►
From YouTube: Planning and Regulation Panel - 09-11-2021
Description
A meeting of Stirling Council's Planning And Regulation Panel broadcast live on Microsoft Teams.
The agenda can be viewed online at: http://minutes.stirling.gov.uk/PDFs/Planning&Regulation/Agendas/PlanRegAgenda.pdf.
0.00 - Stream starts.
7.20 - Meeting starts.
11.32 - Item 5
1.02.50 - Item 6
1.32.06 - Item 7
1.54.50 - Item 8
1.57.42 - Item 9
A
Please
note
that
this
meeting
is
being
recorded,
sorry
being
broadcast,
live
on
youtube
and
the
recording
will
be
available
for
public
viewing
following
the
meeting
and
remember,
please
mute
their
maker
phones
throughout
the
meeting
when
not
speaking.
This
is
important,
since
it
helps
you
ensure
the
quality
of
your
audio
is
good
for
the
body
playlist.
Your
microphone
should
be
switched
on
when
invited
to
speak
and
switched
off
when
you're
finished
speaking.
A
D
A
E
The
igb
and
a
health
care
facility
would
be,
in
direct
contrary
to
the
direction
of
travel
of
the
policy
of
the
igb,
and
I
would
find
myself
potentially
in
conflict
with
that.
I
have
asked
for
some
guidance
on
it
from
a
legal
adviser
and
I
hope
to
have
that
before
it
comes
to
the
meeting.
But
if
the
legal
advice
is
that
I
should
not
participate,
then
I'll,
I
would
withdraw.
F
A
E
A
A
For
the
hearing
are
orderly
hearing
at
the
introduction
of
the
report
by
the
planning
officer
presentation
by
applicants,
presentation
by
any
supporters
presentation
by
any
objectives,
presentation
by
any
local
member.
If
you
wish
to
speak
after
a
lot
of
questions
from
the
panel
and
then
consideration
by
the
panel
and
the
applicant
only
can
use
any
unused
time
to
sum
up,
because
everybody's
allocated
five
minutes-
and
I
don't
have
a
stopwatch
for
that
so
item
five-
is
speaker:
mckenzie's
application,
peter.
I
I
I
We
have
the
access
drive
to
aeros
house
itself,
private
access
drive
and
which
is
also
to
serve
the
the
four
houses
to
be
built
in
this
red
line
area.
Here,
the
private
access
drive
from
aries
house
leads
all
the
way
down
to
the
private
muir
road
which
takes
you
out
along
this
direction
here
to
open
up
dock
road.
I
I
The
the
applicant
themselves
will
need
to
seek
the
legal
rights
to
access
along
the
new
road
which
takes
out
to
the
public
all
mugged
up
road.
They
have
access
rights
to
come
out
onto
this
driveway
here,
which
is
the
the
drain
driveway
that
forms
eros,
but
the
the
right
to
use
muir
roads
is
a
private
legal
matter
which
they'll
need
to
establish
following
any
granting
of
plan
approval
should
should
it
be
approved.
I
Today
we
have
the
the
levels
set
out
on
this,
drawing
as
well
the
the
finished
ground
floor
levels.
This
is
also
to
amelia
and
mitigate
flooding,
because
it,
the
flood
risk
assessment,
has
clearly
demonstrated
that
during
you
know,
a
high
rainfall
event.
This
area
here
will
flood
so
and
also
forms
part
of
the
conditions
that
the
finnish
floor
levels
are
such
to
avoid
any
flooding.
I
As
you
can
see,
there's
a
a
and
bb
that
sets
out
sections
for
the
site.
I've
referred
to
sections
within
my
report.
Having
been
submitted,
they
didn't
resubmit
sections
with
this
application.
They
were
submitted
for
the
the
previous
four
applications.
So
my
my
report
should
have
stated
that
I
was
referring
to
the
previous
sections,
which
haven't
changed.
I
This
is
a
the
block
plan
for
for
plot
two
shows
the
parking
the
house
extent
of
garden
ground,
that's
to
go
with
with
the
property
and
again
now
for
for
plot
three
and
then
tucked
in
at
the
rear.
Here
we
have
bought
four
all
very
spacious
plots
with
the
houses
taking
up
not
a
significant
part
of
the
of
the
site.
I
I
I
Road
is
the
where
muir
road
meets
old,
old,
mug
dock
road,
and
this
is
new
road
as
a
as
a
private
road
and
roads
have
raised
no
concerns
to
the
proposals
accessing
along
muir
road
and
coming
out
onto
a
mugged
up
road.
They
don't
consider
the
the
impact
of
the
additional
traffic
to
be
such
that
it
necessitates
any
additional
road
improvements
at
the
end
of
of
muir
road.
I
I
This
is
a
view
of
the
site.
Looking
northwest
towards
aeros
house.
You
can
see
the
the
different
landforms
the
burn
just
sits
in
this
dip
here.
You've
got
boggy
marshy,
land
and
manicured
grassland
and
trees.
These
trees
here
are
all
to
be
retained
as
as
part
of
the
of
the
development
and
you've
got
eros
house
itself
that
sits
in.
In
the
background.
I
This
is
a
a
view
looking
southeast
across
the
dam
itself,
where
you
can
see,
there's
already
properties.
There's
a
house
here
in
the
house
here
that
border
onto
the
dam
so
as
part
of
the
the
character,
the
area
of
houses
built
close
to
the
to
the
dam
and
again
the
burn
that
runs
through
the
site
and
the
culverts
which
are
to
be
upgraded
as
part
of
any
proposed
works.
I
This
say
last
slide
here
shows
the
thing
is
a
drawing
taken
from
the
tree
survey,
where
trees
will
be
removed
as
part
of
this
development,
but
the
trees
have
no
statutory
protection,
they're
not
covered
by
tpo
or
in
a
conservation
area.
Majority
of
the
trees,
as
you
can
see
listed
here,
are
seed
seed
trees,
which
are
are
to
be
removed.
I
A
A
J
J
First,
the
site
lies
within
the
established
urban
area
of
the
village
of
south
blaine,
and
the
development,
as
proposed
is
found
to
be
appropriate
to
the
character
of
area
with
the
density
of
the
development
being
appropriate
within
the
wider
context
of
the
site.
As
such,
in
accord
with
the
salient
policies
of
the
local
development
plan,
the
proposals
represent
an
appropriate
land
use
within
the
village.
J
J
A
K
J
A
J
Okay
on
another,
more
serious
point,
sir:
I'm
watching
the
youtube
feed,
which
is
several
minutes
behind,
and
I
think
I've
seen
a
lot
of
drawings
and
plans
come
up
on
the
screen
which
are
not
related
to
this
application.
I
wonder
if
mr
mckechnie
and
and
the
the
panel
have
been
seeing
the
right
drawings
or,
if
we're
in
the
right
hearing.
A
J
A
Sorry,
I'm
sorry,
that's
that's
the
officer's
presentation
and
that's
final
okay
right.
So
I'm
gonna
proceed
now
and
you've
got
five
minutes
combined.
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
give
you
the
four
minute
notice
for
a
minute.
So
if
he
wants
to
proceed
further
than
mr
martin
tyler,
mr
gray
I'll
start
me:
okay,.
K
Right
good
morning,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
murrah
road
and
punchbowl
dam
residents.
The
key
points
I
wish
to
make
are
the
previous
application
for
these.
Four
houses
has
already
been
overturned
at
sterling
council
and
lost
a
judicial
review.
Two
years
ago,
the
exact
same
four
houses
in
the
same
location
has
now
been
presented
again
and
once
again
with
flawed
legal
procedure,
which,
if
not
sorted
out,
will
likely
lead
to
a
second
judicial
review.
K
L
K
Further
to
that
without
being
asked,
planning
and
roads
have
unilaterally
decided
that
this
is
okay
for
this
applicant
to
use
third-party
private
land
out
with
the
application
redline
site
as
a
means
of
access.
The
planner's
report
offers
then
more
road
planning
and
roads
do
not
have
legal
powers
to
do
that,
and
any
approval
on
that
basis
would
be
unlawful.
M
K
K
Despite
what
ecological
report
suggests,
local
residents
can
prove
with
video
cctv
and
photographs
that
pine
martin,
water,
red
squirrel
and
water
goals
are
regularly
seen
in
and
around
the
punch
program,
and
that
in
itself
should
be
noted.
Just
because
this
area
is
within
the
village
envelope
doesn't
mean
to
say
that
it
should
be
not
afforded
some
level
of
protection.
J
Thank
you,
john
gray,
from
strathplain
community
council.
I
say
again.
The
images
I
saw
on
youtube
are
nothing
to
do
with
this
development
at
all
and
that
needs
to
be
checked.
