►
From YouTube: Planning and Regulation Panel 05-10-2021
Description
A meeting of the Planning and Regulation Panel broadcast live on Microsoft Teams
The agenda can be viewed online at: http://minutes.stirling.gov.uk/htmfiles/agendaindex.htm
A
A
A
Please
note:
this
meeting
has
been
broadcast,
live
on
youtube
and
our
recording
will
be
made
for
public
review
and
following
the
meeting
can
members
and
all
participants,
please
mute
their
microphones
during
the
meeting
and
not
speaking.
This
is
important
as
it
helps
ensure
the
quality
of
order
for
all
present.
C
D
E
A
A
A
Okay,
move
to
the
first
planning
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
application
forum
for
approval
of
mata,
specified
conditions,
numbers,
109
and
12
of
planning
permission
17
forward,
slash
double
zero,
nine,
seven,
eight
for
the
right
stuff.
I
love
them.
Affordable
dwelling
houses,
land
adjacent
number,
one
number:
two:
lamps,
north
carolina,
housing
association.
F
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
I'm
peter
mckechnie,
a
planning
officer
who
processed
this
application
as
you
correctly
state.
It's
an
application
for
masters
specified
by
conditions
seeking
approval
of
submissions
submitted
in
respect
to
conditions,
one
to
nine
and
twelve
of
ppp
approval,
17,
stroke,
zero,
zero,
nine
seven.
Eight
ppp
I'd
like
to
firstly
point
out
that
the
applicants
brought
to
our
attention
a
concern
regarding
condition
13.
F
yesterday,
where
they
have
actually
obtained
a
license
or
disturbing
the
bat
roosts
that
are
within
the
site
and
are
therefore
seeking
an
amendment
to
that
condition.
13
and
so
I'd
like
the
the
clerk
to
note.
Please
that,
should
the
application
be
approved,
there'll
be
a
need
to
amend,
condition
13.
F
F
C
F
F
F
F
F
A
F
F
Site
plan,
the
proposals
include
sandwich
attached,
a
cottage
flats,
two
lots
of
cottage
flats
and
a
bungalow
for
the
purposes
of
an
adapted
bungalow,
and
so
for
somebody
that
may
have
a
disability
as
set
out
by
the
the
ppp
approval
and
the
section
75
agreement
that
was
signed.
All
houses
are
for
affordable
houses
to
be
run
and
managed
by
rural
stirling
housing
association.
F
F
F
Apart
from
one
that's
dead
and
that's
an
oak
tree
and
that's
set
out
in
the
in
the
tree
survey,
that's
needs
to
be
removed
as
it's
no
longer
living
previously,
as
the
the
applicants
had
originally
proposed
to
bring
their
drainage
down
through
here,
which
would
have
had
an
impact
on
trees
instead
they're
bringing
it
in
through
the
the
car
park
area
here.
So
it
ensures
the
protection
of
of
these
trees
seeking
to
to
minimize
the
impact
on
on
trees.
F
We
have
a
new
footpath
as
well-
that's
proposed
as
part
of
the
development
coming
along
the
frontage
with
bin
store
areas
set
in
behind
the
hedging
and
cycle
storage,
as
well
sitting
at
the
frontage
here
and
behind
the
hedging.
There's
also
proposals
for
a
car
electric
charging
points
within
the
development
and
the
boundary
walls.
You've
got
you'll,
see
sections
coming
up
that
the
site
slopes
down,
so
there's
a
need
for
boundary
retention
walls
along
this
area
here
and
in
this
area
here
as
well,
but
they're
set
back
to
protect
the
trees.
F
F
This
is
the
adapted
bungalow
with
the
floor
plans
and
the
elevations
and
the
cottage
flats
for
the
cottage
flats.
This
elevation
here
will
face
across
the
fields,
and
this
is
your
elevation
here
that
faces
out
onto
lamps
and
road
itself.
There's.
Actually.
This
is
an
older
3d
image,
you'll
see
from
the
elevations
here
that
it's
been
adapted.
F
F
Here
we
have
three
pretty
images
of
the
proposal,
so
this
is
looking
from
the
northeast
from
the
the
fields
beyond
looking
through
the
the
car
park,
a
courtyard
that's
to
be
formed
between
the
two
lots
of
of
cottage
flats,
and
this
is
taken
from
the
the
end
of
the
at
the
t,
junction,
with
a
lamson
within
lamson
road
itself,
looking
down
towards
the
the
main
b8
road
with
the
adapted
bungalow
and
the
cottage
flats
there.
So
it
gives
a
rough
idea,
the
kind
of
streetscape
that's
going
to
be
formed.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
peter
I'm
going
to
go
next
stage
of
the
hearing
as
a
presentation
by
the
applicant
and
up
against
rural
sterling
housing
association
and
now
margaret
vass
and
mrs
vast
yeah.
Your
presentation
has
to
be
limited
to
five
minutes
and
after
four
minutes
I'll
ask
you
to
sum
up.
If
you
want
to
proceed,
please.
I
Thank
you
good
morning.
My
name
is
margaret
bass
and
I'm
a
board
member
and
former
chairperson
at
rural
sterling
housing
association.
It
is
unusual
for
a
board
member
to
address
a
planning
hearing
rather
than
our
ceo.
However,
I
want
you
to
understand
the
importance
our
board
places
on
delivering
this
urgently
needed,
affordable
housing
in
cologne.
I
This
was
shown
in
neighbouring
strathplain
when
a
local
housing
needs
survey
was
carried
out
by
the
rural
housing
scotland,
in
2019,
with
funding
from
sterling
council
private,
letting
is
the
main
alternative
tenure
to
owning
in
rural
south
west,
but
rent
levels
continue
to
be
high
and
not
affordable
to
local
people.
Doing
vital
low
paid
jobs.
I
The
site
at
lambton
road
is
considered
suitable
preparation
of
affordable
housing,
and
we
were
delighted
when
sterling
council
asked
us
to
take
forward
the
development
rule
of
sterling
purchased
the
land
in
2019,
with
the
support
of
scottish
government
funding
from
the
affordable
housing
supply
program,
with
the
intention
to
build
11
properties.
All
of
these
for
social
rent,
the
planning
permission
and
principal
application
submitted
by
the
previous
landowner
for
the
development
proposal
of
12
homes
for
this
site
met
with
considerable
objection
from
the
local
community
and
neighboring
property
owners.
I
The
design
team
and
rsha
representatives
held
a
number
of
meetings
with
nearby
residents
and
colon
community
council
and
in
response
to
the
feedback
received
at
these
meetings,
the
design
was
extensively
revised
and
enhanced.
