Transcript

session. Hello, good morning everybody and welcome to the Thurgska Molten Area Consituency Planning Committee on the 23rd of May 2024. Just a few bits and pieces to go through. So we're not expecting the fire alarm this morning and if the fire alarm does go off, if members of the public could leave by that door and then there's an option to leave. There's an option to leave by the doors behind me and meet in the car park. I'll do my best. Toilets are down, is it not working? It is definitely turned on. Can you hear? Is that better? That's the apologies. So if there is a fire alarm, it will be a real one. We're not expecting any tests today so please leave by the doors beside you and congregate in the car park and similarly the doors behind me here and meeting the car park. Toilets are down the corridor, gents the first right and ladies, the next right down round the corner. Okay, this is a meeting held in public. So members of the public are entitled to attend this meeting as observers for all those items taken in the open session. Please note the meeting is being recorded and if you wish to record the meeting yourself, then please give due regard to the council's protocol on audiovisual recording and photography at public meetings. So I think that covers that. We're now going to move on to the agenda items. We've got no apologies for absence because everybody's here and then we're going to do the meetings of the last, the minutes of the last meeting which was on the 18th of April. Are members happy with those minutes? Are you proposing, Councillor after a seconded? It's a seconded by Councillor Buhr. Are we taking that by general off-emotional? Yeah, okay. Thank you, members. Does anybody have any declarations of interest? No, okay. I will make a, for openness and transparency, I will say that I am a member of the Hoardian Hills National Landscape Joint Advisory Committee. I'm not involved in any of their planning recommendations and we are on the fringes of one, with one of those applications that's being considered today. So that's just for clarity. It's personal, non-prejuditional and non-precuniary. Right, turning now to the first application on the agenda, which is application number Zb24, oblique 001, 4.5, oblique 4. This is for a change of use of land for the sighting of five number holiday lodges, improvements to existing access and associated infrastructure works at Newling, Alston Road, Easing World. We do have a number of speakers this morning and each speaker will have three minutes. I will give an audio message to say you've got 30 seconds left and I will call you forward as per the sheet. So it's over to Connor who is presenting the report. Thanks, Connor. Thank you. I can hear me, Staz, excellent. Just turn to the update list. Following publication of the report, there was a public comment, which has been summarized and responded to within the update list. There's also been a number of amendments to conditions, including condition 13, sorry, which is existing planting, which has had an amendment put in a height limit on the proposed and existing planted. Yeah, and the problem. All right, Lindsay, we've got a problem with the speaker. So we're waiting for IT to come down. Sorry. So we're just going to wait and see if they can come down and make it better. Any better? Yeah, good. Excellent. I'll start from the top. Everything okay in the back? Yeah. Though that's fine. I'm having to refer to the here. So there were a number of items within the update list relating to this application. First, there was a public comment relating to the report, which has been summarized and addressed within the update list. So it's been a number of alterations to conditions, condition 13, for instance, which relates to planting has a amendment to include a minimum height for any planting that's on the boundaries. Following the site visit, there was a request that views from the nearby public right away should be assessed and that has been done and has been included within the presentation. Well, I quite as though some questions about land levels and it's been noted that there is already an existing land level condition within the report. We should help address those questions. And in response to questions about site management, it's been made more specific as to what details will be required as part of that site management plan. Details such as primary addresses, email addresses, contact details, et cetera, et cetera. Next slide, please. So you can see the site location plan, the site behind me. The site is on the northern edge of Easonwald. It's adjacent to the built form of the settlement and is within 11 minutes walk of the town centre. There are bus services within walking distance and it forms part of the adjacent road forms part of the national regional technical way. The main policy context for the application is policy EG8, which relates to the visitor economy. It asks for sustainable development within a range of services. It doesn't explicitly state that it favours development within or adjacent to a defined settlement. However, as it explicitly asks for that access to facilities and services, it's presumed that that is the case, that there is a preference for development, adjacent or within device settlements. EG8 asks that the surrounding area not be unacceptably harmed and that's unacceptable harm not