The
community
council
objected
to
this
application
on
the
grounds
of
road
and
infrastructure
limitations
and
on
the
unknown
landscape
impact
of
the
development
which
is
seen
not
from
rural,
but
from
afar.
Your
officer
has
completely
ignored
in
his
report
the
objection
about
landscape
impact,
and
you
are
therefore
not
in
a
position
to
allow
the
application
to
proceed.
J
J
A
J
According
to
the
table
of
the
supplementary
guidance,
they
would
think
that
anything
up
to
14
houses
is
small
and
that
could
be
allowed
year
after
year.
The
officers
must
have
the
policy
wrong
to
be
giving
you
such
an
abstract
advice.
This
site
is
rural
and
accessed
on
a
road
that
is
not
straight,
but
hilly
twisty,
narrow,
dark,
overgrown,
pothole
crumbling
with
no
pavement
and
prone
to
flooding.
If
the
panel
have
not
yet
visited
the
site,
it
is
imperative
that
they
walk
this
route
for
themselves.
J
A
A
O
A
couple
of
things
I
think
we
should
give
the
officers
a
chance
to
show
the
drawing
of
how
the
houses
were
in
relation
to
the
other
houses
so
we'll
let
them
do
that
and
talk
about
the
roads,
but
I
just
wanted
to
pick
up
them.
Reading
the
report,
I
I
noticed
a
couple
of
times.
It
said
that
sepa
and
flooding,
bridges
and
flooding
had
no
objections.
I
just
wanted
to
know
if
they
actually
responded,
and
I
also
wondered
about
the
boggy
land.
Just
from
a
clarification
point
of
view.
O
I
Yeah,
no,
both
bridges
and
flooding
and
cipa
have
responded
to
the
applications.
I
would
have
said
they
hadn't
responded
if
they
hadn't,
so
they
they've
responded.
They've
raised
no
objections,
subject
to
the
conditions
that
I've
applied
in
terms
of
the
the
boggy
land,
both
bridges
and
flooding,
and
sepa
haven't
raised
any
concerns
about
developing
on,
on
that
subject
to
the
the
conditions
to
do
with
surface
water
runoff
and
making
sure
that
surface
water
is
directed
away
from
neighboring
properties
and
also
there's
a
biodiversity
action
plan.
I
A
P
Yeah,
thank
you,
chip
yeah,
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
previous
applications
and
the
fact
that
they
were
over
to
just
a
review
and
I'm
rather
puzzled
that
there's
no
detailed
whatever
provided
in
the
paper
regarding
that
could
I
have
a
bit
of
a
summary
as
to
the
grounds
on
which
the
previous
identical
applications
by
our
accounts
on
which
they
were
overturned
judicial
review,
and
how
can
we
be
confident
that,
if
this
is
approved
today,
how
can
we
be
confident
that
the
council
is
not
running
the
risk
of
another
successful
challenge?
What's
different,
this
time.
Q
P
Q
Q
Contrary
to
the
council's
own
internal
scheme
of
delegation,
it
was
determined
by
an
appointed
officer
where,
in
fact
the
matter
should
have
been
referred
to
committee
and
the
petitioners
in
that
action
took
issue
with
the
council's
own
internal
governance
and
that
point
was
conceded
in
the
judicial
review
and
the
decisions
cost
on
that
basis
alone,
that
that
was
the
outcome
of
the
action.
So
it
was
procedural
error
on
the
part
of
the
council.
The
planning
merits
of
the
that
the
the
case
weren't
discussed
in
relation
to
this
application.
Q
P
R
The
reasons
I
recall
at
the
time
were
poor,
sightlines,
etc,
and
I
don't
think
anything's
changed.
So
I
would
I
would
like
views
on
that.
The
second
point
is
much
has
been
made
of
the
new
houses
won't
flood.
But
if
you
look
at
page
31,
there's
a
suds
proposed
to
try
and
manage
the
water,
but
this
is
a
private
development
who's
going
to
maintain
the
suds
who's
going
to
take
responsibility,
because
in
a
few
years
time
it
will
choke
and
the
risk
is
it
will
then
flood
other
properties.
I
I'll
take
your
second
one.
First,
the
sud
scheme
will
be
a
private
scheme,
it
would
be
maintained
privately
and
there
is
a
condition
that
we
get
details
of
the
proposed
maintenance
and
the
council
agrees
that
maintenance
regime
in
terms
of
the
first
question
was
that
on
to
muir
road,
the
the
house
that
you
were
referring
to.
R
I
Yeah
I
mean,
in
terms
of
this
site
the
application
moon
road
currently
serves
over
30
houses,
so
that,
in
terms
of
the
argument
that
it,
you
know
the
five
or
more
that
that
argument
is
you
know
it's?
It's
not
a.
You
know,
it's
not
it's
not
required
for
this.
This
development,
because
our
the
other
new
road
already
serves
more
than
five
houses.
C
If
these
houses
get
planning
permission
today-
and
there
is
no
agreement
to
use
the
roads,
I
I
take
it-
the
the
ability
to
build
the
houses
is
just
not
there,
there's
no
way
for
there's
no
other
way
for
stuff
to
come
in
or
or
or
for
possibility
of
new
applications
for
new
roads
to
come
in
the
else
way
around.
Like
that,
I
mean
how
how
does
that
work
if
they
don't
get
permission
on
a
civil
basis
to
use
mirror
road.
A
Q
I
I
I
can
have
an
attempt
at
first
I
mean
the
question,
I
suppose,
in
relation
to
the
private
access
arrangements
you
could
ask.
The
applicant
would
be
my
suggestion
around
that,
because
they
will
be
the
ones
that
know
in
relation
to
the
access,
because,
because
the
planning
application
does
not
entail
any
or
detail
any
works
to
the
existing
road
infrastructure,
whether
it
be
private
or
public,
it's
not
within
the
red
line,
the
red
line
boundary.
Q
S
You
thank
you
chris
cox,
service
manager.
Yes,
a
councillor
ben
is
correct.
Planning
permission
is
only
one
of
the
consensus
required
to
enable
development.
There
are
many
other
consents
building,
one
for
example,
but
also
the
applicant
being
able
to
have
land
ownership
to
be
able
to
do
what
they
intend
to
do
so
plan
permission
doesn't
interfere
with
any
of
those.
Other
consents
doesn't
deal
with
any
of
those
consent.
S
S
C
So
sheriff,
if,
if
one
of
those
would
just
check
my
understanding
of
this
effectively
the
planning
permission,
so
if
they
were
granted
plan
permission,
it
would
be
they've
got
planning
permission,
but
there
would
be
a
practical
difficulty
with
being
able
to
get
to
the
site
and
being
able
to
build
it
and
be
able
to
access
it.
It
wouldn't
be
that
the
planning
application,
the
planning
permission,
would
be
rescinded
and
they
would
still
be
sitting
there,
but
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
access
it
if
they
didn't
get
that
civil
agreement
between
the
parties
there.
C
A
J
A
A
P
Refusal
chair
on,
what's
going
on,
I'm
concerned
about
some
of
the
issues
raised
by
the
community
council
about
about
landscaping
and
density
of
the
proposed
projects
and
the
fact
that
this
is
four
houses
being
shoehorned
into
a
single
garden
when
many
or
most
of
the
adjoining
properties
have
two
acre
gardens.
So
it's
completely
out
of
character
with
the
area.
P
I
think
there
are
unresolved
or
issues
about
road
safety
which,
I
think
need
to
be
exported
further
seems
to
be
disputes
to
the
the
the
road
safety
at
the
junction
between
all
old
monk
that
road
and
rural
roads
seems
to
be
inconsistency,
and
councillor.
Thompson
touched
on
this
inconsistency,
from
the
advice
from
the
roads
department
about
whether
this
would
represent
a
significant
increase
in
traffic
and
thereby
impact
on
on
safety.
S
Excuse
me
in
terms
of
road
safety,
you
need
to
be
specific
about
what
it
is
that
you're
concerned
about
in
terms
of
road
safety,
and
I
think
it's
probably
related
to
the
third
point
around
about
inconsistency
of
road
officers
that
isn't
a
material
planning
consideration.
All
planning
applications
required
to
be
considered
on
their
own
merits.
The
implication
of
that
being
that
you
can't
refer
to
a
previous
planning
decision
and
bring
it
into
your
decision
making
on
this
planning
application,
so
yeah,
so
there's
two
reasons
that
basically
need
further
expansion
upon.
A
O
A
A
A
Speaking
in
that
the
time
of
the
split
between
each
parties
and
the
objective
will
be
told
after
four
minutes
to
start
summing
up
and
then
my
presentation,
my
local
members,
I
don't
think
there's
any
present
together
in
terms
of
dealing
with
the
regular
member
of
the
committee
questions
from
panel
and
consideration
by
the
panel
and
other
can
only
use
up
any
unused
thing
to
sum
up
at
the
end
of
the
year.
