel
banding
on
the
bottom
section.
Aren't
you
yes.
J
Yes,
we
are,
if
you
saw
it
on
site,
you'll,
see,
there's
existing
steel
banding,
which
is
painted
red
that
is
actually
being
renewed
with
improved
connections
at
the
end,
because
at
the
minute
it's
only
got
single
bolt
connections
and
we
we
require
two
bolt
connections,
so
there's
some
redundancy
in
it,
so
they're
going
to
be
renewed
and
then
below
that
you
you
will
have
seen
there
is
vertical
cracking
down
the
center
of
each
face.
The
concern
about
that
is
the
failure.
J
If
it
fails,
it's
not
likely
to
be
it
fails
because
the
stonework
at
the
bottom
crushes
it's
likely
to
be
it
bulges
and
buckles,
and
one
of
those
opens
out
and
then
the
chimney
fails
more
like
a
coke.
Can
you
know
when
you
squeeze
a
coat
kind
of
that?
That's
the
sort
of
mode
of
failure
at
the
bottom
we'd
be
expecting
with
the
side
opening.
So
we
need
to
restrain
that
with
banding
to
hold
it
in
the
in
the
square
shape
that
it
is
now.
A
Thank
you
any
more
any
other
comment.
Thank
you
very
much
now.
We
will
now
ask
questions
to
the
officers.
E
Two
questions:
really:
why
isn't
the
listed
building
officer
here
and
why
isn't
the
bridges
section
officer
here
if
he's
the
guy
or
they
are
the
person
that
has
read
the
loading
report,
please
thank
you.
G
Yeah
we
consulted
obviously
with
conservation
and
given
there
were
no
objections
raised
by
them
and
we
obviously
just
took
that
on
face
value.
Basically,
obviously
they
didn't
consider
that
the
harm
is
substantial
in
terms
of
the
mppf
and
we'd
be
led
by
them
on
that,
so
we
obviously
accepted
that
as
their
recommendation
and
in
terms
of
the
bridges
section
again.
They've
obviously
commented
on
the
structural
report,
obviously
far
more
technical.
G
Technically
I
did
them
myself
and
again.
We
have
just
taken
their
recommendation
as
they've
advised
so
obviously
they're
not
present,
but
yeah.
That's
that's!
Obviously
the
route
with
the
approach
we've
taken.
D
Number
of
questions,
first
of
all,
you
had
what
I
said
about
the
application
stage.
So
what
was
the
route
through?
Because
I'm
concerned
that
this
wasn't
noted
earlier
on
as
early
as
we
can
when
before
a
final
decision
was
made
one
way
or
the
other
on
the
application,
so
that
the
plans
panel
who
were
making
the
final
decision
should
have
had
all
information.
D
So
we
could
answer
that
one
then
the
next
one
was
that.
Are
you
saying
conclusively
that
it
is
the
view
of
lead
city
council
officers
that
if
this
chimney
was
to
stay
in
its
height,
it
is
unsafe
unless
something
was
done
to
it
right
and
then
so,
following
on
from
that,
what
did
the
bridges
team
say
could
be
done
other
than
demolition?
D
D
What
wait
should
officers
have
put
on
the
civic
trust
objection
because,
that's
obviously,
contrary
to
our
conservation
officers
viewpoint.
So
we've
got
two
two
professional
two
professionals
having
a
difference
of
opinion,
so
someone
has
to
arbitrate
between
the
two
of
them.
That's
fine!
For
the
moment,
if
you
answer
those
ones,
thanks.
G
Yes,
no
problem
in
terms
of
the
timeline
we
did
engage
with
pre-application
applications
on
the
site
and
obviously
through
that
process,
that's
just
generic
advice,
which
is
provided
upon
design,
the
heritage,
elements,
etc,
etc.
At
that
stage,
we
wouldn't
have
assessed
obviously
structural
details
as
part
of
the
application.
We
would
have
just
guided
the
developer
in
terms
of
design.
We've
made
them
aware,
obviously
that
that
is
a
consideration
that
they
should
be
taking
on
board
and
then,
obviously,
after
pre-application
advice
and
the
design
amendments
to
the
site,
the
full
application
came
in.
G
I
suppose,
as
councillor
blackburn
pointed
out
in
the
history
which
is
concerned
in
reports
at
full
application
stage
that
was
outlined,
the
chimney
was
to
be
kept
at
full
height
and
obviously
approved
on
that
basis,
so
that
sort
of
a
timeline
up
until
that
point.
So
at
that
stage
we
were
obviously
under
the
impression
it
was
to
be
kept
south.
D
Evidence
from
the
applicants
we
heard
evidence
from
the
applicant
to
say
that
sometimes
those
types
of
chimneys
are
built
on
very
low
foundations
and
can
give
way.
So
why
at
outline
stage
was
that
not
that
possibility
not
explored
or
further
clarification
sought,
because
if
the
the
gentleman
gave
very
good
professional
comment
on
it,
so
in
other
words,
if
he
had
I
I'll
put
one
in
his
mouth
here,
I
think
if
he'd
been
asked
at
the
time,
he
might
have
raised
a
possibility
that
the
chimney
on
investigation
might
not
be
safe,
might
not
be
safe.