As
just
as
been
described
to
you,
the
number
of
units
was
reduced
from
12
to
11,
which
allowed
the
layout
of
the
housing
to
be
opened
up
to
maintain
views
through
the
new
development
from
the
adjacent
properties.
I
The
upper
cottage
flats
were
reduced
to
two-thirds
height
and
the
placement
of
other
units
was
changed
to
reduce
the
impact
on
views
from
the
neighboring
upper
windows.
Properties
were
rotated
so
that
their
main
aspects
are
now
facing
away
from
ransom.
Road
and
additional
design
features
have
been
given
to
gable
end
now
facing
samson
road.
As
a
result,
this
process
has
resulted
in
a
design
that
has
been
adapted
to
address
local
concerns,
meet
local
and
national
policy
and
will
provide
robust,
sustainable
and
low-cost
housing.
I
Our
design
proposal
for
the
lanson
roadside
also
includes
a
wheelchair,
accessible
property,
specifically
designed
for
a
family
with
specialist
needs
in
urgent
need
of
new
housing.
We
have
no
other
suitable
properties
to
offer
the
family
currently
living
in
overcrowded
and
extremely
unsuitable
accommodation.
I
J
I
A
Okay,
thanks
for
mrs
vance,
you
have
a
minute
and
eight
seconds
left.
If
you
want
to
use
it
after
and
I'll
now,
move
to
the
next
section
of
the
hearing,
which
is
a
presentation
by
supporters
which
there's
a
there
is
none.
So
the
next
presentation
is
by
the
objectives
and
understand,
as
we
have
two
first
of
all,
fraser
and
mitchell
anna
told
me
and
my
understanding
is
you're,
going
to
split
this
presentation.
D
D
My
client
has
concerns
in
connection
with
the
way
in
which
the
application
has
been
assessed,
which
may
render
unlawful
any
decision
taken
by
the
panel
today
panel
members
have
not
been
provided
with
all
relevant
information
in
connection
with
ancient
woodland.
Part
of
the
application
site
is
designated
as
ancient
woodland.
D
D
The
council's
approach
is
not
based
on
a
full
understanding
of
the
available
data
from
the
native
woodland
survey
of
scotland
and
does
not
properly
consider
the
strong
presumption
against
the
removal
of
ancient
woodland
to
explain
in
the
time
permitted.
My
client,
who
holds
a
first-class
honours
degree
in
science,
has
demonstrated
in
the
addendum
to
the
letter
of
one
october
that
paragraph
2.89
of
the
panel
report
is
factually
incorrect.
D
A
correct
analysis
of
the
data
shows
the
biodiversity
interest
of
the
application
site
has
the
highest
rating
in
the
native
woodland
survey.
The
error
in
the
panel
report
arises
from
the
reliance
on
data
relating
to
the
impact
of
deer
and
livestock
on
ancient
woodland.
However,
there
is
no
livestock
on
the
site.
Therefore,
the
purported
impact
referred
to
in
the
panel
report
has
not
and
cannot
occur.
D
The
panel
report
therefore
fails
to
take
into
account
relevant
information
and
fails
to
properly
consider
the
strong
presumption
against
removal
of
ancient
woodland,
which
may
only
be
overcome
by
significant
and
demonstrable
benefits
being
delivered
by
the
application
in
terms
of
bats.
My
client
has
three
concerns.
D
First,
the
council
considers
the
two
bat
surveys
carried
out
in
2020
as
sufficient
in
respect
of
the
mature
oak
in
the
site.
Nature,
scott
considered
those
to
be
initial
surveys
and
expected
further
surveys
to
follow
after
the
hibernation
period.
So
far
as
we're
aware,
no
further
surveys
of
the
mature
oak
have
been
undertaken.
D
That
survey
undertaken
in
2021
relate
to
different
parts
of
the
site.
Second,
the
panel
report
refers
to
the
three
key
tests
from
the
1994
regulations
that
the
council
must
consider.
However,
it
does
this
without
making
the
panel
aware
of
what
key
test
2
requires
an
applicant
and
the
council
to
address.
D
Third,
there
is
no
evidence
that
the
applicant
has
addressed
key
test
2.
It
requires
satisfactory
alternatives
to
be
considered.
There
is
no
evidence
that
this
process
has
been
undertaken.
These
matters
should
be
addressed
before
the
application
is
determined
and
failure
to
do
so
may
render
any
decision
vulnerable
to
subsequent
legal
challenge.
Thank
you.
A
H
Yes,
thank
you.
My
name
is
jim
ptolemy.
I
am
the
chair
and
planning
consultant
for
kalam
community
council
and
I
have
been
asked
to
make
representation
on
behalf
of
the
property
owners
in
that
part
of
the
village.
The
main
concern
is
the
environmental
impact
and
design
and
relationship
to
the
surroundings.
H
H
It
does
not
contribute
to
the
character
of
surrounding
built
environment
in
terms
of
density
and
scale,
for
example,
will
be
up
to
30
residents
in
a
relatively
confined
space.
The
neighborhood
comprises
60
to
70,
detect
houses
and
would
be
a
clear
mismatch
of
the
development
there's
also
a
direct
issue
with
lack
of
privacy,
where
the
two
semi-detached
units
overlook
the
housing
opposite.
A
Okay,
thanks
to
that,
mr
tommy,
I
I'm
going
to
add
the
extra
time
you
go
on
to
the
applicant.
So
probably
that
will
have
probably
two
minutes
once
if
you
want
to
take
the
atmosphere
after
the
the
questions.
The
next
section
of
the
hearing
is
the
presentation
by
a
local
member.
I
think
counselor
rob
davis
robin
again.
If
you
want
to
limit
your
presentation
to
five
minutes
and
as
per
the
counselor
go
to
conduct.
It's
not
me,
it
makes
the
rules,
but
you
have
to
leave
the
meeting
after
that.
K
K
So
I'd
really
echo
mrs
ava's
comments
and
her
widespread
experience
as
chair
and
of
rules
joining
house
association
I'll
take
on
board
the
comments
about
the
ldp,
but
I
would
point
out
that
klern
and
many
other
areas
have
quite
a
variety
of
architectural
styles
and
from
what
I
can
see
the
plans.
I
think
this
will
be
perfectly
acceptable
than
that.
K
Well,
finally,
obviously
colored
has
his
own
special
interest,
but
as
a
member
for
the
whole
ward,
we
we
get
representations
for
many
other
villages
where
there
is
urgent
need
for
housing
and
there's.
There
is
a
lack
of
suitable
land
in
this
part
of
the
world,
and
this
development
is
one
of
the
few.
I
think
again,
as
mrs
master's
point
of
that
that
is
available
that
can
be
developed.