Okay,
so
over
here
is
jane,
wiere's
application.
This
jen
want
to
introduce
application.
Please.
T
T
T
As
noted
in
the
report,
there
is
planning
history
on
this
site,
including
a
live
consent
for
the
replacement
of
red
cottage,
which
is
to
the
south
of
the
application
site
and
the
erection
of
a
separate
single
dwelling
house
which
was
granted
in
february
this
year.
For
the
avoidance
of
doubt,
under
this
application,
red
cottage
is
not
to
be
replaced
as
part
of
this
proposal
and
any
future
proposals
to
do
so
would
require
a
fresh
application.
T
As
highlighted
within
the
assessment
section
of
the
report,
the
proposal
is
considered
to
satisfy
housing
in
the
countryside
policy
requirements
by
being
a
suitable
addition
to
an
existing
group,
and
it
is
considered
to
be
appropriately
designed
and
scaled,
taking
recognition
of
the
irregular
nature
and
layout
of
the
group.
The
adjacent
modern
development,
design
and
immunity
concerns.
T
T
So
this
shows
the
floor
plan
for
plot
a
the
detached
single
unit
and
the
elevations
for
plot
key
again.
The
floor
plans
for
the
semi-detached
units,
which
are
three
bedroom
properties,
plots
b
and
c,
and
the
elevations
for
this
as
seen
in
the
drawings,
the
properties
are
to
be
one
and
three-quarter
stories
in
scale
and
sandstone
has
been
introduced
on
the
principal
elevations
to
break
up
the
massing
and
be
in
keeping
with
enabling
properties
consultees
to
the
application.
T
Raise
no
objection
subject
to
conditions
outlined
in
the
report
and
neighbouring
concerns
raised
have
been
covered
in
section
2.3
of
the
report
and
addressed
within
the
assessment
section,
as
shown
on
your
screen,
is
a
shadow
study
which
was
submitted
in
support
of
the
application,
which
demonstrates
that
only
a
small
proportion
of
guarding
ground
will
be
affected
by
the
development
at
certain
times
of
the
year.
Only
and
therefore
on
balance
is
considered
acceptable.
T
The
density
and
distance
concerns
are
raised
and
acknowledged.
However,
it's
worth
noting
that
there
is
no
official
matrix
or
set
standards
within
sterling
council's
planning
policy
or
supplementary
guidance
and
therefore
is
considered
in
terms
of
layouting
and
design
and
on
balance
is
considered
acceptable
for
the
reasons
outlined
in
the
report
and
that
the
proposal
reflects
the
irregular
layout
of
the
existing
grouping
is
in
keeping
with
the
modern
style
development
adjacent
and
is
considered
to
deliver
a
suitable
cul-de-sac
arrangement
which
infills
the
gap
between
the
existing
properties.
T
A
L
Okay,
thank
you
just
very
very
briefly.
Our
family
reason
here
today
is
really
to
make
sure
we
can
answer
any
queries
from
yourself.
Should
there
be
any
further
questions
and
we
just
want
to
simply
say
that
we've
gone
through
a
robust
planning
process.
We've
worked
well
with
the
planner
through
a
free,
app
discussion
and
the
full
application,
and-
and
we
feel
we
feel
that
we
have
reacted
upon
any
of
the
objections
that
have
come
through
that.
L
A
Okay
and
okay,
obviously
under
the
rules
I'm
going
by
you,
I
can
give
you
formats
later
on.
If
you
want
to
do
any
summing
up
after
everybody
else
is
spoken.
Thank
you
for
that.
So
now
the
presentation
by
the
objectives
and
we've
got
jamie
lowe
and
john
camus
here,
can't
want
to
repeat
what
I
just
said.
If
you're
doing
a
joint
presentation,
it's
limited
to
five
minutes
and
I'll
actually
sum
up
the
floor.
If
you
want
to
proceed
please
and
give
us
your
name.
First.
U
U
Our
objection
is
raised
that
the
density
significantly
exceeds
that
of
the
surrounding
area
and
our
justification
for
that
is
as
follows
that
the
existing
traditional
housing
local
to
the
site
has
an
average
density
of
6.1
houses
per
hectare
and
these
houses
comprise
of
six
properties
to
the
east
and
west
of
blaine
smithy.
Road
second
point
is
that,
but
further
that
more
the
adjacent,
croi
cunningham
gate
development
consists
of
five
houses
and
has
an
actual
land
use
density
of
3.7
houses
per
hectare.
U
U
Furthermore,
section
2.10.8
of
the
panel
meeting
agenda
states
that
red
cottage
is
currently
serviced
by
its
own
drainage
facility
and
is
not
to
be
served
by
the
existing
drainage
network,
and
we
would
like
to
heard
that
that's
not
actually
factually
correct
and
regis
cottage
does
connect
into
the
existing
croy.
Cunningham
ownership
and
connection
was
made
during
construction
of
the
croi
cunningham
development
when
the
existing
stp
was
decommissioned
as
part
of
the
deeds
of
servitude.
U
U
Lastly,
on
this
point,
just
recognizing
this-
the
application
proposes
a
new
connection
of
drainage
connection
for
plot
c
to
the
south
of
the
site.
This
pro
proposal
is
to
connect
to
an
existing
water
course
that
runs
beneath
the
adjacent
croi
cunningham
property
line.
Legal
deeds
of
servitude
have
been
completed.
A
V
Yeah
very
very
quickly,
the
issue
of
overshadowing,
if
we've
stated,
the
predominant
areas
of
garden
remain
unaffected
on
a
number
five
troy
cunningham
is
is,
is
anything
but
accurate,
because
that
is
the
most
private
part
and
therefore
the
most
enjoyed
central
garden.
Immunity
space
at
five
croix
at
five,
troy
cunningham
and
the
the
gathering
is
also
divided
by
a
driveway.
So
this
means
that
when
the
overshadow
happens
in
the
main
part
of
the
garden,
we
are
then
walking
across
our
driveway
to
get
a
piece
of
garden.
V
V
The
upper
level
windows
that
reference
is
not
causing
any
privacy
issues
again
are
entirely
wrong.
It's
a
glass
back
to
the
main
hub
of
croy
fight,
croy
cummingham,
and
they
do
overlook
directly
into
that
only
seven
meters
from
the
property
itself
and
the
bedroom
window
and
upper
level
of
the
semi-detached
house.
Again
he
directly
faces
by
kroy
cunningham
as
well.
So
the
the
comment
about
privacy
is
entirely
wrong
and
he
that's
where
we
are.
A
A
A
T
As
I
find
your
aim,
it's
considered
that
the
scale
aim
is
appropriate
for
that.
Setting
in
the
design
and
orientation
and
layout
together
with
the
height
and
massing,
have
been
carefully
considered
in
terms
of
sandstone
was
introduced
on
the
front
elevation
to
reduce
any
massing
and
visual
impact,
and
that
together
aim
with
the
layout
and
aim
relationship
to
the
neighboring
properties,
which
are
over
modern
appearance
and
scale,
is
considered
appropriate
and
they're
1.75
stories
in
scale
which
is
commonly
found
in
a
semi-rural.
Setting
such
as
this.
A
A
T
Yes,
that's
correct
and
the
properties
on
blaine,
smithy
road
are
considered
to
be
an
established
group
and
cluster,
and
this
proposal
for
three
houses
is
considered
to
infill
an
existing
gap
between
aim.
Some
of
those
properties
that
are
on
the
site.
The
group
as
established
comprises
11
properties,
and
the
proposal
for
three
would
be
within
capacity
for
additional
properties
in
that
group.
P
Yeah
thanks
jeff.
I
had
some
concerns
about
the
the
the
density,
the
the
mastering
and
the
overlooking
aspects,
and
specifically
on
the
density.
Now
two
paragraph
220.
It
lays
out
what
the
current
density
of
the
development
is
and
what
the
new
development
would
represent.
15
hours
per
hectare.
It
makes
the
point
that
the
council
doesn't
have
a
formal
standard
on
that,
but
that
obviously,
is
a
a
material
planning
consideration
and
it
uses
the
phrase
twice.
P
On
balance,
it's
considered
that
the
site
can
accommodate
this
now,
just
to
be
a
bit
pedantic,
if
using
the
phrase
on
balance,
that's
suggesting
that
you
accept
that
there
are
some
arguments
against
this
okay.
I
just
just
would
like
to
some
further
for
further
comment
on
that
about
the
density
and
how
it
is
that,
on
balance,
increasing
from
6
to
15
is
is
acceptable.
T
Yes,
thank
you
in
relation
to
the
density
you're,
correcting
noting
that
there
isn't
a
set
standard
within
the
ldp
policy
or
supplementary
guidance.