G
I
think
the
logic
goes
back
to
the
to
the
previous
point.
Obviously,
at
that
stage
we
were
told
the
chimney
was
to
be
kept,
so
we
wouldn't
have
asked
for
further
justification
as
to
events
if
it
wasn't
to
be
kept
or
if
there
were
to
be
amendments
further
down
the
line.
So
obviously,
at
that
stage,
where
you're
under
the
pressure,
it
was
to
be
kept
at
full
height,
it
was
approved
on
that
basis
and
now
we're
obviously
exploring
the
amendment
later.
B
Sure,
if
I
can
just
intervene
just
briefly,
I
mean
this
suspicion
here.
Is
that
obviously
there's
some
underhand
dealing
in
terms
of
deliberately
misleading
members
of
the
original
panel?
I
I
don't
think
that's
the
case
just
to
try
and
make
this
this
little
bit
clearer
for,
for
everybody.
We've
just
been
checking
actually
back
on
the
original
reports.
If
there
was
an
outline,
we
don't
think
there
was
an
outline,
but
there
was
pre-application
consideration
and
mike's
outlined
the
level
of
detail
or
lack
of
level
of
detail.
B
That
would
be
going
to
that
because
it's
just
about
the
principle
of
development
and
some
steering
as
to
the
design
of
it.
But
I
think
the
problem
here
is
that
structural
reports,
in
fact
any
report
was
prepared
as
part
of
an
application,
are
quite
expensive
to
provide.
So
we
wouldn't
have
asked
for
that
at
the
pre-application
stage,
and
it
wouldn't
have
been
assessed
as
simple
as
that
at
the
point
where
the
full
application
came
in.
B
As
mike
said,
the
intention
was
to
retain
the
chimney,
but
I
think
the
applicants
made
it
clear
that,
because
of
access
problems
to
the
to
the
base
of
the
chimney,
they
weren't
fully
expecting
the
difficulties
that
now
manifested
themselves
at
a
later
date.
So
this
is
why
it's
been
brought
forward
now
with
the
up-to-date
advice
and
detail
and
consideration
about
the
structure
at
the
base
of
the
trimnet,
because
that's
been
subsequently
found
out
following
the
original
application.
B
So
I
don't
think
it
was
an
intention
by
the
the
the
applicant
to
deliberately
mislead
members
just
talking
about
the
our
bridges
section
in
terms
of
alternatives.
It's
not
really
for
them
to
explore
alternatives,
but
to
actually
comment
on
the
information
that's
provided
by
the
applicant
and
and
put
quite
simply,
they
agree
with
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
in
the
general
condition
that
the
applicant
has
put
forward.
So
that's
as
far
as
that's
gone
and
then,
with
regard
to
civic
trust,
I
mean
they
are
non-statutory,
consulting.
Of
course.
B
We
we
do
take
into
consideration
everything,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
don't
think
they've
commented
on
the
structural
ability,
because,
obviously
again,
it's
not
within
their
remit
or
indeed
the
safety
aspect.
Obviously
we
would
love
to
keep
the
the
chimney
it's
original
height
and
in
other
areas
of
the
city,
where
it's
been
possible
that
that's
been
achieved.
But
on
this
the
the
all
the
evidences
in
front
of
of
members
today
points
to
the
fact,
including
our
own
structural,
surveyors
in
the
building
section,
that
there
is
significant
concern
about
this.
D
A
G
G
Obviously,
after
the
subsequent
approval
to
be
returned
at
full
height
officers
advised
them
that
it
was
very
unlikely
that
we
would
support
such
a
reduction
to
the
chimney
and
hence
at
that
stage
the
developers
went
away,
obviously
continued
with
the
development
and
looked
at
options
at
their
own
options
and
at
that
stage
we'd
advise
them
like.
I
said
we
wouldn't
support
a
lot,
a
10
meter
loss
in
the
height
of
the
chimney,
but
we
have
now
received
the
current
application
because
they
outlined
that
they
can't
physically
do
anything
else.
G
As
officers
we've
basically
outlined
until
a
number
of
occasions,
could
they
provide
alternative
measures
such
as
a
structural
increase
in
the
height,
as
opposed
to
the
six
meter
loss
and
maybe
retain
something,
but
obviously
the
structural
findings
they've
submitted?
We
have
to
take
on
face
value
and
hence
why
we've
now
brought
it
back
before
members,
because
they're
basically
saying
that
this
is
the
only
alternative
in
effect,
yeah.
D
B
Can
I
just
add
something
chair?
Sorry,
I'm
just
going
to
pick
up
on
mike's
terminology
there.
It
wasn't
really
on
face
value
because,
of
course
his
own
structural
engineers
have
looked
at
it.
So
sorry,
mike
to
just
contradict
you
on
that,
but
our
own
structural
engineers
do
agree
with
the
assessment
that's
been
put
forward
to
you
today,
but
the
other
thing
I'd
like
to
just
make
reference
to
about
the
decision
made
in
the
in
2018.