K
A
Okay,
thanks
for
that
rob
and
okay
now
let
me
open
up
now
for
questions.
This
is
from
panel
members
to
officers
and
to
any
of
the
contributors
to
the
hearing.
I
just
want
to
check
first,
there's
more
as
a
point
in
order
here,
if
maybe
for
for
graham
forrest
or
the
solicitor
given
relation
to
the
officers,
peter
mckechnie's
ultimate
statement
about
adding
that's,
maybe
for
chris
cox's
question
I
think
of
it
about
you
know,
amending
a
condition
at
this
late
stage.
A
J
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
that's
the
case
that
new
information
from
objectors
shouldn't
be
and
submitted
or
isn't
admissible
after
the
report
of
handling
has
been
compiled.
So
in
this
case
that's
15
days
before
panel
and,
however,
conditions
are
an
area
that
ultimately,
applicants
need
to
be
agreeable
to
or
they
could
be
appealing
and
that
that
condition.
J
So
it's
in
practical
purposes,
it's
it's
always
helpful
for
us
to
to
get
agreement
wherever
we
can
on
on
planning
conditions,
and
in
this
instance,
what's
been
pointed
out,
is
information
that
we
didn't
know
that
it
is
as
relevant
now
to
considering
that
planning
condition.
As
I
say,
if
the
condition
was
to
continue,
then
the
applicant
could
appeal
that
condition
so
really
we're
kind
of
cutting
across
that
process
and
trying
to
deal
with
it
head-on.
C
Yeah
thanks
chair,
I
could
ask
a
question
of
the
officer.
I
I
have
some
concerns
about
the
the
density
of
this
development.
So,
although
mrs
vaz
pointed
out,
it
has
been
reduced
from
from
12
to
11.
But
when
you
look
at
the
plan
views,
it
is
strikingly
a
densely
packed
development,
and
I
was
looking
yesterday
evening
at
some
views
from
google
earth.
C
I
would
guess
that
they're
cramming
11
dwellings
onto
a
space
which
across
the
road
would
would
only
accommodate
three
or
four.
So
I
think
that's
a
that
looks
quite
jarring,
particularly
given
that
the
dominance
of
this
site's
right
at
the
edge
of
the
village.
So
it
would
could
peter
comment
on
on
on
the
the
density
of
this
development.
C
A
Before
you
sorry
before
you
do
that,
I
want
to
bring
your
attention
at
page
19,
because
it's
connected
to
counselor
beryl's
question
at
2.2.
What
my
understanding
was
the
planning
permission
principle
was
for
13
units
12
number
to
2,
bedroom
and
1
down.
So
was
it
13
previously,
as
per
2.24?
Was
it
or
was
it
12.
F
A
F
Yeah
I
mean
naturally
the
affordable
housing
is
a
denser
development.
You're
right
it
is,
it
will
appear
denser
than
the
rest
of
the
site
I
mean,
and
lamps
and
roads
been
well
developed
in
in
the
days
where
there
was
large
garden
grounds
given
to
properties
and
and
it's
it's
a
low
density
development
yeah.
It's
a
far
higher
density
this.
This
proposal.
A
E
F
Yeah
I
mean
in
the
past,
previous
owners
have
removed
trees
from
the
site
and
it
would
appear
to
be
without
permission.
We
haven't
fully
established
that
yet
it's
being
looked
into
whether
the
permissions
were
applied,
but
we
haven't
found
anything
so
far
to
say
that
it
was
applied
for
in
terms
of
any
tree
failing
license,
and
certainly
there
doesn't
appear
to
be
any
permissions
in
terms
of
tpo
for
the
removal
of
those
trees.
E
F
E
L
F
F
A
Yeah,
I
think
you
said
2.63
peter-
that
integrate
well
obviously
with
a
suitable
function.
Well
in
the
landscape,
I've
got
a
question
for
margaret
vass,
mr
vas.
In
relation
to
the
obviously
mentioned
the
demand
for
housing
and
clearing.
I
think
you
come
up
with
the
figures
12
to
1
for
strath
blind.
Do
you
know
what
the
actual
figures
are
for
kalern,
presumably
quite
similar.
A
I
A
C
The
site
was
regarded
as
being
unsuitable
for
six
houses
and
now
we're
going
to
put
11
dwellings
on
it,
recognizing
this
planning
permission
in
principle
already
in
place
of
course,
but
I
think
this
is
there's
too
many
houses
for
this
very
narrow
and
restricted
site.
I'm
concerned
about
the
the
massing
about
the
about
the
the
height
of
the
buildings
and
the
mismatch
in
the
density
of
this
development,
compared
with
with
the
existing
houses
across
the
road.
A
J
So,
thank
you.
I
noted
three
reasons
there,
the
first
one
related
to
over
development,
which
is
something
that
you
would
need
to
say
why
you
think
it's
over
development
in
in
terms
of
the
site
itself,
and
and
its
surrounding
you
did
reference
the
number
of
units
that
were
in
the
planning
permission
in
principle,
but
a
plan
permission
in
principle
is
only
ever
an
indication
and
it
doesn't
specify
I
I'll
bind
any
numbers.
J
So
when
you
get
to
this
stage
in
the
process,
an
applicant
really
has
to
justify
the
number
of
houses
on
the
unit,
so
that
takes
us
back
to
you
need
needing
to
be
able
to
say
in
your
opinion,
why
it's
over
development
in
terms
of
the
the
design
of
the
site.
The
second
reason
was
related
to
the
numbers.
I've
talked
about
that
and
then
the
third
reason
was
related
to
the
massing
and
height
of
the
the
proposal
and
that
that
is
a
a
valid
material
planning
consideration.
A
A
A
C
B
A
A
Thanks
david
I'll
move
to
agenda
item
number
six,
which
is
the
full
planning
permission
for
proposed
modification
to
the
design
of
a
dwelling
house
approved
under
19
forward,
slash
double
zero
name,
zero
garden,
ground
of
12,
well,
gate
drive,
bridge
of
island
and
I
think
jane
where
this
is
your
application
jane.
If
you
want
to
proceed.
O
O
The
application
in
front
of
us
today
is
proposes
to
vary
the
house
design
previously
approved
in
regard
to
the
window,
position,
scale
and
projection
height
and
boundary
treatments
which
includes
further
removal
of
hedges
and
the
installation
of
a
boundary
wall
to
the
front
facing
onto
welding
drive.
It
includes
increased
glazing
to
the
front
in
the
form
of
dormer
extensions
and
a
glazed
central
front-facing
gable,
and
the
additional
finishing
materials
would
differ
from
that
previously
approved.
However,
the
site
is
to
be
accessed
and
serviced
as
previously
approved.