because to neighbouring properties. The site was also subject to an appeal in 2016 housing, which was dismissed by the inspector, citing the relative importance of the site to the rural setting of this part of Easonwald. Next slide, please. This is the existing site plan. As you can see from the contours, the site levels fall from east to west. The fall is roughly an average of two metres from east to west with a further fall from the site to the road of approximately 1.5 metres. Next slide. The application is for five units. It's down from an original six. The tenure, so whether it's short-term or long-term, it hasn't been decided. We're not necessarily sure whether or not what that, the general use of the site will be in terms of short-term or long-term. The land itself is currently a paddock associated with New Zealand, which is the dwelling to the south and is handily noted on the plan. It shares an access to the south of the site, which has been identified by highways as not being seen in any significant highways safety issues. Likewise, there's no issues with the two proposed back-and-spaces per unit. Neighbouring property is largely restricted to couple-clear state, which is across the road to the west. With the two main properties, that will be affected being number two lime entry avenue, which is approximately 25 metres from the site boundary, and for tower craft, which is approximately 29 metres from the site boundaries. Environmental health identified that there was the capacity for harm to neighbouring amine, but didn't object and instead provided a condition for setting out what they'd accept as a management plan in order to help ameliorate that potential impact. We have further developed that and asked for details such as the contact details that I described before, but also details relating to the comings and goings from the site and whether or not there will be any restrictions on movements related to the residents. Will there be a restriction on movements after a certain time? You can see from the plan that there's proposed landscape into the north, east and south of the site. The site boundaries will be planted up. That's going to be conditioned through both a condition requesting a planting scheme, but also a biodiverse in net gain scheme as well. That also includes the western boundary, which is primarily ash, and as a result may fail within the next five or ten years, so it gives some security on that western boundary. The western boundary, as I said, is ash and therefore is subject to potentially subject to ash dieback. There is a condition within the reports that asks for the existing planting to be retained, and that's the five years following that the approval of the scheme. So if an ash tree does fail within the next five years, then it will be replaced with a tree of similar size and species. So as described before, the land falls from east to west. Due to that fall, the land gets very wet and drains from the eastern portion of the site, which borders an agricultural field, which is higher than the site before running through the site and to the west on the road. There was a question as part of the site visit that related to the drainage of the western portion of the site. As the bulk of the water makes its way from east to west, it's considered that the current draft drainage scheme which focuses on that eastern section, that central section, will deal with the bulk of the surface water within the site. There is obviously the potential for outfall from the site onto the road in particularly heavy weather conditions, but the general feeling is that it will be much improved on the surface water situation relating towards some road would be much improved by the proposed scheme. You might see in front of you responding relatively late in the day, but they provided a extensive condition which can help to address the doubts as opposed to the viability of the scheme. It's broadly consistent with the original drainage condition, which asked for details relating to the adoption and maintenance of the drainage system. This effectively makes it slightly easier really to identify what it would take to achieve that adoption and that management to sex. The condition has been changed to include information relating to the exploration of over means of drainage to ensure they've been properly considered before. Also, the means of discharging to the public to network at a rate not exceeding 1.24 liters a second. Next slide, sir. There are lodges themselves. I may have relatively standard in form. They're approximately 69 m2 or 86 m2, including the veranda, and they're approximately 4.25 m to the ridge. They will be timber cleared with grey profiled roof tail. If you go on to the next slide, please. That's a representation of what they may look like from the brush that was provided with the application. Next slide, please, sir. As you can see from the photograph, there is a significant file as described before. That's going to be addressed with regards to the site in the lodges with what's been described as limited cuts and fill. Land levels have been conditioned as part of the report, so it's anticipated that any changes to land levels can be controlled through that. Next slide, sir. This is within the site looking northwards. You can see the northern boundary there. That is to be pointed up as described, so we'll