B
The
structural
engineer
that
was
speaking
a
few
minutes
ago,
of
course,
didn't
make
reference
to
that.
It
was
later
that
we
found
out
that
there
was
difficulties
accessing
it
because
of
the
asbestos
issue,
but
also
the
base
of
the
chimney
at
that
time
was
surrounded
by
other
buildings,
so
actually
that
detail
of
survey
couldn't
actually
be
carried
out
at
that
time
because
of
the
other
buildings.
B
Only
subsequently,
after
the
approval
of
the
stuff's
been
removed,
they've
actually
discovered
the
the
the
true
condition
of
the
lower
section
of
the
chimney,
and
I
did
actually
point
out
on
site
the
cracking
in
the
chimney
a
little
bit
higher
up
than
was
expressed
earlier,
because
I
didn't
mention
that
you
know
it
was
below
the
bottom
part
of
the
banding,
which
is
about
a
third
down
the
chimney
that
they
were
significantly
cracked.
At
that
point
too,
thank
you.
D
F
I
don't
think
are
valid
and
I
don't
think
the
comparison
to
the
italianate
towers
is
a
valid
comparison
either
because
they,
the
difference
in
architectural
heritage
between
the
two
is,
is
streets
apart,
but
I
I
do
have
problems
with
the
line
of
argument
that
council
anderson's
taking
here.
I'm
not
exactly
sure
why
he's
progressing
this
and
the
problems
are
that
with
the
wind
lord,
on
the
top
of
that,
it's
it's
basically
from
my
understanding
of
the
explanation.
It's
acting
like
a
fulcrum
at
ground
level.
F
A
I
Yeah
my
question
was:
when
the
pre
we
visited
the
site
with
the
pre
application.
We
visited
the
site
and
it
was
mentioned
about,
and
the
chimney
was
already
cracked
etcetera,
the
conservation
officer
at
the
time.
What
what
did
they?
They?
They
stated
that
the
chimney
should
remain.
I
There
were
no
objection
at
that
time.
So
to
me
why,
anyway,
I
think
barry
asked
that
other
question
that
I
wanted
to,
but
the
the
conservation
officer
were
in
favor
of
its
remaining.
The
civic
trust
was
also
in
favor
of
it
remaining
and.
I
I
won't
bother
asking,
but
I'm
just
I
think,
I'm
going
into
comments
what
I
wanted
to
say
really
just
regarding
the
conservation
officer
and
the
civic
trust
prior.
B
B
G
G
Conservation
didn't
object
on
the
basis
of
obviously
loss
of
the
chimney,
because
the
proposal
was
approved
on
the
basis
of
at
that
stage
it
was
to
be
kept
at
the
full
height,
so
we
basically
considered
the
application
on
its
merits
at
that
time
without
this
change.
So
that's
why
there
was
no
objection
by
conservation.
Then.
I
Yeah,
but
also
at
the
meeting
we
did
mention
about
the
crack.
Wasn't
that
picked
up
at
the
time
with
regards
to
the
chimney.
G
B
That
wasn't
actually
exposed
or
accessible
at
that
particular
time.
So
this
is.
This
has
come
to
light
after
that
particular
that
that
side
visit
and
wasn't
under
consideration,
then.
B
But
we
brought
it
back
to
members,
obviously
because
of
the
the
the
concerns
raised
by
the
local
ward
members
and
are
outlining
the
new
information
which
is
now
leading
to
the
recommendation
to
accept
the
reduction
by
six
metres
of
this
chimney,
because
we
didn't
have
that
information
at
the
time
on
the
original
application,
because
she
couldn't
actually
access
the
area
which
is
now
also
of
concern
in
addition
to
the
top
10
meters,
which
of
course
has
got
some
structural
issues.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
I
think
our
questions
no
question.
Should
we
go
to
comment
counselor
giovanni
will
just
keep
your
comment
on
the
table.
Have
you
got
anything
to
add
any
other
comments?
E
Thank
you
chair,
given
the
length
of
time
that
the
developer's
been
on
site.
I
think
this
is
a
very
late
application
for
this
amendment.
The
site
does
have
architectural
merit,
hence
saving
the
mill
buildings,
the
mill
pond
and
the
workers
cottages,
etc.
So
I
do
think
this
chimney
is
worth
saving
along
with
those
other
architectural.
E
Buildings
and
features,
I
think
it's
a
shame
that
once
again
we
have
a
difficult
application
before
us
to
consider
without
the
the
full
opportunity
to
question
other
officers,
such
as
the
the
bridges
officer
and
the
enlisted
buildings
officer.
E
I'd
also,
I
would
have
liked
to
have
had
a
rudimentary
run
over
of
the
loading
report
as
well.
If
anything
ever
does
come
again
that
that
might
be
something
that
we
take
into
account,
so
I
mean
it
stood
for
eight.
You
know
for
200
years,
I
I
don't
you
know
it
might
stand
another
200,
it
might
stand
another
20..