O
O
And
some
sections
of
the
proposed
house
type
as
well
and
the
floor
plans,
which
show
the
entrance
way
and
a
large
upper
hallway
where
the
gable
is
centrally
proposed,
and
this
block
plan
shows
on
your
screen.
Separation
distances
from
the
proposed
dwelling
house
to
the
neighboring
dwellings
within
wellgate
drive.
O
I
can
take
you
through
a
series
of
photos
of
the
site
as
well,
so
this
is
taken
from
a
site
visit
in
july
and
it's
viewed
looking
north
east
within
the
garden
ground
for
12,
wheel,
gate
drive.
It
shows
the
site
as
existing,
currently
enclosed
by
tall
the
land
eye,
hedging
and
the
opposite.
Looking
in
the
opposite
direction.
O
The
following
slides,
are
images
taken
from
the
cauldy
cycle
to
a
well
gate
drive.
So,
on
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
image
is
the
site
proposed,
where
the
hedging
bounds
immediately
onto
the
road
as
existing
and
just
a
further
view
of
that
side
of
the
site
as
well
and
taken
from
the
corner
and
looking
back
towards
the
east
and
with
the
heading
here.
O
This
image
just
shows
examples
of
some
of
the
house.
Tapes
on
12,
wheel,
gate
drive
and
this
image
shows
an
aerial
view,
so
you
can
see
it's
a
large.
The
rectangular
plot
orientated
north
to
south
and
enclosed
by
mature
hedging,
as
outlined
in
the
report
and
the
consultee's
reasonable
objection
and
advice
was
sought
internally
from
the
tree
officer
and
sustainability
officer
in
terms
of
the
tree
removal
and
by
his
biodiversity
concerns
raised
and
all
considerations
raised
by
neighbour,
neighbours
and
objection
have
been
considered.
N
You
one
of
our
main
concerns
is
that,
though,
that
are
we
ripping
out
all
the
lay
landis
down
down
the
front
from
the
gate
was
right
right
down
until
it
bends
around
to
the
left
hand
side,
are
they
all
being
removed?
All
those
lay
landis
has
been
dug
out
taken
out
completely,
or
are
they
just
being
trimmed
back
to
to
you
call
it
a
hedge,
I
mean
the
bat.
Some
of
them
are
about
10
foot
tall,
so
are
they
all
being
ripped
out
completely
and
then
be
being
replaced
by
a
hedge.
O
Yeah
I'll
pull
open
the
landscaping
plan.
If
you
just
bear
with
me,
some
of
the
hedging
is
to
be
retained,
and
some
of
it
is
to
be
replaced
so
in
terms
of
the
front-facing
hedge
here
in
this
existing
hedge
is
to
be
replaced,
and
a
tree
report
was
provided
with
the
application
which
confirms
that
these
existing
hedges
are
of
low
value
and
low
desirability,
not
worthy
of
retention,
and
the
neighboring
trees
are
to
be
retained.
O
Obviously
they're
in
the
neighboring,
a
plot
and
they're
to
be
protected
by
way
of
condition
expecting
tree
protection
plans,
and
the
majority
of
one
hedge
here
is
to
be
detained
which
was
recommended
in
the
tree
report,
along
with
the
hedging
to
the
north
east,
to
be
retained
and
partial
hedging
of
hedge
to
here
to
be
detained,
and
otherwise
it's
to
be
replaced
or
removed.
As
noted
in
the
red
hatching
on
the
slide.
N
Thinking
I
take
it,
the
main
entrance
to
the
property
will
be
through
the
metal
gates
into
12,
well
gate,
and
then
the
entrance
that
you
showed
us
earlier
on
when
there's
a
little
walking
gap,
I
take
it
that
will
be
widened
to
allow
the
vehicles
to
go
into
into
the
the
new
property.
The
the
the
access
is
not
from
wellgate
drive.
It's
actually
from
number
12
is
that
right.
O
A
E
Council
macdonald,
I
was
just
going
to
ask
about
the
hedge
and
I
vanished
there
because
my
team's
crashed,
I
understand.
I
sort
of
understand
where
you
get
coming
from,
is
the
whole
length
of
the
hedge
being
reduced
from
10
feet,
or
is
it
just
some
of
it's
staying
full
height
and
with
a
wall
in
front
of
it?
Is
that
right
and
then
you've
got
some
gaps,
so
you
can
get
in.
O
Yeah
I
mentioned
that
partial
elements
of
the
hedging
as
existing
are
to
be
detained
and
other
elements,
including
that
to
the
front
of
to
be
replaced
and
a
boundary
wall
is
proposed
as
well.
A
landscaping
plan
has
been
provided
and
is
conditioned
to
ensure
that
the
maintenance
aim
is
carried
out
in
accordance
with
that
and
aim
a
further
tree
protection
as
well
of
the
neighbouring
trees.
So
a
thorough
condition
is
attached.
I
think
it's
condition
one
of
the
appendix
in
the
report.
O
L
O
Yes,
in
this
context,
the
zinc
roofing
is
still
considered
to
be
a
high
quality
material
and
well,
it
doesn't
match.
What's
existing
on
the
neighboring
adjacent
property,
it's
still
considered
suitable
and
given
that
there's
an
existing
mix
of
house
tapes
within
the
immediate
vicinity
and
the
application
site
is
out
with
the
conservation
area
boundary
as
well
aims.
So,
given
the
style
of
the
house
is
generally
modern
in
appearance,
the
zinc
roofing
and
the
other
materials
proposed
are
considered
to
match
and
be
appropriate
for
that.
Setting.
A
N
Beacon
craft
and
then
you've
got
kennel
worth
gate
with
the
construction
of
this
size.
There's
going
to
be
loads
of
loads
of
vehicles
going
in
heavy
duty
vehicles,
construction
vehicles,
blah
blah
blah.
I'm
just
wondering
whether
we
can
put
in
a
condition
that
the
applicant
is
responsible
for
cleaning
up
the
road,
because
the
the
vehicles
become
off
kennel
worth
road.
So
they'll
go
past
the
entrance
to
to
beacon
craft.
N
Then
they
go
past
the
entrance
to
to
kenworth
gate
where
the
cars
will
come
out
and
it
is
and
it's
a
nice
area
and
it's
it's
the
the
the
the
road
in
kenworth
or
is
obviously
in
the
conservation
area.
But
I'm
just
wondering
whether
we
can
ask
the
applicant
to
be
responsible
enough
to
make
sure
that
the
road
is
kept
clean
and
tidy
for
the
other
people
using
that
road
that
are
leaving
kennerworth
gate
and
beaconcroft.