look out. There'll be less in looking to the site. Next slide, sir. This is looking into the western boundary. The house you can see there is two lime tree avenue. Again, that site is to be planted up. You can see, obviously, we've got a reasonable amount of plant in at the road in between site and the property adjacent. Next slide, sir. This is the eastern view. This is the countryside context within which the application falls. This is also to be planted up as part of the proof scheme, a proposed scheme, sir. This shows the access and the road as it currently stands. You can see in the Pichrovelston Road, I took this picture on a particular wet day. You can see that there is currently a reasonable amount of surface water coming from other areas along the hill, but from the site itself as well. The access is to be extended by approximately eight metres to allow for a visibility display, which won't cause any highway issues. This is a view of the western site boundary from the public right away, so from the east of the site. This is about as prominent as it gets in terms of view points from the wider countryside. What I didn't capture, and what I probably should have done, is that to the left of this image, you can actually see quite a wide-range invista of Easonworld. That's to say the bulk of Easonworld. Within the built, you can see how it sits within the built context of the settlement. What you get a sense of from the photograph is how it sits against Newland. You can see that it wouldn't necessarily look isolated from it. It is obviously attractive as is, but with the planting to the site boundary, it's felt that it wouldn't necessarily have any real impact on the or any negative impact on the rural context of the site. We've already got that backdrop of quite dense planting, both from the existing site boundary to the west and also a mountain hill to the even further west. It's not going to affect the open. This is the rural character, because we are talking about an edge of settlement location. We do have these large visual blocks within view, which are on the backdrop of the site. The next site's slide. This is from the north. As you can see, there's a range of species here. It is also worth mentioning that the north and boundary is to be planted up as well. As before, the context of the existing planting means that it's not going to look an alien addition to that rural character. It's going to sit within that already existing well-planted character. This is just another view from the public right away looking west. I previously said that the previous photograph from the public right away was as good as it gets in terms of looking from the countryside into the site. The character of the countryside to the east of Easonworld is such that it's broadly rural in hills. This is about taking about five or ten metres down the hill from which I took the previous photograph. You can see there is that occlusion offered by the topography of the surrounding area. I've included the pylon to give a sense of when you stood in this location, you do feel as if it is close to the settlement that it's not necessarily in the middle of nowhere as such. The rural context is very much edge of settlement. That's it. That's everything. Thank you, Chair. Councillor interjecting. I will now ask the speakers to come forward. The first speaker is Mr Gudrum. Mr Gudrum, you've got three minutes to make your representation. It's the green button on the part in front of you. I represent 28 very worried residents who feel disregarded and fear having to live with the consequences of granting this application. Tourism promotion is part of the national policy and the Hamilton Plan. It's not an overriding objective and the current policy confirms this. The economic is still to be balanced with the social and environmental factors. There is an economic case but little evidence of its nature and extent beyond that it is, quotes, likely people will use local services. In the wider context, the impact is likely to be marginal. The appeal finding in the earlier case cannot be ignored by substituting a different opinion about unchanged facts on the ground. It effectively said building on this paddock would have a profound impact. The impact would be exacerbated by, among other things, the following factors, more units, more prominent. It's an elevated site visible from Alston Road and within the sightline of the houses across the road, especially when the trees are not in length. The units are more than 14 feet high from base to apex, fundamental to the environmental impact, but never discussed. Higher occupancy, up to 20 people with potentially 10 cars, more noise, or ready a problem when the paddock was used for camping, please read Mrs Bervista's objection on the impact on her young family. It's a business fundamentally changing the character of a locality expressly prohibited across the road in Claypenny. The report acknowledges that these types of developments are, quotes, not generally found within the residential areas and would be at odds with the residential character of the Claypenny copper clay estate. The written evidence from environmental health concludes the impact is potentially negative, there's no management plan to set against this. It would be reasonable to look at the factors assessed in the appeal and recognize the changes. While