So
therefore,
there's
essentially
no
planning
by
numbers
and
no
set
figure.
That
would
be
appropriate
because,
as
you
can
appreciate,
each
case
should
be
assessed
in
its
own
merits.
Aim
what's
appropriate
in
one
site,
may
not
be
appropriate
in
the
other
and
such
like.
T
So
in
relation
to
this
application,
the
on-balance
decision
was
reached
in
this
case,
given
the
objections
raised
that
was
carefully
considered
and
given
the
layout
and
sighting
and
orientation
and
position
within
the
group
and
is
identified
in
the
report.
This
grouping
is
not
a
uniformly
as
existing.
It's
not
a
state,
regular
pattern
of
development,
and
so
the
proposal
for
the
three
houses
aim
in
this
form
is
considered
appropriate
because
it
does
take
into
account
that
irregular
nature
and
it
does
consider
any
potential
immunity
impacts
in
relation
to
that
as
well.
O
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
understand
how
we
determined
that
the
drains
are
are
up
to
standard,
and
there
was
this
question
about
whether
red
cottage
was
served
by
its
own
drains
or
it
was
part
of
the
main
system.
So
I
think
a
bit
of
clarification
would
be
helpful
there
and
also
the
are
the
windows
overlooking
or
not.
I
just
want
to
work
out
what
sort
of
maps
we've
used
to
calculate
that.
T
Yep
thanks
and
firstly
in
terms
of
drainage,
clarification
and
the
agent
may
be
able
to
clarify
the
nature
of
red
cottage
and
how
it
is
serviced.
Currently.
However,
in
terms
of
the
planning
application,
we
are
satisfied
that
sufficient
information,
which
is
required
at
this
stage,
has
been
submitted
to
demonstrate
that
the
site
can
be
serviced
in
terms
of
film
water.
Drainage
aim.
T
So
in
terms
of
your
second
question
in
relation
to
overlooking
this
was
considered
as
well,
it
was
appreciated
that
it
was
addressed
and
letters
of
objection
received
and
given
the
position
and
layout
of
the
proposed
houses
and
that
are
considered
to
be
offset
so
there's
no
direct
window
to
window
overlooking
and
coupled
with
the
high
timber
fans.
There's
no
ground
floor
overlooking
in
that
respect,
because
the
fence
provides
screening
as
well.
O
A
L
Just
to
clarify
a
couple
of
small
points,
just
the
identities
of
oh,
we
don't
want
to
repeat
what
planning
I've
already
said.
The
one
thing
we
wanted
to
kind
of
just
emphasize
was
obviously
a
sort
of
site
ratio.
It's
been
completely
changed
by
the
construction
of
the
larger
development
to
the
north.
The
original
buildings
on
site
had
much
smaller
sites
and
they
sort
of
build
ratios,
and
so
it's
kind
of
we've
got.
We
are
fitting
in
with
this
sort
of
step
up
in
that
scale,.
L
M
M
The
drainage
that
a
part
drainage,
that's
going
to
be
utilized
on
site
has
been
done
as
a
part
of
illegality
between
myself
and
the
developer
of
kroy
cunningham
gate,
and
I
do
understand
that
the
now
occupants
of
croy
cunningham
gate
may
have
issues
with
regards
to
this.
But
in
so
far
as
we
are
concerned
that
has
now
been
set
in
stone
and
was
in
place
before
they
bought
their
property
beyond
that,
the
drainage
that
will
be
servicing
red
cottage
and
anything
else.
M
L
A
Okay,
well
known
as
the
final
part
of
the
hearing,
which
is
a
consideration
by
the
panel,
the
page
sphere
find
one
that
has
the
recommendation
to
approve
application
subject,
the
condition
set
and
apparently
one
for
their
support
and
what
to
move
the
recommendation.
Page
certify,
princeton,
mcdonald,
okay.
Secondly,
by.
P
Okay,
refusal
on
what
kind
predominantly
the
issue
which
was
discussed
about
density.
I
believe
it's
a
complete
over
development
of
the
sites
recognizing
there
is
if
there
is
no
numerical
limit
in
council
policy,
I
consider
the
increasing
to
15,
represents
over
development
of
the
sites
and
has
a
detrimental
impact
on
the
immunity
of
the
neighbors.
It
introduces
significant
overlooking,
and
privacy
issues.
A
Nope,
okay,
so
after
like
the
previous
application,
then
obviously
this
application
is
unanimously
approved
pencil.
They
don't
give
one.
You
have
the
dissent
to
be
recorded.
Yes,
please
sure,
okay,
so
that's
applications
approved
and
we'll
have
a
two
minutes
before
the
next
application
to
allow
the
contributors
to
even
again
thanks
gentlemen
for
your
contributions
today.
Thank
you.
C
W
A
H
W
Right:
okay,
minor
application
for
minor
reconfiguration
of
a
drive-through
lane
and
car
park
to
accommodate
side-by-side
ordering
with
introduction
of
new
island
for
signage,
amended,
kerblines
and
associated
works
to
site,
including
bollards
button
railings,
extended
fruit
path
and
block.
Paving
two
existing
customer
displays
to
be
relocated.
W
The
site
is
located
adjacent
to
the
drip
road
and
back
hill
road
on
his
access
sphere
and
entry
access
so
to
sainsbury's
an
adjacent
petrol
filling
station.
The
restaurant
is
a
single-story
building
within
a
car
park.
There's
a
pedestrian
access
from
drip
road
that
shows
you
the
location
of
the
site.
W
Once
you
come
off
the
public
road
you're
into
a
what
is
a
private
road
sharing
this
of
small
retail
park
and
that's
the
existing
layout
there
with
my
cars.
They
turn
right
off
the
entry
road,
the
private
entry
road
into
sainsburys
and
the
drive
through
facility
is
in
through
the
car
park.
A
and
around
this
way
is
my
follow
me.
W
They
are,
please
you've
got
two
sort
of
ordering
points,
one
there
one
there
and
then
the
cars
you
know
drive
out
after
that,
and
this
is
the
proposal
a
for
the
revision,
a
tour
whereby
the
reconfiguration
is
really
up
at
this
of
top
end
over
mainly
there
whereby
changing
it
from
one.
It's
like
a
single
lane,
a
traffic
as
existing.
W
For
you
know
your
customers
you'll
drive
through
and
wind
the
one
window
down
in
your
car,
and
it's
just
like
going
into
a
multi-storey
car
park
where
you
you
driving
off
the
public
road
and
you
won't,
like
separately
lanes
pressure
button
to
get
your
ticket
for
your,
maybe
a
car
park,
and
you
drive
one.
It's
a
bit
like
that.
You'll
just
go
to
your
different
lanes
and
going
to
a
speaker
system.
You
know
press
the
button.
W
The
speaker
system
order
your
workload,
chips
whatever
it
is,
and
then
you're
kind
of
good
to
go
things
that
you
drive
on
and
that's
how
the
whole
thing's
going
to
work,
and
so
that's
kind
of
it's
all.
A
minor
can
reconfiguration
of
the
car
park.
All
related
to
you
know
this
different
processing
of
customers,
a
relative
to
the
drive
through
and
that's
about
what
it's
really
about
and
there's
also
a
new
height
restrictor.
It's
called
gold
poster
hyper
sector
proposed
and
a
customer
order
displays
like
that.
W
A
new
bollards
like
that
and
new
people
call
button
button
button.
Railings,
you
can
see
them
there,
we've
existing
a
situation
taken
from
across
the
road
from
mcdonald's.
That's
the
entrance
in
the
priority
junction.
We
are
in
yellow
hatch
lines
and
exists
situation
there
and
you've
got
the
existing
drive
through
situations.
A
line
of
cars
to
the
left.
You've
got
the
drip
road
and
the
pedestrian
access
just
kind
of
coming
up
like
that.
W
You
have
to
say
left
and
goal
post
restrictor
there
you
align
cars
there
and
that's
the
other
side
where
you've
got
that
glass
bit
there
just
be
one
glass
bit
there.
That's
your
northern
points
just
now.
Is
this
the
loading
points
where
the
cars
coming
in
and
collected
bug
and
stuff,
and
that's
the
the
entrance
beyond
just
a
signalized
junction
for
the
trip
road
you
can
see
it's
at
ready
now
and
cars
are
waiting
and
that's
the
priority
junction.
W
This
is
a
private
road
leading
in
to
the
sort
of
retail
park
and
then
cars
cars
tunnel
into
mcdonald's
just
to
go
to
the
left.
They
turn
right.
That's
to
the
left
of
the
screen,
and
that
has
at
the
report
shows
that
there's
one
comment
made
from
distilling
access
panel
account
taken
of
that
with
conditions
from
the
roads
officers
and
the
recommendations
for
approval
subject
to
conditions.
That
is
the
end
of
the
presentation.