J
Yes,
so
construction
activity
is
not
something
that
is
covered
by
planning
control,
so
it's
not
something
that
we're
able
to
apply
conditions
over.
Generally
speaking,
there
are
some
exceptions
to
that,
but
but
not
in
this
instance,
but
what
we
can
do
is
apply
an
advisory
note
that
would
advise
the
applicant
that
those
measures
would
be
and
would
be
welcomed
and
encouraged.
A
Okay,
you
know
the
second
counselor
dodds
I'll.
Second
him.
Okay,
that's
fine!
Is
that
anyone
otherwise
minded
no
okay,
so
the
applications
approved
move
now
to
item
seven
on
the
agenda,
which
is
the
demolition
of
existing
garage
outbuilder
direction
of
dwelling
house
at
king's
park.
House
21
victoria
place
kingsport
stirling,
and
we
have
peter
mckechnie
for
this
one
peter.
F
Rear
the
proposed
houses
to
obtain
access
from
the
rear
access
lane
through
a
hole
in
the
listed
wall
with
parking
here
and
also
there
there's
a
parking
space
shown
at
the
front
of
the
property
here,
but
that's
currently
associated
with
number
21.
So
the
main
parking
for
this
property
will
be
from
the
rear,
as
you
can
see
from
the
extent
of
cartilage,
that's
shown
here,
it's
quite
comparable
with
a
similar
previous
approval,
where
conversion
and
new
build
was
allowed
to
create
21a
on
this
side
of
the
number
21
victoria
place.
F
F
F
F
These
are
existing
elevations
that
show
21
victoria
place
here.
The
main
listed
building
this
is
21a,
that's
been
formed
in
the
past.
We
have
the
the
wing
walls,
the
main
listed
building,
the
outbuilding,
that's
subject
to
the
demolitions
part
of
this
application,
sits
in
behind
this
wall
and
is
usually
a
garage.
That's
currently
a
garage
door
there.
F
Here
we
have
a
an
image
of
the
outbuilding
where
you
can
see
the
the
roof
has
been
altered
in
the
past,
and
it's
got
now
a
large
part
of
it's
a
felt
roof
and
that's
the
the
other
wall.
Here
that's
to
be
demolished
and
you
can
see
it's
it's
there's.
Quite
a
number
of
alterations
have
taken
place
with
poor
quality,
build
in
terms
of
that
as
well.
F
This
this
wall
here
has
been
retained
as
part
of
the
proposals
and,
again
that's
been
altered.
That's
been
pebble
dashed
and
it's
proposed
to
take
all
that
off
and
bring
it
back
to
to
sandstone
as
part
of
the
proposals,
and
when
I
look
at
the
elevations
and
well,
we
may
all
look
at
the
elevations
in
a
week.
Well
I'll
make
reference
to
these
roof
lights,
which
is
a
key
consideration
in
terms
of
the
proposals
and
the
impact
on
neighbours.
F
These
provide
daylight
and
sunlight
to
the
neighbor
to
their
kitchen,
come
dining
room,
which
is
an
objection
in
terms
of
loss
of
daylight
and
sunlight.
My
report
predominantly
reports.
This
is
a
as
a
kitchen,
but
I've
since
received
correspondence
that
they
they
do
more
use
it
as
a
dining
area.
It's
obviously
a
kitchen,
but
there's
a
strong
part
of
it
is,
is
for
dining
and
socializing
with
him.
F
These
walls,
though
this
wall
was
retained
as
part
of
the
proposals
inside
from
the
inside
the
main,
a
cartilage
itself
as
you've
come
through
that
access
door
through
the
wing
wall.
As
you
can
see,
this
wall
here
is
to
be
retained
as
part
of
the
proposals.
These
are
the
two
buildings,
including
this
wall.
Here,
that's
already
been
demolished
and
part
of
the
separate
application.
F
F
F
As
pointed
out,
the
property
adjacent
has
a
single
story,
a
kitchen
dining
area
with
with
roof
lights,
the
roof
lights.
They
they
sit
to
the
south
west
of
the
proposals
and
in
terms
of
my
assessment
of
the
impact
on
this,
and
my
report
sets
out
that
it's
a
kitchen
and
there's
no
habitable
room
element.
F
The
sun
comes
round
is
considered
that
sunlight
will
still
be
received
within
these
roof
lights
and
also
daylight
will
naturally
come
in
this
gap.
There'll
still
be
the
sufficient
gap
to
allow
light,
predominantly
there's
a
lot
of
overshadow
already
caused
by
the
existing
property,
as
the
sun
comes
round
and
during
times
when
the
sun's
lower
in
the
sky.
F
The
the
purpose
of
putting
this
plan
up
is
to
set
out
clearly
in
terms
of
the
red
the
extent
of
demolition,
although
this
is
an
earlier
plan
so
that
there
that
wall
is
to
be
retained
and
the
rest
has
either
been
demolished
or
is
going
to
be
demolished
as
part
of
the
proposals
and
there's
also
a
condition
that
sets
out
a
conservation
method
statement
to
ensure
that
wall
was
retained.
As
part
of
the
of
the
proposals
moving
on
to
the
proposed
elevations,
as
you
can
see,
there's
21
victoria
place.
F
We
have
the
wing
wall,
we
have
the
proposed
build
and
it
sits
here
which
will
be
seen
coming
above
the
wing
wall.
These
two
dimensional
drawings
don't
really
help
because
it
makes
it
appear
as
if
it's
just
coming
up
above
the
the
wing
wall
right
close
to
it,
but
it's
it's
actually
going
to
be
set
back
quite
quite
significantly
in
terms
of
its
over
overall
appearance.
So
here
you
have
the
the
single
story
element
with
the
the
wall
being
retained
and
then
rising
to
the
two
story
so
set
back.
F
F
The
neighbor
has
raised
concerns
about
the
roof
lights.
The
roof
lights
sit
in
this
area
here,
yes,
that
this
is
all
glazed.
It
forms
an
internal
balcony.
So
there's
no
external
element
here,
there's
a
barrier
that
you
can
stand.
These
doors
will
open,
there's
a
barrier.
The
main
views
are
towards
the
king's
park
and
it's
not
been
designed
to
view
directly
into
these
roof
lights.
Potentially,
you
could
stand
away
over
here,
look
towards
the
roof
lights,
but
I
would
imagine
you
know
it.
F
The
also
to
the
rear
of
the
property
leading
down
into
the
garden
area,
because
the
the
house
is
to
be
sunk
down
to
meet
the
level
of
the
of
the
single
story
element
because
after
you've
gone
past
this
point
here
the
ground
raises
up.