We
just
don't
know
these
things,
but
that's
my
comment.
A
F
Thanks
chair
well,
to
my
mind,
this
application
and
the
book
discussion,
the
questions
and
the
debate
we've
had
around
this
shows
that
one
of
the
many
glories
of
the
british
planning
system
in
its
attention
to
detail-
and
I
think
that's
one
of
the
great
benefits
of
the
plans
panels
we
have
in
this
city
council
chair.
F
I
think
perhaps
people
in
the
room
are
learning
a
lesson
about
the
victorians
and
maybe
perhaps
we
should
all
watch
more
horrible
histories
share
as
well,
because
I
hate
to
break
it.
People
the
victorians
were
just
like
as
likely
to
throw
things
up
as
they
were
to
correct
construct,
engineering
marvels
and
then,
during
this
debate,
we've
got
two
examples
of
that.
F
We
had
explained
in
great
detail
that
the
current
height
can't
be
maintained
without
deconstructing
the
chimney
and
reconstructing
a
much
larger
structure
underneath
it
as
a
as
a
foundation
and
then
reconstructing
the
chimney
to
its
height.
It
would
not
be
the
same
chimney
for
the
same
principle.
We
don't
knock
down
castles
and
then
rebuild
them.
F
It's
not
the
same
castle.
I
say
this
is
resident
castle
nerd.
I
have
a
good
authority
and
we
had
to
explain
in
quite
some
detail,
so
those
alternatives
have
been
examined
and
multiple
different
sources
of
some
engineering
expertise.
I
ventured
there.
I've
come
to
the
conclusion,
the
most
reasonable
course
of
action
to
maintain
the
heritage,
because
this
is
the
way
it
actually
maintains
the
heritage
chair
reconstructing
something
is
different.
F
Is
the
approach
set
out
in
the
recommendations?
That's
what
maintains
the
heritage
and
I
think
in
terms
of
both
that
heritage
angle
and
for
public
safety.
A
considerable
number
of
people
are
going
to
live
around
this
tower
and
I
don't
think
people
who've
moved
into
the
area
want
the
chimney
accelerating
to
their
meet
them
at
10
meters
per
second
per
second
chair.
I
think
they'd,
like
a
nice
safe
chimney
where
they
can
enjoy
the
heritage
benefits
of
which
they
undoubtedly
are,
but
in
as
much
safety
as
we
can
of
it
in
an
uncertain
century
chair.
F
I
All
I
would
like
to
say
is
that
the
applicants
were
well
aware
of
that
there
would
be
with
female
work
to
be
done
when
you
get
in
there
when
you,
you
know
that
there
might
be
further
structural
damage,
etc.
So
we
passed
the
application
with
the
understanding
that
the
chimney
will
remain.
I
I
We
want
them
to
to
do
the
work
and
and
make
it
safe
for
the
residents
and
the
members
of
the
public,
and
it
can
be
done
so
I
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
that
the
eric
heritage
officers
and
conservation
officers
were
in
support
of
it
remaining
and
I'm
not
going
to
accept
that
it's
impossible
to
be
repaired
and
maintain
and
make
safe.
So
I
won't
be
voting
for
this.
C
Yeah,
thank
you
chair.
I
mean
I've
heard
from
colleagues
who
are
you
know.
We've
got
structural
engineers,
we've
got
people
telling
us
what
can
and
cannot
be
done
with
this
structure.
I've
got
colleagues
on
here.
Who've
obviously
got
a
level
physics
which
I
haven't
so
I'm
learning
as
I
go
along
and
I'm
listening
to
all
the
arguments
and,
quite
frankly,
I
with
my
health
and
safety
hat
on
I'm
not
gonna,
sit
here
and
decline.
You
know
overturn
this
recommendation.
C
Knowing
that
this
chimney,
we
could
have
serious
problems
with
this
chimney
public
health
problem.
You
know
anything
could
happen
to
this
chimney.
At
any
time,
we've
been
told
a
lot
of
information
about
the
structural
issues
with
his
chimney
and,
quite
frankly,
I'm
inclined
to
agree
with
the
work
that
needs
doing
from
a
safety
perspective.
I'm
not
going
to
sit
on
this
panel
and
overturn
that
recommendation
and
then
god
forbid
something
happen
with
that
chimney
and
people
are
putting
danger.
C
So
I'd
like
to
second
council
of
waldshaw's
recommendation,
we
that
we
we
moved
to
a
record.
Sorry.
What
did
you
say
a
vote?
A
vote
as
councillor
shows
a
committee
moved
to
a
vote
and
we
see
sense
and
and
make
sure
that
this
structure
is
made
safe
and
then
it
is
preserved
for
the
next
couple
of
hundred
years.
A
Totally
agree
with
your
council
as
a
wooden
councillor
walsh,
and
that
was
my
view
from
jay's.
Chess
briefing
are
ready
to
lose
four
inches
and
the
public
are
safe.