R
So
I
I
felt-
and
it
was
part
of
my
submission
asking
for
this
to
be
brought
forward-
is
that
the
revert
back
to
what
they
did
during
covet
is
that
the
nobody
was
allowed
to
turn
right?
They
went
down
to
the
roundabout,
they
came
back
and
they
turned
left
which
gave
an
extra
cue
of
about
eight
cars,
and
it
worked
perfectly
well
once
people
realized
what
was
happening.
So
I've
no
objection
to
this
proposal
I
did
ask,
could
could
we
look
at
the
the
junction
turning
right?
It's
a
private
road.
R
A
W
But
I
did
take
forward
in
council
thompson's
concerns
playing
with
roads
officers.
You
know
really
a
liaison
with
them
and
they
felt
that
you
know
there
wasn't
any
increase
in
trips
being
generated
from
this
development
and
felt
there's
really.
You
know,
there's
no
change
really
to
the
a
existing
situation
in
terms
of
the
and
the
way
it
operates.
So
they
you
know
they
couldn't
really
compose
anything
in
terms
of
conditions.
I
would
only
say
that
I
think
that
the
whole
point
behind
this.
W
You
know
in
order
to
be
given
you
know
they
can
give
the
orders
in
advance.
You
know
like
because
I
kind
of
previously
explained
if
they
can
give
this
off-
put
the
orders
through
by
the
time
they're
driving
through
to
the
the
windows,
and
you
can
you
know,
there's
a
shorter
time.
You
know
get
the
food
ready
in
the
meantime
sort
of
thing,
so
I
think
that's
kind
of
what's
going
on
behind.
It
is
a
faster
process
than
the
customers,
and
then
the
knock-on
effect
would
be
having
a
a
lesser,
a
impact
on
on
queueing.
W
As
councilor
thompson
has
mentioned,
there
is
a
potentially
a
problem
with
the
fact
that
the
red
line
boundary
is
the
application
site
a
and
the
road
along
the
frontage,
a
you
know,
sort
of
entry
road
into
that
weekend.
A
retail
park
area
is
as
a
private
road
as
such.
So
there's
a
question
mark
over
the
the
applicant's
ability
to
or
well
sorry,
the
council's
ability
to
even
pose
planning
conditions
that
would
require
a
you
know,
maybe
no
right
hand.
Turning.
O
Yeah,
I
think
ian
actually
just
addressed
what
I
was
wondering
about,
because
the
whole
point
of
doing
this
is
surely
to
increase
throughput,
which
would
potentially
lead
to
shorter
cues.
So
is
there
any
mathematical
modelling
that
mcdonald's
have
applied
to
this?
To
show
one
is
better
than
the
other.
I
can't
imagine
they'd
bother
if
it
wasn't
any
better.
W
The
no
mathematical
you
know,
scientific,
a
modeling,
you
know
it
says
I
think
it's
the
double
lane
perhaps
just
explains
itself
that
it
you
know.
If
it
works,
I
mean
if
it
works
in
multi-story,
car
parks
and
stuff,
then
you
know
we
assume
that
it
would
have
some
at
least
some
improvement,
whether
it
will
address
all
of
the
concerns
that
council
thompson
has
raised
whether
you
know
this
thing
about
sometimes
the
backing
up
problems
towards
the
junction
when
the
public
road,
whether
that's
going
to
really
resolve
that
needs
to
be
seen.
O
D
I
suppose,
actually
my
question
asked
you
know
I
don't
oppose
kind
of
what's
there,
but
I
would
still
have
a
question
mark
over
the
impact
at
the
other
end,
which
is
going
to
be
exiting
the
site
because
quite
clearly,
they're
looking
to
significantly
increase
the
throughput
at
the
start.
Therefore,
there's
going
to
be
lots
of
cars
at
the
end
of
this
trying
to
get
out
trying
to
get
out
left
right
and
there's
a
short
number
of
spaces
there.
D
So
doubling
everybody
through
is
going
to
double
the
problem
at
those
lights
when
it
comes
out,
so
you
know
that
I
have
no
doubt
they'll
be
able
to
get
double
the
traffic
through
or
whatever
and
that'll
be
hugely
efficient,
but
it's
the
the
impact
of
that
at
the
at
the
other
end,
and
I
think
that's
where
we
might
then
have
problems.
Council
thompson
made
the
point
about
the
right-hand
turn
and
I
think
that's
a
good
point
worth
exploring.
D
Obviously
it's
a
private
road,
but
really
I'm
actually
not
sure.
It's
currently
sustainable
for
much
longer
the
traffic
light
arrangements
at
this
junction-
you
know
really
probably
ought
to
be
around
about,
but
I'd
like
to
see
the
modelling
for
that,
and
so
I
wonder
if
we
could
get
some
feedback
onto
you
know
what
should
we
really
be
doing
with
this
junction?
D
They
have
given
the
multiple
demands
that
are
on
it,
and
we've
got
that
balance
between
baka
hill
road
and
drip
road
and
about
three
quarters
of
the
traffic's
on
baccala
road
there's
still
a
quarter
of
the
traffic's
on
drip
road
and
to
be
honest,
most
of
that
traffic
really
shouldn't
be
there.
It
should
be
on
back
hill
road,
but
this
puts
a
lot
focal
from
using
it.
So
really
we've
got
a
residential
community
in
rapbook
that
could
be
benefiting
from
people
not
using.
D
H
Yes,
thank
you,
sir
develop
management,
team
leader,
it's
just
a
back
up
on
the
councillor.
Gibson's
point
said
about
exiting
and
based
on
the
the
site
plan.
There
shouldn't
actually
be
any
change
to
the
amount
of
traffic
that
is
using
mcdonald's.
All
they're
trying
to
do
is
essentially
double
up
the
order
taking
process,
but
not
the
entirety
of
the
the
throughput
process,
so
everybody
will
still
be
funneled
through
the
one
lane
for
payment
and
one
lane
for
pickup.
H
So
all
that
it
will
do
is
basically
stack
customers
waiting
to
order,
but
there
won't
really
be
any
effect
on
customers
once
they've
actually
ordered
and
exit
the
site
in
terms
of
the
impact
that
has
on
roads
again,
this
isn't
an
expansion
of
mcdonald's
itself.
It's
simple
reconfiguration
of
the
car
park.
So
in
the
event
that
there
was
an
expansion
of
mcdonald's
and
something
significantly
changed
here,
we
would
then
be
able
to
look
at
impact
on
the
road
network
because
of
increasing
trips,
but
this
proposal
to
double
up
the
order.
H
The
order
arrangements
will
not
actually
impact
the
level
of
trips
associated
with
mcdonald's
itself.
Excuse
me,
and
also
on
on
that
matter
relating
to
the
public
road,
because
there
is
no
increase
in
that.
Then
it's
not
open
to
us
to
then
ask
for
changes
to
the
access
arrangements
when,
by
the
nature
of
the
application,
the
access
arrangements
do
not
need
to
be
changed,
and
I
would
also
reiterate
what
ian
has
said
that
this
is
a
private
road.
Once
you
get
into
the
site
and
it's
there's.
P
Yeah
thanks
chet.
It's
just
to
pick
up
on
that
very
last
button
about
what
this
might
do.
Overall
to
the
numbers
of
customers
going
on
to
the
site
into
the
capacity
of
this
restaurant.
It
seems
to
be
arguable
more
than
arguable
that
if
you
can
process
your
customers
through
the
ordering
point
twice
as
quickly
and
get
them
through
the
system
twice
as
quickly
you're
there
by
increasing
your
notional
capacity
and
if
people
can
get
at
the
moment.
P
I
wonder
whether
it's
self-regulating
in
that,
if
people
see
there's
too
big
a
queue
and
the
whole
junction
looks
to
be
snarled
up,
that
people
would
just
drive
on
by
and
go
elsewhere
or
come
back
later,
whereas
if
they
see
the
people
are
smoothly
processing
through
the
ordering
point,
it's
more
likely
that
they'll
come
in
in
the
first
place.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
this
will
lead
to
an
increase
in
capacity
and
will
it
lead
to
an
increase
overall
in
in
numbers
and
increase
the
pressures
on
this
junction.
W
A
N
Thank
you
I
just
want
to
know.
Is
there
a
working
model
in
relation
to
mcdonald's?
Have
they
done
this
before
in
other
sites
and
has
it
worked
or
has
it
caused
a
problem,
and
I
agree
with
some
of
the
comments
made
by
by
my
fellow
counselors.
I
think
it
will.
It
will
actually
chock
of
that
junction
and
it
is
a
dangerous
junction
and
people
are
queuing
back
to
the
roundabout
before
you
get
into
the
rat
block
getting
into
sainsbury's.
So
is
there
a
working
model
that
that
mcdonald's
have
in
relation
to
this
other
sites.