So
it's
been
sunk
down
to
reduce
its
impact
and
scale
and
ensure
that
it
falls
through
with
the
the
single
story
outbuilding
in
the
wall.
That's
been
retained.
F
F
Here
are
the
proposed
floor
plans
with
bedrooms
on
the
ground
floor
and
living
accommodation
and
kitchen
and
dining
space
on
the
the
first
floor
to
take
advantage
of
the
the
views,
particularly
the
living
accommodation.
Here,
the
sitting
room
has
been
designed
to
look
across
towards
the
the
king's
park
and
again
here
we
we
have
the
the
roof
which
has
been
is
to
be
a
slate
roof,
and
it's
been
well
broken
up
as
well
for
the
use
of
glazing
and
roof
lights.
F
F
M
Yeah
peter
them,
as
I'm
sure
you'll,
be
aware.
The
conservation
officer
involved
in
this
application
had
put
a
report
on
the
portal,
which
was
highly
critical
of
the
application,
and
I
don't
actually
see
the
sentiments
of
the
officer
expressed
and
therefore
I'm
concerned
that
we're
getting
a
partial
view
here,
rather
than
a
more
comprehensive
view,
because
it's
me
if
there
is
a
difference
of
opinions
in
terms
of
officers.
That's
perfectly
fine,
because
it's
it's
the
panel
here
that
will
discern
and
decide
and
weigh
up
the
factors
at
hand
here.
M
And
I'm
I'm
just
concerned
that
that
report
was
not
made
available
to
to
elected
members
so
that
we
could
actually
have
a
look
at
the
considerable
concerns
of
the
conservation
officer
and
who
was
not
only
highly
critical,
but
indeed
with
what
was
opposing
this
application.
And
I
don't
see
that
balance
in
this
and
their
support.
So
I
was
just
like
your
views
on
that.
F
Yeah
I
mean
the
the
report
from
the
conservation
officer
is
a
note
to
the
chief
planning
officer
that's
to
be
considered
as
part
of
the
actual
assessment
of
the
application.
It's
not
an
external
console
t,
so
it's
not
something
that
should
be
made
publicly
available
on
the
portal
that
was
made
an
error
available.
F
F
I
have
set
out
the
concerns
within
my
assessment
of
the
development,
but
I've
also
set
out
where
I
consider
the
developer
has
met.
Those
concerns
in
terms
of
the
the
fabric
of
the
outbuilding
is
such
that
the
heritage
value
is
has
been
eroded.
Of
that
outbuilding
I
mean
predominantly
historic.
Scotland
were
concerned
about
the
loss
of
listed
fabric.
A
lot
of
the
listed
fabric
has
already
been
removed
and
altered
over
the
years
and
in
terms
of
the
impact
and
the
character
and
setting
of
the
listed
building.
F
I
I
consider
that
the
the
scale
of
the
proposals,
the
way
it's
been
set
back
from
the
frontage
and
its
height
in
relation
to
the
list
of
building
and
neighboring
properties.
Overall
was
considered
to
have
a
neutral
impact
on
the
character
and
setting
of
the
conservation
area
and
the
main
list
of
building.
E
E
I
was
trying
to
understand
how
you
calculated
the
sight
lines
if
you've
used
a
drone
or
you've
used
a
very
long,
selfie
stick
or
whatever
it
is,
or
you've
done
some
maths.
How?
How
have
you
actually
calculated?
You
can't
see
through
the
roof
lights
and
trying
to
understand
that
because
it
is
set
back,
not
all
the
way
halfway
through
the
roof
lights,
let's
say
so.
Can
you
explain
that
in
a
bit
more
detail.
P
F
Would
you
call
it
a
gable
here?
Somebody
will
stand.
You
know
if
somebody
stood
you
know
in
this
area
here
it's
considered
that
they
would
be
looking
across,
which
would
give
views
into
that
area
there
rather
than
you
know,
it's
my
consideration
from
assessing
the
proposals
and
it's
a
difficult
assessment,
because
I
would
need
to
be
standing
at
that
level
there.
But
you
know
it's
my
consideration.
If
you
were,
you
need
to
come
out
the
building
stand
right
there
and
look
down.
E
F
It's
an
entirely
glassed
face
right.
That's
it
there
is
that
that's
entirely
glazed
in
that
area
there,
where
it's
been
designed
to
offer
views
out
towards
the
the
kings
park,
but
the
the
glass
will
open
and
then
there's
a
a
balustrade
here.
So
you
can
stand
in
that
area
there
and
be
in
the
fresh
air.
Although
you're,
not
it's
not
coming
out
to
form
a
terrace
in
this
area
here,
but
you
can
stand
and
see
out.
E
If,
if
we
decide
to
approve
it,
that's
a
big.
If,
because
there
are
no
corporations
about
conservation
reports,
and
that
could
we
could.
I
ask
for
the
condition
that
if
you
can
see
into
the
skylights
that
there
would
be
the
consideration
of
something
like
a
mesh
panel
or
an
opaque
piece
of
glass
to
obscure
that
view
as
a
condition.
F
G
Yes,
thank
you.
Chair
make
a
mobile
development
team,
we're
done
just
by
the
condition
that
was
requested
by
councilman
mcdonald.
We
could
only
apply
that
at
the
point
that
the
decision
has
been
taken.
We
would
not
be
able
to
effectively
have
this
property
built
and
then
decide
to
retrospectively
apply
a
condition
for
opaque
reason.
If
panel
decided
that
they
would
prefer
opaque
glazing
as
a
condition,
we
would
need
to
do
that
up
front
as
part
of
the
decision-making
process
and
not
at
a
later
date,
because
we
can't
do
it
retrospectively.
E
F
E
N
J
J
The
officers
explained
how
the
considerations
around
about
privacy
have
have
been
derived
and
and
in
the
main,
that
the
fact
that
our
supplementary
guidance
defines
habitable
rooms,
not
as
comprising
kitchens
and
this
being
a
a
kitchen.
So
whilst
there
this
could
be
a
a
condition.
I
think
you
need
to
be
very
clear
as
a
panel
that
is
of
such
concern
to
you
that
there's
a
privacy
impact
that
you'd
be
applying
that
condition.
A
A
I'm
looking
at
that
just
now-
and
I
looked
at
earlier
on
there
obviously
about
daylight
and
sunlight
and
suchly
and
obviously
mentions
here
the
you
know
the
the
the
way
that
this
is
calculated,
protect
and
exist
in
daylight
house
extension,
a
new
building
so
so
peter,
I
think
it
could
nice.
This
was
given
to
sg12
when
your
company,
your
recommendation,
yeah.
Q
A
C
C
It
is
considered
that
the
proposals
presented
inconsistent
frontage
and
so
on
so
much
in
comparison
with
the
existing
rectangular
frontages
on
the
street.