The
chimney
is
lovely,
I
would
love
it
to
stay,
but
it's
been
there
over
100
years
and
things
do
deteriorate.
We
don't
get
the
same
material,
it
will
never
be
the
same
and
the
chimney
is
not
taken
away.
A
D
What
my
concern
was
is
that
if
this
expert
had
been
involved
at
the
very
beginning,
I
personally
think
he
would
have
raised
that
at
the
application
stage,
and
what
is
concerning
me
is
that
the
council's
policies
in
dealing
with
things
like
this
have
left
them
in
this
dilemma.
That's
the
point
I'm
trying
to
be
not
so
I'm
not
disagreeing
with
what
the
expert
has
said.
It's
the
fact
that,
based
on
the
what
the
expert
said
to
me
today,
I
think
if
we'd
asked
him
at
the
outline
stage,
he
would
have
said
to
us.
D
We
need
to
put
a
caveat
on
that.
We
need
to
look
into
this
chimney
further
before
we
give
final
agreement.
That's
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
it's
not
I'm
disagreeing
with
it.
It's
just.
I
think
the
council's
policies
need
to
be
looked
at
so
that
this
doesn't
occur
again,
particularly
when
he
said
that
this
type
of
chimney
isn't
built
on
solid
foundations.
The
way
as
counselor.
D
Just
my
brain
just
went
mushy.
Sorry,
sorry,
sorry,
sorry,
I
apologize
I
just
my
name
just
as
he
said.
You
know
that
there
is
a
history
of
not
all
of
this
being
built
on
solid
foundation.
So
I'm
not
disputing
that.
It's
just
if
cancer
wall
shawn
knows
that,
and
the
expert
knows
that.
Why
was
that
not
debated
at
the
outlying
permission?
That's
all
I'm
trying
to
make.
B
B
So,
thank
you,
chair.
The
the
application
has
been
approved
in
accordance
with
the
office
of
recommendation,
with
the
majority
vote,
with
six
for
the
recommendation,
one
against
two
abstentions.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
A
H
Here
we
go
yeah.
Thank
you
chair.
The
application
before
members
is
for
a
six-storey
44-bit
space
student
accommodation
building,
which
includes
three
commercial
units
of
ground
floor
members,
will
recall.
The
application
was
first
brought
to
panel
in
july
2021,
due
to
the
level
of
concern
about
additional
student
accommodation
in
this
location
and
the
impact
the
development
will
have
on
the
adjacent
rose
bank
primary
school.
H
However,
following
discussions
and
representations
on
the
meeting
from
objectors
members
resolved
the
application
be
deferred
to
allow
for
further
consideration
of
the
impacts
the
development
would
have
on
the
adjacent
five
ways:
recovery
academy,
which
hadn't
been
fully
considered
at
the
time
of
presented
to
powell.
H
In
response
to
these
discussions,
with
the
recovery
academy,
the
scheme
has
been
amended
by
the
applicant,
who
has
used
the
height
of
the
building
closest
to
the
the
rear
terrace
at
the
recovery
academy,
reducing
the
number
of
bed
station
spaces
from
57
to
44
and
to
amend
window
arrangements
to
prevent
overlooking
to
the
rear
of
the
building.
H
However,
despite
these
amendments,
the
recommendation
is
now
to
refuse
planning
permission
due
to
the
impacts
on
on
five
ways:
recovery
academy.
I
remember
to
be
aware
that
the
recommendation
is
required
to
be
amended
to
defer
and
delegate
refusal
to
offices
to
allow
the
final
neighborhood
notification
deadline
to
elapse,
which
is
due
to
elapse
on
tuesday,
which
is
the
9th
of
august
okay.
So
just
in
terms
of
the
site,
I'll
I'll
I'll
lose
the
point.
H
If
that's
okay,
as
members
starts
out
this
morning,
this
the
site
is
index
house,
which
is
commercial
units
within
a
mixed
and
mixed
area.
Immediate
adjacent
the
site
is
rose,
bank,
primary
school
and
five
ways.
Recovery
academy
is
the
former
church
to
the
rear,
entirely
off
the
site.
H
So
it's
a
large
car
park
with
commercial
development
beyond
that
further
along,
very
rather
this
high-rise
residential
and
commercial
buildings
in
a
large
student
accommodation
just
along
burley
road,
so
the
immediate
surrounding
is
it
is
a
mix
it's
a
mix
of
commercials
and
educational
facilities.
So
moving
moving
on.
H
This
is
photograph
of
the
funds
of
the
existing
index
house,
which
has
current
house
commercial
retail
units
of
ground
floor
and
a
and
commercial
at
first
law,
and
you
can
see
in
the
in
the
background
there
the
five
ways:
recovery,
academy
photograph
looking
across,
which
shows
in
context
in
index
house
here
and
the
primary
school
here
and
again
the
recovery
academy
at
the
rear
of
the
site,
again
just
just
again
showing
the
relationships
between
the
three
buildings.
H
This
is
the
adjacent
site.
This
is
index
house
here.
This
is
a
currently
vacant
site
and
planning.