there may be an economic case, the impact of the other factors must be more profound now. The policies do not say tourism at any cost, the degree of a negative impact on the local amenity far outweighs the economic positives and the application should be refused. In addition, very significant evidence is missing despite every opportunity being given to provide it. Not least, still no management plan and no evidence about the how the site is to be operated and the nature of the tenure. This is crucial information. If the committee is not minded to refuse the application to safeguard the community, it would be fair and reasonable to defer the decision for the missing information to be provided and then consider the context of the whole application. Thank you. The next speaker is the agent, Mr John Soddington. Mr Soddington, you have the same three minutes to now give you an audible warning when you've got 30 seconds left. Good morning. I'm speaking in support of the application today. Mr and Mrs Hayley approached me last year about the possibility of developing holiday lodges. During my initial site visit, I was struck by just how well the site responds to the local plan's approach to applications for new visitor accommodation. The old local development framework was quite broad in its approach to the location of holiday lodge sites, whereas the new local plan places an emphasis on finding sites within or adjacent to settlements and in locations with access to good local services and public transport. Coupled with the local plan's restrictive approach to housing developments on the edge of market towns, submitting an application for new holiday lodges made an awful lot of sense. Prior to applying for planning permission, Mr and Mrs Hayley received confirmation from the Freedom Camping and Caravanning Club that they would grant a certificate site license for five touring vans on the site. This remains a fallback position for the applicants, but the preference is to develop a much more aesthetically pleasing holiday lodge development. The current planning application provides the council with an opportunity to impose conditions and deliver planning benefits such as enhanced landscaping, whereas little or no control could be imposed in relation to the certificate site license. I should add that some nearby objections refer to the site's planning history and refusal of permission for brick and tile housing as a reason to oppose the current scheme. However, this decision was taken by Hamilton District Council many years ago for a significantly different development applying a very different suite of planning policies, therefore referring back to the history is somewhat immaterial and misleading. With regards to drainage, a percolation test has been carried out, which confirms the site isn't suitable for soakers, so surface water would be attenuated on site and then drained into Yorkshire water system. A mains connection can be achieved for foul water as well. A drainage channel or a French drain would be installed at the site entrance to intercept any overland floors. We anticipate that the site would be a quiet and peaceful environment, but we would be happy to accept conditions that control site management, the scope of outdoor activities and restrictions on occupancy. The site is very well screened and further landscaping is proposed between the lodges. A tree survey report confirms that no trees will be lost or harmed as a result of the development. Lodges have been deliberately cited to avoid any impact. As you'll see in the committee report, the principle of development fully accords with policy EG8 and there are no technical objections to this scheme. I do hope you'll support the application. Thank you very much. Can I ask officers if you've got any comments to make on that, please? Um, two seconds. Um, apologies. Um, in terms of the context of the site, um, obviously, I have in the report said that haldi lodges aren't necessarily something that will be found within a residential context. However, that's then followed by, um, the establishment of the site as being separate from that residential context, down to the separation from copper clay walk, um, by Olsen Road, and it's the fact that it relates far more to the adjacent countryside than it does the wider residential context of eastern world. Thanks. Thanks very much. Um, if there's nothing else, I'll only up to questions from the members. Anybody got any questions? Councillor Burr. Um, please, could I ask our officers? Um, I'd like to just know, because obviously, this is not an area I'm familiar with, but I can cope with the area and I can cope with everything else. However, it's just about the background information. One of the speakers alluded to misleading evidence about the appeal and could you just clarify things for me? So, I have a little bit more of a clear view in my head. As I said, all the other that that's just planning, but I just would like to know a little bit more of my officer's views, please. Um, yes, sorry. So, the context of the appeal as, um, the, um, agent in support said was for, um, a, completely separate policy context in terms of housing. I'm not sure necessarily, um, from memory that the object said there was misleading, but rather missing, um, information. Um, I think we are dealing with a completely different type of, um, application from the previous, so which is fundamentally different in the way that it's approached in policy terms. So, um, to try to apply the previous site history wholesale would be, um, inappropriate really within this context. Thank you. That's really helpful. Councilor Taylor. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um, I mean, obviously from the site visit, when we attended a Monday, one of the things that sort of leapt out at you is the levels of that site. You know, there's a very exaggerated, um, slope from sort of right to left or north to south as we looked at it. I mean, you referred to any reports on about the levels and doing a cut and fill. I think you said a limited cut and fill. Can you just give us some more detail around how that works in terms of that site? Sorry. Can you help? Yeah. Um, the short answer is I'm not, um, over familiar with the, um, the exact specifics of that. My understanding is that the, the cut and fill will be, um, largely, um, related to the site and of the lodges so that the full dip, as it were, won't be filled, however, where the lodges are cited over that dip, um, that will be then showed up by, um, earth effectively to create a level. Yeah, just, just come back on that. All right. Are we talking about maybe stills or something or is it a more substantial, you know, uh, foundations and stone and soil? I just, I think this is important detail that we need to, to make a consider decision. Um, again, I'm not 100% on the detail. I do think that the condition, um, will be able to, um, address that. Um, it may be that the condition could be amended to, um, include the, the manner of, um, the fill or the specific materials used within that fill-in. Um, but my view is that the condition, um, adequately addresses any potential concerns relating to that, um, alteration of site levels. Um, Connor, can I just ask, because we did pick this up in the pre meet yesterday. Obviously, two of those units would be very near the ash hedge, which is currently in existence. And my concern was given, um, given the stress that the trees make become party to with ash, diaback and things that we actually have some root protection. And have we adopted that into the conditions in, in itself? Um, I think we have, we have, um, oh, yeah, we have, that's something that can be accommodated. Yeah. Hi, I'll open it for debate. I'm going to come to the local member who is Councillor Latton, because this is his area. So Councillor Napton, do you want to start this conversation? Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much, Chairman. So, I think the important thing about this site is the character and appearance. The site, as members will have seen on Monday, is one of the gateways to the town. I know in Connor's report, and I know he's spoken about this and tried to take the edge off it, but it does basically say, um, while it's not uncommon in a rural context, holiday lodges are not generally found within residential areas. And this is clearly within a residential area. It may be on the edge of a residential area, but given that it's opposite the large clay penny development, it is in a residential area. It would be very strange to see wooden lodges in, in, in that context. When we look at the previous application on that site, that was, as the agent correctly said, was for a brick and tile development. Now, the brick and tile development would be more in keeping with the character of the area. And, and so I think that, that argument that it's a different application is correct. However, this is more detrimental, I believe, to the, um, the vernacular than, than the application that was refused by Hamilton, and refused as a, a not of, and they appear not upheld by the planning inspector. So I think it's very important to understand that the reason for that, um, was unacceptable harm to the rural setting. Now, I can't see how you, you can say that this lodge development wouldn't do exactly the same as what the inspector said in the previous application. If we look at the impact, and we look at the environmental health as said, environmental health have asked for a management report, management report in my, I would detail the comings and goings to that site, who can have barbecues outside, when they can have barbecues outside, all of those things. Also, you know, the lodge is going to be an individual ownership, are they going to be able to be purchased and then let out on a weekly basis by individuals, as far as I can tell, we know none of this information, and this is crucial to members making a decision. So in the context of this development, if I believed it was in a suitable location, and I could put quite a few pins around easing world where suitable locations would be, I would be, um, asking that this application be deferred, or the, to get the information regarding the management plan. However, given the sighting, and given the planning history, and given clearly what the both Hamilton and the planning inspector have said about development on this paddock, I would propose that we refuse this application. Councillor BERKE. Thank you, Chair. Can you hear me? All right. Following on from Councillor Knapton, I think there are too many gray areas unanswered issues with this application. One of them is the use of the lodges. There is no indication what the lodges will be used for, whether there'll be weekly