You
go
on
to
say
that,
although
this
is
irregular
in
the
conservation
area
context,
it
assists
with
ensuring
the
integrity
of
the
listed
building
is
maintained
by
ensuring
the
new
building
is
subordinate
to
the
listed
building
and
does
not
compete
with
it,
and
if
I
could
paraphrase
that
more
colloquially,
it
seems
to
be
that
saying:
apologies
for
putting
words
in
your
mouth.
C
When
I
compare
that
with
paragraphs
225
to
26
of
the
reports,
it
talks
about
the
fact
that,
obviously
you
can
have
developments
in
the
conservation
area,
but
the
proposals
wasn't
harmed
or
damaged
the
listing
listed
buildings
or
their
setting.
So
the
keywords
to
me:
I
don't
know
I've
lost
them
yeah
earlier
on
in
225.
It
talks
about
development
which
protects
or
enhances
the
conservation
areas.
For
me,
the
key
question
is:
would
this
development
protect
or
enhance
the
conservation
area?
C
F
C
F
C
A
M
Thanks
chair
and
going
back
to
something
chris
cox
alluded
to,
and
just
peter
for
the
avoidance
of
of
doubt,
you
seem
to
accept
that
it
is
not
merely
a
kitchen,
that's
adjacent
to
the
property
that
is,
in
fact
a
dining
area
and
social
area
and
therefore
would
be
regarded
as
a
habitable
room,
look
which
puts
a
very
different
light
on
the
issue
of
privacy
and
again
I
have
serious
concerns
about
the
extent
of
glazing.
That's
been
used
that
could
be
intrusive
or
perceived
as
intrusive
to
that
adjoining
property.
F
Yeah
well
as
I've
included
within
my
presentation.
To
yourselves
I
mean
the
predominant
thrust
of
the
objection.
Letter
was
regarding
a
kitchen,
but
I
do
accept.
There
is
a
a
mention
of
it,
also
being
a
dining
area
which
is
within
the
sg,
a
habitable
room
so,
and
I've
set
out
within
my
presentation
the
considerations
of
the
the
laws,
any
loss
of
daylight,
sunlight
and
privacy.
A
I'm
I'm
happy
to
do
it.
You
know,
I
trust
the
officer's
judgment
in
this
one.
I
know
it's
a
challenge,
but
there
is
presses
that
narrow,
already
on
seat
with
21a,
where
there's
been
in
full
development.
This
is
set
back
and
you
know
there's
a
fine
balance
here.
I
get
that,
but
I'm
going
to
move
for
approval
and
with
the
second
that
comes
to
mcdonald.
A
J
Yes,
you
can
apply
it
as
a
condition.
Just
I
I'm
struggling
in
my
own
mind
to
visualize
what
that
would
look
like
in
terms
of
being
effective
and
as
a
as
a
basis
of
screening
and
intrusion
into
the
the
roof
lights.
I
don't
know
peter
if
you
you're,
able
to
add
more
in
terms
of
what
you
you
peter's
undertaking,
the
assessment
of
as
they
set
out
in
the
report
of
the
privacy
calculation.
So
I
don't
know
peter
if
you've
got
a
view
about
how
that
objective
could
be
attained.
F
F
So
any
screen
is
going
to
be
probably
up
about
this
height
here
pretty
tall,
and
you
know
quite
intrusive,
and
I
generally
you
know
in
terms
of
the
actual
impact
and
privacy.
It
has
been
designed
this
room
that
you
sit
and
look
towards
the
king's
park.
It
would
be
intentional
views,
you
would
be
trying
to
get
into
these
roof
lights,
and
you
would
need
to
go
away
across
here
and
look
across
and
you
know
it's.
F
I
would
consider
that
you
wouldn't
be
looking
directly
down
into
the
kitchen
unless
you
came
out
onto
the
the
single
story,
element
of
the
proposals
and
then
stood
here
and
looked
down
into
the
into
the
the
kitchen,
dining
area,
and
I've
been
assured
by
the
the
architect
that
that
that's
not
the
intention.
It's
you
know,
you
you'll,
be
sitting
in
this
room
and
you'll
open
the
doors
and
look
towards
the
king's
park.
E
J
Sorry
this
is
one
that
would
be
a
condition
if
it
is
deemed
to
be
necessary
and
appropriate
rather
than
an
advisory
note,
and
what
I
come
to,
though,
is
you
need
to
see
why
the
screen
is
necessary.
Coming
back
to
the
what
the
officer
has
set
out
as
to
why
you
know
there
is
not
a
privacy
impact,
so
you
need
to
be
able
to
substantiate
that
there
is
a
in
your
view.
There's
a
previous
impact.
That's
different
from
the
assessment
that's
been
set
out.
F
Sorry
can
I
just
can
I
just
start
here
that
the
sg
sets
out
that
where
windows
have
to
run
window
looks
directly
into
habitable
room
window,
then
that's
a
material
consideration
for
for
loss
of
privacy,
and
that's
not
the
situation
here.
You
know
it.
Wouldn't
it
doesn't
look
directly
into
these
windows.
P
M
This
is
a
a
one
of
the
principal
buildings
in
king's
park,
and
I
really
feel
strongly
that
putting
a
two-story
house
in
place
of
what
was
a
single
story,
a
coach
house
that
was
set
in
and
underneath
and
behind
the
wall
is
just
taking
it
too
far,
and
in
my
view,
that
is
totally
inappropriate
for
the
for
this.
For
this
area,.
A
J
Thank
you
chair,
yet
there's
two
reasons
there
and
I
noted
one
was
that
the
proposals
in
congress
to
the
setting
of
the
conservation
area.
I
again
that
is
a
material
consideration.
It
is
a
matter
of
judgment
but
again
and
council
farmer
would
need
to
say
why
he's
reached
a
different
view
from
the
officer's
recommendation
on
that
and
just
detailed
that
further.
The
second
was
related
to
the
height
and
massing
and
the
use
of
external
glazing,
again.
J
Material
planning
considerations,
but
again,
council
of
farming
needs
to
go
further
and
see
why,
in
that
particular
location,
it
is
a
such
a
concern
and
then,
lastly,
in
the
balance
of
considerations,
just
whether
those
considerations
are
contrary
to
the
development.
The
proposals,
in
your
view,
are
contrary
to
the
development
plan
and
particular
policies.
A
R
A
A
M
L
A
J
Thank
you,
yep,
there's
actually
broken
it
down
into
three
reasons
for
refusal,
and
so
I'll
read
those
out.