Permission
has
been
granted
for
this
for
the
commit,
the
conversion
of
the
buildings
of
the
rich
rear
and
a
new
four-story
block
with
it
within
this
area
to
create
nine
residential
units
in
total
and
that's
immediately
adjacent
to
the
site.
This
is
a
view
looking
back
down
very
rarely.
You
can
see
sort
of
like
low
level,
two
two-story
development
and
then,
as
you're
getting
closer
to
the
city
center.
H
H
This
is
a
street
street
view
start
which,
which
is
important,
because
if
this
shows
the
relationship
of
the
recovery
academy
and
the
the
the
the
terrorists
which
which
I
haven't
fully
appreciated,
that
this
was
present
will
prove
to
consider
application
and,
as
as
you
can
see,
this
provides
the
outdoor
immunity
space
outdoor
usable
space
for
the
academy
and
is
a
currently
almost
identical
level
as
an
existing
building
which,
as
members
saw
this
morning,
and
provides
fair
views
across
sort
of
the
lower
air
valley,
not
quite
as
sunny
this
day
but
yeah
and
provides
outdoor
space
for
the
recovery
academy,
both
for
for
their
providing
courses
and
and
the
treatments
and
also
just
general.
H
I
mean
outdoor
immunity
and
again
just
a
just
another
view.
You
can
see
the
clear
views
across
across
the
roof.
Isn't
the
index
house
the
roof,
unix
house
here
clear
views
across
to
lower
valley
in
terms
of
the
the
actual
development
the
the
proposal
is
for
the
development
took
in
effect,
footprint
and
development
to
cover
the
entire
site
with
this
is
the
ground
floor
with
three
three
commercial
units
at
the
ground
floor.
Access
to
the
student
accommodation
is
to
the
side
of
honest
place,
just
just
some.
H
Some
of
the
floor
plans
to
show
in
that
is
a
mix
sort
of
a
mixture
of
the
cluster
cluster
flats
for
sort
of
four
to
six
bedrooms
in
each
cluster
flight,
with
with
communal
space
commute
and
then
on
the
fifth
floor.
It's
it's.
It's
studio
flat,
selfie
paint,
studio
class.
H
The
elevations
elevations
should
show
london
booked
by
the
road.
It's
a
sort
of
a
five-story
building
with
that
with
the
six
stories
setback.
H
From
building
line
a
sort
of
secondary
elevation
on
a
hot
hottest
place
with
with
obscure
glazed
windows
on
a
number
of
of
the
windows
where,
where
they,
where
they
faced
the
adjacent
primary
school
to
prevent
the
director.
Looking
at
that
primary
school.
H
This
is
this
is
the
important
elevation
here,
the
shoes,
the
rear
elevation,
as,
as
would
be
seen
from
the
terrace
it's
been
proposed
to
be.
H
These
are
projecting
bays
which
provide
views
out
to
the
sides
rather
than
to
the
rate
of
to
attempt
to
project
protect
the
privacy
of
the
of
of
of
people
using
the
the
the
terrorists
I'll
just
knit
back,
and
the
effect
of
this
is
for
for
some
of
the
best,
some
of
the
bedrooms
and
communals
shared
space
to
have
these
sort
of
projecting
bay
windows,
which
are
for
board
views
to
the
side,
but
not
to
the
rear
on
and
and
this
this.
H
This
just
shows
that
how
how
it's
been
amended
since
it
was
last
a
committee.
This
is
the
the
view
on
a
hottest
place,
as
members
have
seen
before,
and
this
has
been
amended
to
as
it
to
to
to
shift
the
bulk
of
the
building
away,
to
an
attempt
to
create
a
bit
more
relief
and
a
little
bit
more
light,
and
and
well
just
to
reduce
the
impact
on
on
the
terrace
and
that's
reduce
the
overall
for
measurement
numbers
to
44.
H
I'll
just
go
through
these.
This
is
a
a
solar
analysis
of
the
site
which
is
in
effect
from
september,
which
is
just
a
and
it
it
shows
it's
impact,
so
at
night
nine
a.m.
In
the
morning,
you
yeah
you
can
see
that
there's
some
the
the
proposal
additional
shadow
towards
the
primary
school,
but
not
significantly
over
over
the
playing
area
but
classroom
areas,
and
as
we
go
through
the
day
you
can
see.
H
You
can
see
that
as
the
as
the
shadow
comes
around
the
impact
on
the
primary
schools,
not
significant,
but
from
about
1
p.m,
or
perhaps
a
little
bit
earlier.
The
impacts
on
the
on
the
balcony
of
of
the
the
academy
it
increases
and
from
a.m
onwards.
It
will.
It
will
cast
the
the
belka
well,
I
should
say
terrorist
on
the
balcony
terrace
in
in
shadow
for
the
last
portion
of
the
day
at
6pm.
H
You
can
see
it
is
still
in
shadow,
so
it
will
have
a
a
significant
over
each
other
and
impacts
of,
or
particularly
that
terrace
area,
so
just
to
just
to
show
a
few
more
of
the
the
visuals.