W
H
Yes,
you're
just
anecdotally,
having
used
this
setup
for
various
other
mcdonald's
would
have
used.
I
would
say
that
this
does
seem
to
be
fairly
a
standard
operating
model
for
them
and
many
of
them
your
drive-throughs,
seem
to
use
this
configuration
and
many
others
have
been
retrofitted
to
provide
this
configuration.
A
D
Yeah
thanks
chair:
yes,
it's
the
exact
same
kind
of
arrangement.
I've
got
at
the
new
mcdonald's
out
at
the
spring,
cares
retail
park
and
it
is
actually
highly
efficient
and
you
know
you
can
see
that
operation
there
and
it's
working,
but
I
I
would
struggle
to
to
accept
that
a
you
know.
A
business
whose
job
is
is
to
make
money
would
look
to
make
such
a
change
like
this.
D
If
it
was
only
going
to
keep
the
business
and
income
the
same,
and
I
would
like
to
think
there's,
surely
some
business
rationale
for
them
looking
to
make
this
change
and
I'm
sure
they're
not
just
doing
it
for
the
increased
efficiency
of
their
existing
customers,
I'm
sure
that
will
be
a
consideration
for
them.
So,
as
I
said,
I
don't
think
there's
anything
we
can
probably
do
planning
wise.
Maybe
somebody
need
to
explore
the
roads
out
with
the
meeting.
D
If
you
like,
because
the
you
know
the
application
itself
is
as
it
is,
and
you
know
I
think
there
will
be
impacts
regardless
that
we
will
need
to.
You
know
keep
a
close
eye
on
and
but
perhaps
not
necessarily
for
this
meeting
today,
but
we're
going
to
probably
need
to
have
that
kind
of
discussion
between
the
applicants
in
that
area.
There's
sainsbury's
in
there
as
well,
and
how
that
really
is
operating
and
the
local
members
and
other
councils
of
interest
too.
I
think
there's
we're
going
to
have
to
just
look
at
this.
A
R
I
think
councillor
gibson
said
everything
I
I
I
was
going
to
say
I
I
I
did
put
in
the
the
request
and
I've
seen
the
letter
from
the
agent
acting
on
behalf
of
mcdonald's,
and
we
now
have
a
contact.
I
think
that's
useful
and
I
I
certainly
will
be
taking
this
forward
because
I
I
don't
think
this
is
an
entity
you're
actually
losing
car
parking
spaces
and,
as
council
bureau
pointed
out,
they're
not
doing
this.
For
any
other
reason
to
try
and
get
more
throughput
council
gibson's
right.
R
H
H
The
change
sort
is
really
relatively
simple:
it
is
a
change
of
use
to
a
storage
area
for
the
house.
External
alterations
are
not
sought
at
this
time,
however,
should
panel
agree
the
recommendation.
The
site
will
then
benefit
from
the
standard,
household
or
permitted
development
rights
once
implemented.
H
Here
are
some
photos
of
the
area
for
context.
This
picture
shows
this
site
from
george
street
from
slightly
looking
sorry
slightly
from
the
south.
Looking
towards
the
house.
An
existing
shop
here
is
the
full
principal
elevation
looking
at
the
front
of
the
existing
shop
and
the
house,
the
area
they
are
highlighted
and
as
the
dumpling
store
is
the
area
that
will
be
subject
to
the
the
change
of
use
density
with
the
existing
dwelling
sits
behind
it.
H
E
E
I
was
part
of
the
the
planning
panel
back
in
october
2020,
which
first
heard
this,
and
you
know
12
months
is
a
long
time
and-
and
I
was
hearing
I
knew
I
may
have
a
different
view,
but
I
was
part
of
that
and
I'm
very
happy
to
stand
by
the
decisions
of
that
that
panel
and
we're
asked
to
to
consider
the
the
the
conditions.
So
I
don't
feel
that
I'm
in
in
conflict,
as
I
did
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting,
so
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
Thank
you.
G
H
H
H
That
you
make
sorry
technical
problems
as
say
in
the
report.
The
site
is
envisaged
to
be
developed
in
two
phases,
with
a
larger
site.
One
outlined
here
in
solid
reds,
come
forward
in
detail
for
residential
development
and
site
two
outlined
here
in
bash
red
line
coming
forward
in
detail
at
a
later
date.
There
is
no
change
thought
to
the
to
this
phasing.
However,
the
decision
taken
by
panel
indicated
sorry
panel
included
conditions
that
require
the
entire
site
to
be
remediated
prior
to
the
development
of
any
part
of
the
site.
H
The
applicants
are
now
seeking
to
alter
those
conditions
to
allow
each
subsite
to
be
mediated
independently
of
each
other.
Members
will
see
that
this
is
the
smaller
of
the
sites
and
with
fewer
buildings.
Members
will
also
note
from
the
report
that
the
site
is
less
contaminated
and
requires
less
remediation
than
site
one.
H
H
H
A
A
Gave
up
so
what's
to
stop
kawa
doing
the
development
taking
the
profits
and
my
understanding
of
the
situation
is
that
site
two's
european,
separate
ownership
so
first
to
stop
them
taking
the
money
and
running
and
leaving
the
council
or
you
know
a
site-
that's
probably,
not
very,
very
you
know
very
marketable
given
the
level
of
decontamination.
So
what's
the
stop?
What
safeguard
can
the
council
have?
That
won't
happen?.
H
And
so
the
intention
was
for
kala
to
only
ever
do
the
resident
type
and
site
to
come
forward
at
a
later
date
in
this.
In
this
regard,
the
conditions
set
out
that
we
can
achieve
a
technical
arrangement
whereby,
before
site
two
comes
forward,
it
has
to
be
remediated.
This
will
be,
irrespective
of
whether
it's
caller
that
brings
that
forward
or
whether
it
is
a
different
developer.
So
the
safeguard
to
the
council
is
that
no
matter
what
happens
and
who
develops
it
before,
anyone
puts
a
shovel
in
site
two
to
start
development.
H
A
Villages,
the
pre-requisite,
the
local
development
plan
for
this
stage
contaminated
within
a
starting
residential
development,
so
that
concern
we
know
we've
been
asking
that
the
ldp
is
supposed
to
be
sacred
son
or
decision
making
to
be
based
on
the
the
trust
and
the
gains
and
the
local
developments
that
concern
them.
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
ask
john
wilson
from
environmental
health
too.
I
think
asked
along
today.
John.
Can
you
just
confirm
your
presence
here?
Please.
A
X
Yeah
I
mean
we
looked
at
the
the
ground
investigation
report,
which
was
covering
the
full
site.
There
was
limited
contamination
actually
found
in
the
site
in
part
in
site
two
as
part
of
that
ground
investigation,
but
we
feel
that
further
work
to
investigate
that
will
be
required.
But
it's
not
unusual.
X
Any
levels
of
contamination
found
were
not
extreme
and
obviously
asbestos
would
be
our
main
concern
and
there's
there's
lots
of
regulations
governing
how
that
will
be
managed
and
how
that
can
be
managed
and
we've
gone
externally
to
an
asbestos
specialist
who
has
confirmed
that
any
investigation,
further
investigation
can
be
carried
out
and
remediation
of
that
site
could
be
carried
out
safely,
with
residential
housing
being
in
place
on
site.
One
right.
A
Okay
and
mike,
I
think
the
last
thing-
or
maybe
chris
cox
would
answer
this
for
my
relationship.
My
concern
here,
the
council
will
be
exposed
to
picking
up
the
bill
for
us
in
the
future.
Is
there
any
way
we
can
insist
our
bond
being
applied
to
this?
Would
that
not
be
reasonable
just
to
protect
the
council's
interest
for
the
public
first
journal,
make
put
your
hand
up.
H
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
A
bond
is
normally
secured
whereby
works
have
been
carried
out
generally
on
a
temporary
nature
to
a
piece
of
land,
and
the
bond
is
taken
by
the
council
to
ensure
that,
once
that
temporary
nature
has
ceased,
the
land
can
be
restored
to
its
previous
condition,
and
so,
for
example,
you
may
take
such
a
bond
and
when
there's
a
quarry
application-
and
you
basically
require
that
the
ground
is
put
back
to
its
original
condition.
H
Essentially,
developers
are
proposing
a
permanent
use
and
they
are
proposing
to
decontaminate
the
site
through
the
great
dreamy
day.
Sorry,
what
would
be
an
agreed
remediation
strategy?
The
council's
recourse
and
protection
here
would
be
that,
in
order
for
the
development
to
proceed,
we're
applying
these
as
conditions
that
are
requiring
that
the
ground
is
decontaminated,
and
it's
done
in
line
with
the
approved
remediation
strategy.