So
the
first
one
is
that
the
modern
design
of
the
proposal
and
the
proximity
of
the
proposal
to
the
traditional
listed
building
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
characteristics
of
both
the
conservation
area
and
the
setting
of
the
listed
building.
M
A
Just
before
I
hand
over
to
the
clark
to
vote
ken
sub
mcdonald,
I
propose
that
you
seconded,
obviously
yours
your
secondary,
was
on
the
basis
of
a
request
and
some
form
of
screening.
Are
you
going
to
withdraw
that
now
or
what
what's
your
intention
just
to
relate
to
somebody?
Second
looking
so
this
is
already
offered,
but
you
were
in
first.
E
B
Thanks
to
confirm,
we
have
the
motion
to
approve
the
application
subject
to
the
condition
set
out
in
the
appendix
by
council,
mcpherson
seconded
by
councillor
houston
and
the
amendment
to
use
the
application
for
the
reasons
stated
by
councillor
farmer,
secondly,
by
councillor
beryl.
So
after
all
voting
on
the
amendment
from
council
or
farmer
to
refuse
the
application,
please
indicate
for
against
or
not
vote
councillor
beryl.
A
E
B
E
A
P
P
P
So
that
is
accessed
directly
from
the
blasphemy
road,
the
a81
itself.
The
position
of
the
kiosk
sits
parallel
to
the
jason
kirk
house
and
itself.
That's
the
position
of
the
kiosk
there
in
the
red
and
that's
the
remaining
area
of
of
the
car
park
for
use
for
the
cup
housing
to
the
rear.
There
are
houses
at
the
rear
of
the
site
and
also
directly
across
the
opposite
side
of
the
glasgow
road.
P
C
P
Whether
something
is
impossible
was
problem,
we
can
really
see
a
whether
you
know
it's
still
there
or
not.
Sorry,
if
that
sounds
a
bit
obvious,
but
you
know
it
has
to
be
very
clear,
evident
non-compliance
and
but
yes,
if
it
gets
to
the
point,
you
know
we're
beyond
31st
october
2023
and
they're
still
operating
the
chaos
grain
enforcement
action
could
be
taken
and
it
is
a
as
is
commonplace
a
you
know.
P
C
Okay
thanks
for
that,
the
reason
I'm
asking
questions
is
that
the
operators
to
dates
have
not
shown
themselves
to
be
very
considerate
operators,
of
course,
significant
nuisance
to
the
neighbors.
So
I
would
be
anxious
that
conditions
can
will
be
enforced.
That's
not
really
a
matter
for
us!
I
appreciate
it.
S
S
C
E
Sorry
I
was
just
gonna
question
that
it
says
portable
kiosk,
which
clearly
that's
a
that
looks
like
semi-permanent
structure
to
me
because
it's
physically
shaped
to
the
ground.
It's
completely
useless
anywhere
else,
so
is.
Is
it
actually
a
permanent
structure,
we're
giving
a
two-year
temporary
planning
permission
too.
P
Yeah
to
the
it's
portable
in
as
much
as
it,
it
can
be
taken
away,
for
example,
on
back
of
the
lorry
that
that
type
of
thing
is,
it
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
have
a
wheels
whether
it
could
be
mounted
on
wheels
and
towed
a
lot.
I
just
don't
know,
but
it's
it's.
You
know
it
can
be
put
on
a
and
it's
like
a
caravan
or
something
like
that.
You
know
you
can.
H
A
R
S
Now,
at
the
moment,
the
committee
one
I
I
think
what
we're
saying
is
that
licensing
considerations
are
not
relevant
to
planning.
But
two
we
have.
I
understand
an
objector
who
has
said
there
is
a
planning
application,
but
the
panel
does
not
have
in
front
of
it
confirmation
that
that
is
in
fact
the
case.
G
G
Planning
permission,
so
it
would
be
the
applicant's
responsibility
to
make
sure
that
they've
got
all
the
necessary
consents
in
place.
Should
that
be
something
they
wish
to
do
in
the
future,
and
so,
as
as
carl
has
said,
what
we're
granting
them?
What
what
we
are
should
panel
agree
the
recommendation.
What
we
would
be
granting
does
not
have
seating
areas
and
should
a
seating
area
be
proposed,
they
will
require
a
new
plan
application
at
that
point,.
A
A
Can
we
do
this
by
showing
hands?
Please
you
know
you
really
need
to
do
the
show
of
hands
a
lot
right,
I'm
happy
to
do
it,
I'm
happy
to
to
second
that
I
don't
know
whether
or
not
there's
screens
frozen
here
is
everybody
here
and
everybody:
okay,
yeah,
okay,
so
counselor
thompson's
proposed
that
I've
seconded
it
is
there
anyone
otherwise
minded?
A
A
Q
Thanks
chair
grafton,
this
is
an
application
for
a
restricted
taxi
vehicle
for
rural
areas.
Only
as
the
panel
are
aware,
the
current
unmet
demand
will
then
mix
man.
Survey
has
been
delayed
due
to
covet
and
not
be
able
to
get
it
carried
out.
So
what
we're
using
at
the
moment,
we
have
clear
evidence
to
show
that
there
is
no
one
met
demand
within
the
city
center,
but
we
have
no
no
record
of
any
of
no
one
make
demand
and
they,
oh,
hang
on.
I've
got
that
wrong.
Q
There's
no
evidence
of
no
one
met
demanding.
There
really
is
so.
In
other
words,
we
can't
prove
whether
or
not
there
is
so
we,
the
recommendation
for
this
one
would
be
to
grant
this
application
with
the
condition
that
it
can
only
apply
for
hires
within
out
with
five
minutes
five
miles
of
the
city
center,
so
it
can
operate
in
any
of
the
rural
areas.
It
just
can't
come
in
the
city
centre.
A
L
L
Q
Okay,
please,
that
the
app
can
aim
as
operating
for
as
a
driver
aim
for
another
operator,
so
it's
not
like
the
vehicle
would
become
back.
The
plate
would
come
back
to
the
council.
The
operator
of
that
vehicle
would
just
then
get
another
driver
to
to
drive
it.
This
person
wants
to
set
up
on
their
own.
A
Any
further
questions:
no
okay!
There
obviously
there's
two
recommendations
here
here
from
panel
members.
I
want
to
move
recommendation
one
to
grant
it
I'll
move
that
chair,
okay,
certainly
by
council
houston,
so
anyone
otherwise
minded
no
okay,
so
that
location
then
stay
the
decisions
to
grant
the
license
that
one.
Okay,
we're
going
to
move
to
the
exempt
item
item
e10
on
it
and
obviously
now
I
have
to
get
the
recorder
in
the
broadcast
stop
owned.
Can
you
do
that?
Please.