This
is.
This
is
the
obviously
the
building
where
it's
got.
The
double
fronted,
with
actual
elevations
onto
hollis
place
on
burley
road.
H
The
design
in
collaboration,
the
design
officer,
was
to
try
and
get
a
strong
bookended
building,
which
sort
of
finished
the
off
off
row
and
in
design
yeah.
So
that's
that's
the
design,
rationale
behind
how
we've
come
to
tourist
design
and
just
to
show
it
in
sort
of
the
street
three
context.
H
Another
rationale
was
it
was
to
for
the
scale
of
the
buildings
to
diminish,
as
you
were,
moving
out
of
the
city
centre
and
so,
in
effect,
having
a
having
a
feeling
that
the
scale
is
is,
is
stepping
down
and
also
to
potentially
inform
future
developments
of
these
these
these
buildings
here,
which
are
likely
to
come
forward
at
some
point
and
to
sort
of
form
that
scale
so
that
that
was
the
that
was
the
sort
of
design
rationale
around
how
we've
come
to
the
the
this
building.
H
So
just
so
in
conclusion,
in
reaching
a
decision
on
the
application,
it
is
important.
The
members
weigh
up
all
elements
of
the
proposal.
The
development
would
increase
the
number
of
students
in
little
london
woodhouse,
which
clearly
has
a
high
concentration
of
students,
currently
many
of
which,
which
are
in
existing
purpose-built
student
accommodation.
The
addition
of
further
students
in
this
area
does
weigh
against
the
proposal.
H
However,
the
development
provides
well-designed
good
quality
student
accommodation
within
a
highly
sustainable
location
in
close
proximity
to
the
university
campus,
and
the
development
will
further
aid
the
move
away
from
the
use
of
private
out
housing
for
students
and
on
this
this
of
course,
weighs
in
in
favor
of
the
development.
H
In
addition,
it
is
important
that
the
members
consider
the
concerns
raised
by
roosevelt
primary
school
in
weighing
up
the
planning
merits
of
development
and
particularly
to
the
amendments
which
we've
been
secured,
including
the
reduction
in
the
overall
height
and
scale
of
building.
The
proposed
management
plan
plans
obscure
glazing
to
prevent,
overlooking
adequately
mitigate
the
concerns
raised
by
the
school.
H
However,
it
is
the
impact
of
the
outdoor
terrace
of
five
ways,
recovering
academy,
which
is
of
greatest
concern.
This
impact
through
overshadowing
dominance
and
outlook,
would
be
significant
and
cannot
be
addressed
or
mitigated
through
design
amendments
to
the
scheme
or
through
the
use
of
conditions.
This
impact
weighs
against
the
developments
as
it
is
for
this
reason
that
the
recommendation
is
now
that
planning
permission
should
be
refused.
A
F
Thanks
jack
is:
is
there
a
graphic
that
illustrates
the
relationship
of
the
proposal
to
the
balcony
from
the
five
ways?
Rehab
center
is
the
one
that
best
illustrates
that.
F
Yeah
thanks
laurence.
I
think
thanks
chair.
I
think
I
think
that
shows
the
relationship
really
clearly.
I
just
think
that
that
graphic
slightly
overplays
the
gap
between
the
two
buildings,
but
nevertheless
I
think
it
captures
a
relationship
really
well,
and
that
was
my
question.
I
just
needed
to
see
that
more
clearly.
F
F
Let
me
ask
you
my
advice
on
how
to
approach
this,
so
I'm
pleased
to
see
that
the
the
applications
come
forward
today
in
this
form,
I
think
it's
an
entirely
sensible
set
of
proposals.
I
was
particularly
struck
by
the
visit
to
the
balcony
this
morning
and
you
could
see
the
relationship
and
between
the
proposals
and
the
balcony,
and
you
could
see
the
absolute
need
and
necessity
for
five
ways
to
have
that
private
space
to
undertake
the
really
important
work
it
does.
F
D
Listen
briefly,
I
think
in
a
way
there
are
a
number
of
people.
D
Who've
got
council
brooch
to
thank
for
actually
making
such
a
big
issue
of
this
when
it
first
came
forward
because,
based
on
the
comments
made
in
paragraph
32
that
was
made
by
her
and
councillor
marshall
catan
at
the
time,
they
were
right,
so
you've
got
to
ask
why
it
was
brought
in
the
first
place,
because
my
big
fear
is
that
if
plans
panel
had
gone
along
with
this,
when
it
first
came
through,
we
would
have
approved
this,
and
in
retrospect
it
would
have
been
totally
the
wrong
thing
to
do.
So.
D
We
need
to
be
sure
that
in
the
future,
how
can
we,
as
a
panel,
safeguard
getting
advice,
correct
quality
advice
that
turns
out
to
be
wrong?
And
I
don't
know
how
we
deal
with
that.
But
I
agree
that
we've
now
reached
and
it's
a
pity
that
in
the
interim
period,
so
many
people
have
had
so
much
upset
and
worry
when
there
was
no
need,
because
the
application
wasn't
acceptable
in
the
first
place.