H
Should
the
developer
not
carry
out
remediation,
and
when,
with
the
approved
strategy,
they
can
then
be
held
accountable
and
we'd
have
to
go
back
and
do
the
agreed
remediation.
The
way
that
we
had
agreed
initially
and
also
it
would
have
to
be
done
prior
to
the
units
becoming
occupied
occupied,
so
really
the
it's
the
conditions
that
would
protect
the
council
in
this
instance,
and
we
would
be
quite
well-placed
to
take
planning
enforcement
should
those
not
be
complied
with.
A
There's
a
civil
issue
relating
to
ownership,
so
particularly
they're
not
controlling
the
land.
So
we
can't
guarantee
that
you
ever
underestimate
the
receipt
from
color
and
there's
a
contaminated
say.
I've
just
felt
real
concerned
over
it.
You
know
and
of
still
after
that,
but
when
you
put
over
the
country.
R
Thanks
chair
and
you've
covered
a
lot
of
the
points
that
that
I
wanted
to
raise.
I
I
mean
I
I
I
was
party
to
the
local
development
plan
and
promoted
this
site
on
the
basis
that
it
was
for
business,
commercial
use
or
whatever
and
where
we
recognized
that
housing
was
an
enabler,
but
it
seems
to
be
the
housing.
Is
the
be
all
and
end
all
of
this?
If
we
accept
these
proposals
today
and
like
you,
I
I
thought
a
bond
might
have
been
of
use.
R
Can
we
not
then
say
after
x,
number
of
houses
are
built,
the
site
must
be
decontaminated,
and
perhaps
perhaps
a
deferral
of
this
would
would
be
helpful,
because
I
I
I'm
in
a
position.
I
I
heard
what
mr
mogrew
said,
but
I'm
totally
confused
by
what
he
said.
I
don't
think
it
bears
any
relationship
to
the
documents
I've
read
so
my
my
question
is
a
can.
Can
we
limit
it
to
a
certain
number
of
houses
and
b
would-
and
perhaps
it's
it's
too
early
at
this
stage,
to
ask
for
a
deferral
chair.
H
Yes,
so
council
thompson
taking
your
first
point
first,
and
it
would
be
open
to
panel
to
impose
conditions
as
they
see
fit
to
in
order
to
control
remediation.
However,
what
I
would
point
out
is
that
the
proposal
is
before
you
today
is
specifically
to
split
it
into
two
sections,
so
that
site
one
can
be
remediated
completely
independently
of
site
two
and
the
in
terms
of
the
comments
have
been
made
in
terms
of
calorie
contaminant
insight
and
walking
away.
H
No
matter
who
is
carrying
out
the
site
and
the
site
works
so,
for
example,
if
calla
decided
to
get
their
consent
and
then
walk
away
and
pass
it
on
to
another
house
builder,
such
as
taylor
wimpy,
then,
if
taylor
would
want
to
implement
this,
the
scheme
that's
in
front
of
us
today
and
that
was
approved.
Then
taylor
wimpy,
are
also
bound
by
those
conditions.
A
P
I
thought
thanks
chad.
I
think
I'm
really
just
reiterating
concerns
raised
by
yourself
and
other
members
of
this
site
has
been,
and
I
saw
a
hazard
for
decades,
for
it
goes
but
long
before
the
time
when
I
was
first
on
the
council
and
I'm
highly
suspicious
of
the
motivations
of
the
applicants
here,
it
seems
to
be
quite
likely
that
they
remediate
site
one
build
the
houses,
sell
the
houses
and
I
maybe
they
don't
walk
away.
P
Maybe
they
just
leave
it
indefinitely
into
the
future,
but
there's
their
little
incentive,
little
commercial
incentive
for
them
to
remediate
site
two.
So
I
I
don't
understand
the
recommendation.
I
I
would
require
a
great
deal
more
convincing,
so
the
motivation
of
the
applicants
and
and
to
the
safeguards
that
that
would
would
be
in
place
on
behalf
of
residents
of
cologne
and
and
the
council
comes
to
that.
C
It
wasn't
really
possible
that
it
what's
being
suggested
here
about
the
developer,
walking
away,
isn't
really
possible,
and
that
seems
to
be
what
mike
was
saying.
I
I
can
you
clarify
that?
What
are
the
things?
What
are
the?
What
are
the
safeguards
and
controls
that
are
in
here
to
stop
that
from
happening?
C
H
Yeah,
absolutely
so
a
section
75
we
were
dreaming,
sits
with
the
land
and
the
landowners
whoever
they
are
are
party
to
that
agreement.
There's
also
causes
in
section
75
that
secure
succession
and
title
so
essentially
anybody
who's
then
becomes
a
site
owner
and
is
implementing
that
development
and
that
the
section
75
is
tied
to
is
then
also
responsible
and
to
comply
with
terms
of
the
section
75.
H
So
essentially,
if
it
was
or
was
not
caller
who
was
going
to
implement
the
housing
before
any
housing
could
take
place
on
site
one,
they
would
have
to
do
a
contaminated
land
strategy.
Do
the
remediation
strategy,
which
would
then
be
submitted
to
the
council,
and
we
would
have
to
sign
off
as
environmental
health
and
planning
authorities
that
that
is
technically
correct
and
it
can
be
achieved
and
we're
in
an
agreement
with
it.
So
that's
how
we
would
secure
that
in
terms
of
site.
H
Two,
the
the
conditions
again
are
the
same,
but
they
also
they
have
to
be
done
prior
to
the
implementation
of
works
on
site
two.
So
should
there
be
a
six
month
gap
or
a
three-year
gap,
then
the
conditions
remain
the
same
and
any
developer
coming
forward
to
take
to
do
development
on
site
two
has
to
comply
with
those
conditions.
H
C
C
H
Would
only
be
able
to
control
that
through
planning
enforcement
at
that
time
in
terms
of
a
breach
of
condition.
So
our
control,
as
I
said,
per
site,
one-
is
to
ensure
that
that's
done
prior
to
development
and
it's
the
exact
same
before
site
two.
It's
ensured
that
that's
done
prior
to
to
develop
it
prior
to
development.
H
So
in
that
example,
whereby
site
one
comes
forward
and
complied
with
the
conditions
as
required
and
site,
two
doesn't
come
forward
as
long
as
there's
been
no
breach
of
those
conditions,
the
council
wouldn't
actually
be
able
to
take
any
enforcement
action,
and
so,
if
the
land
just
sits
there
and
there's
no
change
and
nobody
starts
building
anything
there's
no
breach
of
conditions
in
planning
terms,
and
we
would
be
unable
to
take
planner
enforcement.
If,
however,
somebody
did
come
in
and
started
doing,
engineering
works
that
required
planning
permission
and
they
hadn't
complied
with
the
conditions.
D
Hey
thanks
very
much
chair
just
a
procedural
question,
please
in
relation
to
this
application.
Coming
to
the
panel
today,
it
stated
in
page
65
that
the
agreement
has
not
yet
been
concluded,
as
the
formal
decision
has
not
been
issued,
it's
appropriate
to
consider
the
changes
to
conditions
sought
by
the
applicant
before
the
decision
is
issued
rather
than
by
a
section
42
application
a
later
date.
Now
that
would
obviously
be
the
normal
courses.
D
But
I'd
like
to
know
why
that's
considered
appropriate
in
this
case,
because
that
that
to
me
is
not
especially
clear,
I'd
like
to
realize
or
to
understand
why?
Because
normally,
when
there's
a
further
application,
there's
any
opportunities
for
consultation
for
people
to
feedback
in
etc,
so
yeah,
but
a
background
please
as
to
why
that
course
has
been
taken.
H
Yeah,
absolutely
I
can
answer
that
one
so
counselor
gibson
is
correct.
Not
only
where
pawn
and
panel
have
made
a
decision
to
approve,
subject
to
section
75
officers,
then
you
know
we
go
off
and
do
the
section
75
negotiations
and
get
that
signed
and
then
once
the
decision
is
issued.
That
is
then
the
formal
decision
of
the
planning
authority
and
any
change
to
the
formal
decision
has
to
be
done
by
either
a
new
application
or
an
application
under
section
42
of
the
planning
activity.
H
The
conditions
are
set
out
in
a
previous
consent
and
in
this
case,
because
we
haven't
actually
issued
the
formal
decision
notice
of
the
planning
authority
essentially
have
taken
it
to
grant
and
positions
subject
to
the
satisfactory
conclusion
of
the
section
75
but
sections
the
section
75
has
not
yet
been
concluded
and
has
not
been
signed
by
either
parting,
and
so
therefore
it's
considered
appropriate.
We
can
consider
this
request,
basically
as
a
section
32a,
which
is
an
amendment
to
the
current
planning
application.