let's or long-term let's, and there is a totally different atmosphere with those two types of lodges. The land levels, we haven't had an answer to that. If the lodge in the northwest corner is built up to be the same level as the lodge in the northeast corner, that lodge will look down onto Number 4 line tree avenue as on the map there. So, and given that that western boundary, as you say, Chair, has got ash trees there, which we saw on site, and given that ash trees aren't a good bet at the minute because of ash dye back, I'm concerned about that. I'm also concerned that we have no plans or elevations for these lodges. We don't know what they're going to look like. They could be two-story lodges. There's nothing anywhere in the application for what the lodges are going to look like. So, and also given that it's outside the allocated area of easing world, there are too many questions there for me to think about with approving it because we're giving too many conditions. Councillor Taylor. Yes, thank you, Chair. Again, I go back to the site visiting for members who weren't there. You can clearly see on the illustration that we've got on the screen in front of us, and it was a point that was raised by the objector is the close proximity of the houses. Clay Penny is a very reasonably large residential area, but we've got a width of a road essentially between a proposed site and a residential development. That causes me some concern. I don't think it's the right site. I think it's too close to a residential development, and for that reason, along with the conditions, other objections that Councillor Knapton's learned, I would like to second the proposal that this application is refused. Councillor Andrews. Thank you. I know we've had similar applications about permanent structures like this, rather than—and my concern is that they have permission for a campsite, basically. With this application, we can put conditions on. The right hill local plan is different to the Hamilton Local Plan, and I mean, I did have a concern because I hadn't been aware of this, but the local plan does state that these sort of things can be on the edge of developments in the Hamilton Local Plan, so it's not going against what the Local Plan says, if I'm correct. I was just looking at me there a bit, so my concern is we do have some control if we grant this, in that there is a lot of conditions on it, and I think the condition 19 about the occupation of accommodation here by approved is for holiday accommodation only. It can't be used as a dwelling as such, and these are providing holiday accommodation where houses are sometimes taken up in these settlements, and so I'm yet to be convinced refusal, but I will wait to hear what other people say. Yes, quite a bit to say on this. First of all, obviously, I don't attend any site visits because they are totally out of context with how I go to work and run my business, so I go personally on my own, and I have been to this site, and I have looked at the local plan, and as quite rightly has been pointed out, it's not my local plan, it's not my area, however, I have had a look, and it doesn't seem to be in conflict with that plan. I think that there is some guidance around the appeal, and I think we need to seek some further advice and influence from our officers regarding this, so I'm generally in support of holiday lodges, and the value of tourism that it brings and it supports the economy, and with the cost of the living crisis at the moment, we all know that many more people are holidaying in our beautiful area, and rightly so, however, it is about balance and it's looking at everything, so my mind at the moment is not made up on this, I think maybe we would be too quick to refuse, and there are still some questions I would like answered, so I would like to move a deferral, I have no idea, I've got a seconder, just so we can find out these worrying concerns, and then we can either refuse or we can grant knowing that we've got the full facts, so that's my stand on this. Do you cancel a cross? Thank you Chair, I appreciate the officers have done a good job on this application, and I appreciate the concerns of the members of the public, and we've also got to look at the proposed developer, and I think it's nice to hear what the local members are saying, where we stand, and the uncertainties that really need addressing before this application can be put through, and I think we don't need to look at the land levels, we don't need to look further at this item, we do, as Councillor NATTON said, need to look at a management plan, and there needs to be more information in this document going forward, so we can make a comprehensive decision, and protect the residents of that area, so they're not affected, so based on that, I would second Councillor BER, the deferral put forward by Councillor BER, thank you. Obviously, I've expressed my opinion about that I believe that this is an incorrect site, however, I share with my colleagues all around in that there is inadequate information on this, we don't know what type of lodges, we don't know the levels, we don't know the management plan, so all of those things need to be found out, so with that in mind, I will withdraw my proposal, and I will back Councillor BER's proposal for deferment to collect all this information that is required, and has been asked of the