A
Counselor
anderson,
I
never
thought
I
would
say
today
that
I
agree
with
you,
but
thank
you
on
the
behalf
of
my
group.
Thank
you.
Yes,
you
are
quite
right,
construction
and
anderson,
because
if
this
up,
my
stance
still
remain
from
the
previous
application
and
now
added
on
this
to
it
even
make
it
stronger
for
me
and
just
think,
I'm
glad
it
didn't
resolve
and
what
can
happen
to
officers
to
get
it
right
is
to
listen.
B
I
I
accept
the
criticism
from
council
anderson,
but
I
would
like
members
to
remember
the
context
of
this
application
at
the
time
we
weren't
aware
of
the
existence
of
the
five-way
center
at
the
time,
but
neither
was
the
applicant
and
that
might
be
partly
down
to
the
nature
of
the
operation
there,
but
also,
if
with
members
that
were
on
the
previous
panel,
the
other
issue
was
that
we
were
in
lockdown
and
we
were
having
socially
distanced
plans
panel
meetings
in
the
main
chamber,
where
we
were
actually
limited
to
the
debating
time
to
an
hour.
B
So
we
never
really
got
around
to
having
that
debate.
Until
we
became
aware,
through
council
brooks's
intervention
of
the
existence
of
five
ways
so
yeah,
I
accept
the
criticism
I
do
apologize,
but
I
just
wanted
members
to
be
aware
of
the
context
of
what
happened
way
back
then,
and
it
is
a
year
ago,
sad
as.
H
Well,
though
I
mean
it
was
an
officer
error
that
that
we
did,
we
didn't
pick
up
on
that,
but
but
in
in
my
defense
I
I
think.
A
Okay,
can
I
I'm
not
sorry,
I'm
not
cutting
officers
off
okay.
H
A
C
Yeah,
sorry,
I
know
you
say
you
want
to
move
on,
but
it's
just
just
on
that.
I
find
it
unbelievable
that
the
applicant
and
officers
didn't
know
that
that
building
was
behind
where
the
proposed
development
is
prior
to
corvette.
I
know
we're
talking
about
prior
to
corvid.
I've
been
in
five
ways
to
run
sessions
for
women
there
to
help
colleagues
out
and
on
it
for
international
louisiana.
C
That
kind
of
thing,
so
I've
been
in
there
prior
to
corbin
when
we
could
still
do
things
in
person,
so
I
knew
it
was
there,
so
I
don't
think
they
could
not
know
it
was
there
and
obviously
I'm
just
amazed.
I'm
sorry
and
the
only
reason
I'm
raising
it
is
that
that
that
worries
me
for
future
applications
that
we're
going
to
miss
something
else.
Exactly
at
barry's
point
yeah.
A
And
I'm
sure
in
future
officers
will
keep
their
eye
paid
to
the
job
they
have
to
do
and
don't
rely
on
em
applicants,
but
I
think
they,
no
I'm
not
gonna,
say
that
I'm
not
gonna
blame
kobe.
I
think
we
didn't
have
a
side
visit,
it
wasn't
discussed
and
errors
do
happen
and
I'm
glad
it
do
come
alive
now
before
it
extends.
So
now
we
have
a
chance
to
turn
it
down.
Let's
work
on
that
and
officers
will
learn
from
this
mistake
to
keep
the
eye
peeled
and
all
application
that
comes
in
the
future.
B
I
don't
want
to
prolong
this
because
I
have
already
accepted
and
apologized
for
that
omission,
but
I
I
will
again
go
back
to
the
context
that
we
were
also
not
allowed
to
do
site
visits
because
it
was
covered,
so
we
couldn't
even
visit
the
site
at
the
time
it
was
brought
forward.
A
Okay,
let's
and
let's
stop
it
there
and
go
to
and
the
recommendation
steve
have.
You
got
anything
too
hard.
B
I
B
I
So
shall
I
repeat
myself
because
I
didn't
have
my
mic
on.
I
was
just
saying
that
that
we
we
asked
for
it
to
be
deferred
because
we,
it
wasn't
clear
and
obviously
the
objectives
brought
to
our
attention
that
that
building
was
there.
I
don't
believe
we
had
any
any
pictures
of
the
site
or
anything.
So
that
is
why
site
visit
is
very
important
and
we
can
do
as
much
blame
game
as
we
want.
I
thought
we
made
the
right
decision,
then
by
saying
how
important
side
visits
are.
E
Sorry,
I
was
only
going
to
reiterate
that
I
stood
by
the
comments
I
made
at
the
previous
panel
hearing.
It's
it's
it's
harmful
to
the
amenity
of
the
school
and
the
recovery
academy.
It's
not
required
in
this
location.
At
the
moment,
it's
doubtful
that
it
ever
will
be
given
the
number
of
other
buildings
that
are
going
up
for
this
purpose
and
as
a
a
full
stop
at
the
end
of
a
row.
I
believe
it
to
be
overbearing
because
there's
nothing
in
the
middle.