H
A
D
I'm
I'm
not
I'm
not
especially
enamored
that
that's
the
kind
of
situation,
because
if
it
happens
in
one
situation,
surely
we
could
find
ourselves
in
a
similar
position.
Anybody
that
doesn't
get
a
6
to
75
sign
that
they
can
request
to
come
back
before
the
final
chris.
Could
you
maybe
give
us
a
kind
of
overview
position
on
it?
What
I
mean
any
reassurance
you
can
provide
or
feedback
please,
because
it
just
doesn't
seem
to
sit
especially
well
with
me.
S
No,
it's
a
very
important
procedural
matter
and,
and
we've
consulted
with
legal
services
mark
niston's
on
the
line,
and
I
think
I'll
probably
refer
on
to
mark
what
I
would
say
is
it's
really
critical
in
our
consideration
on
this.
The
fact
that
the
applicant
themselves
are
not
changing
the
proposals,
so
the
proposal
remains
a
proposal
that
was
went
out
to
consultation
and
on
which
everybody
made
representations.
S
What
is
changing
is
the
conditions
which
the
officers
brought
forward
to
panel,
so
that's,
it
may
be
subtle,
but
that
was
something
that
nobody
had
any
prior
sight
of
as
they
don't
until
the
report
comes
to
panel.
It's
not
that
the
applicant
themselves
have,
you
know,
have
changed
a
proposal
that's
in
in
front
of
panel,
but
mark
if
you're
on
able
to
rise,
yep.
Q
Yeah,
it
certainly
can
so.
I
suppose
the
state
of
this
application
is
that
it
sits
at
a
mindy
to
grant,
and
I
think,
it's
probably
more
to
do
with
some
practical
difficulties
in
the
positioning
of
the
applicant
that
the
applicant
has
indicated.
I
believe
that
they're
not
in
a
position
to
sign
the
section
75
agreement
as
it
stands,
because
executing
section
75
would
result
in
the
conditions
being
issued
as
as
is,
and
then
they
would
come
back
with
our
section.
Q
It
was
viewed
as
appropriate
to
bring
it
back
to
to
panel
for
for
that
decision.
In
terms
of
the
statutory
processes
that
set
behind
it,
you
can
amend
planning
applications
at
any
point
until
they're
determined
under
the
legislation,
which
is
the
section
32a,
let
reference
that
chris
has
made,
and
that
would
be
viewed
as
the
most
appropriate
process.
Q
That
should
be
followed
with
a
view
to
to
everybody
in
terms
of
consultation.
There
will
be
no
requirement
to
consult
actually
either
under
a
a
section,
42
application
or
or
so
seriously
hold
a
hearing
session.
The
risk
consultation,
but
there
is
there
is
a
degree
of
discretion
in
these
things,
and
it
was
viewed
that
this
was
the
most
appropriate
route.
O
Thanks
chair,
thank
you
chair.
I
was
just
wondering
two
things.
I
understand
we're
changing
the
phasing
of
the
remediation.
Is
this
the
worst
part
of
the
the
site
that
they
want
to
remediate
later
and
do
we
have
any
idea
how
much
it
would
cost
does
it
actually
make
housing
unviable
on
that
site?
The
second
question
is:
were
our
original
conditions
competent
and
reasonable.
H
Okay,
yeah,
I
can
take
that
one.
So,
taking
your
first
point.
First,
the
most
contaminated
part
of
the
site
is
site,
one
which
is
where
the
housing
is
proposed,
and
so
essentially
we
will
be
securing
the
most
contaminated
site
and
the
larger
portion
of
the
two
sub
sites
is
remediated
to
bring
it
back
into
active
use.
H
Yes,
the
conditions
that
we
recommended
to
the
planning
panel
previously
were
competent
conditions
and
could
be
applied
and,
as
as
we
said,
the
only
reason
that
we're
seeking
to
change
this
now
is
because
the
applicant
has
requested
to
do
so,
and
it's
my
view,
in
conjunction
with
environmental
health,
that
the
conditions
we
are
proposing
are
still
competent
and
can
be
complied
with.
Essential
accounts
for
mcdonald's.
H
We
have
taken
the
previous
conditions
and
split
them
so
that
they
can
be
done
over
over
two
phases
rather
than
one,
but
the
conditions
are
more
or
less
the
same.
Although
I
have
set
out
the
report,
there
have
been
some
consequential
changes
to
other
conditions
and
that
we're
also
going
to
prior
to
commencement
conditions
just
to
ensure
that
we
still
get
the
right
detail
at
the
right
point
in
time.
H
H
And,
in
my
view,
there
is
no,
there
is
no
reason
other
than
the
applicant
is
citing
some
civil
difficulties
in
terms
of
complying
with
it.
But
in
planning
terms
there
isn't
any
developer
contribution
concern
other
than
what
was
already
reported
to
panel
back
in
october,
relating
to
the
viability
of
the
site.
A
A
X
X
For
example,
capping
layers
might
be
reduced
and
gas
protection
is
probably
likely
to
be
required
and
the
structures
on
site
two
and
the
buildings
are
very
similar
to
what's
on
site
one.
So
that
will
be
in
asbestos
a
licensed
asbestos
contractor
who
will
need
to
go
on
the
site
and
remove
that
material.
A
Okay,
thanks
john,
I
think
the
thing
for
me
is:
it
makes
it
very
clear
in
the
ldp
that
pre-requisite
the
ldp,
that
that
should
be
fully
costly,
the
actual
they
can
decontamination.
Second
page
181,
so
you
know,
surely
we
should
have
been
seeking
that
from
the
outset.
What
was
the
course
that
could
there
be,
then
it'd
be
very
easy
to
break
down
how
much
of
a
cost
you
know
for
this
section
and
does
it
render
unliable
with
council
mcdonald's
say
so,
can
hear
your
comments.
H
H
But
it
is
my
reading
understanding
of
the
development
plan
that
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
expressly
state
that
contamination
has
to
be
remediated
prior
to
any
development.
It
just
has
to
be
clear
that
the
site
is
remediated
and
it's
my
view
as
an
officer
that
the
conditions
which
ensure
that
the
site
is
remediated
prior
to
development,
albeit
over
two
phases,
rather
than
one
and
still
meets
with
the
key
site
requirements.
A
Of
the
ldp,
thanks
for
having
me
just
for
transparency,
okay,
because
the
really
real
importance
is
that
this
is
the
collaborative
hospital
site
the
site
has
contamination
issues.
Residential
development
is
permitted
to
steal
the
naval,
implementation
of
the
contaminated
land,
radiation
strategy
and
general
restoration
to
be
determined
by
a
fully
costing
independently
audited
restoration
plan.
A
R
A
F
Chair,
graham
forrester,
elite
solicitor
for
governance,
yes,
it
would
fall
within
the
competence
of
the
panel
to
defer
a
decision
to
a
later
meeting
I'll.
Maybe
just
ask
mark
easton.
If
he's
any
comment
to
make
he's
spoken
about
a
number
of
formal
planning
mechanisms,
just
in
case
there's
any
specific
implications
for
which
members
should
be
aware
of
about
defending
this
application.
Q
And
it's
absolutely
fine
for
the
benefit
members.
It
would
be
a
competent
decision
in
terms
of
planning
legislation.
It
would
be
a
reporter
in
a
similar
situation,
may
ask
for
for
something
similar
and
so
asking
for
a
further
a
further
hearing.
You
could
have
done
to
request
further
information
or
hear
from
further
interested
parties,
as
you
think,
fit
subject,
obviously
than
being
notified.
So,
for
example,
you
can
do
it
now.
S
C
A
A
B
B
O
A
O
R
A
single
contract
to
remove
remediation
would
be
cheaper
than
two
separate
ones.
I
don't,
I
don't
think
anybody
could
argue
that.
So
I
would
like
to
understand
the
course
things
and
the
point
that
you
made
is
it's
very
clear
and
in
my
mind,
in
the
ldp
what
we
expected
of
this
site
and
I
don't
think
what
we're
doing
meets
those
conditions.
B
Okay,
thanks
jess,
so
just
to
confirm.
Counselor
benny
seconded
by
ken,
has
moved
to
the
recommendations
which
is
to
approve
the
application
and
council
thompson
secured
by
council.
Mcpherson
have
moved
to
defend
the
applications
subject
to
a
hearing
for
more
information,
so
voting.
First
on
the
amendment
from
councillor
thompson
and
councilman
person,
please
indicate
fought
against
or
not
voting
councillor
bernie.
C
N
B
B
S
The
costing
information
that's
been
submitted
is
sensitive
information
because
it's
a
commercial
and
related
and
it's
been
assessed
by
the
district
valuer.
We
need
to
just
point
out.
We
need
to
give
some
consideration
to
how
best
to
the
format
for
the
next
panel
on
how
you
receive
that
information
that
you
that
you're
looking
for.