agent, I believe, and hasn't been produced. Thank you, Councillor NATTON, because that takes away the dilemma, because the initial recommendation was one of refusal, and then the deferral came in, so by not taking or changing the recommendation for refusal, I can now accept the recommendation for deferral, so that we can ask the officers to go back and see if some of the concerns of the committee can be addressed. So it has been moved and seconded for deferral, please can I get a show of hands from members? Okay, that's unanimous. Can we please go back and see if we can tie up some of the loose ends that the committee have identified? Do you want to come in? Thank you. Just check with Member on the information that members would like to see presented to them, could I check that I've got, we've got land levels at the site, the management plan for the use of the site, and the use of the site in respect to short-term, let's long-term, let's, or ownership of the site in that. And in addition to that, Chairman, we need to see which lodges are proposed. I mean, it's not just having a brochure of some random lodges, we need to know which lodges on which site and some elevations. I would like to see clarification of how the lodges in the northwest corner will be cited, what its elevation will be, above the current land level. So, just clarify, a street scene type thing else will be to that effect. Yes. All right. Moving on. The next application is ZE23. Oh, sorry, can I give you a chance to swap the site? a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. All right, we will now move on to item five, which is planning application number ZE23 oblique 01660 oblique M full. This is a change of use of agricultural and equestrian land to allow the site of 24 number holiday lodges, one number wardens lodge, and one number reception oblique shop with associated access parking infrastructure and landscape. And this is a revised detail to planning approval to zero oblique 00701 oblique M full dated the 15th of the 11th 2021 and it's a land off dasket hill, Sherry. And I'll pass it over to you because there have been some developments. Yes, thank you very much, chair. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Okay, that's great. Yes, as you'll have seen on the late pages, which were published at the midweek point on Monday evening, the planning agent has advised us that the originally proposed units are no longer available to the applicant, and they are assessed in a different supplier at this point. As we've noted on the late pages, officers are of the view that in this location, we do wish to secure the exact appearance of the units for full consideration prior to any decision being made. Amended plans we were told on Monday are expected within a two week period, and as such, we are seeking the deferral of this application to a future committee, hopefully the June committee. We want really to be sure of the form, the level of glazing and the footprint of these units, so we do want to have this in advance. If these are materially different, they may be subject to re-advertisements as well, so that is our updated request from members. Thank you. So I'm going to move deferral from the chair, Councillor Andrew has seconded. Is everybody happy with that general affirmation? Yeah. Okay, item number five is deferred, possibly to the next committee meeting, depending on what comes forward, following discussions with the applicant and agent. Okay, thank you, everybody. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, chair. Item number six is on page 49 of the agenda. The application is brought to committee because it is considered that significant planning issues have been raised. There are local objections and concerns raised by residents and also Swinton and the Mother Be Parrish Councils. The site was the subject of a members visit earlier this week. In terms of updates and the late pages, firstly, the late pages included information which was requested on the site visit, which relates to the battery storage system. So we have circulated a presentation that was done on behalf of the applicant, which gives details of a community fit battery storage system. There's also a statement provided in relation to fire safety risk. In terms of updates to the report itself, a couple of items just to flag up to members. First of all, paragraph 10.81 relates to the section 106 agreement. So I would just like to advise members that we don't propose to include the offsite highways works within the 106 because that would be a duplication of what is required as part of the section 278 legal agreement, which is completed under the Highways Act. So obviously we've got a condition that covers how it works and so it's just not necessary. Then in terms of the recommendation, paragraph 12.1, just to advise members that the drainage design is not yet fully resolved and therefore officers are seeking delegated authority to be given to the planning manager to agree and impose suitable conditions as recommended by the lead local flood authority. So as detailed in the report, the lead local flood authority are satisfied with the principle of the drainage arrangements, but just that final detail needs to be confirmed before a condition is imposed. So that's just a request for delegated authority. So just moving on to the presentation itself. The first slide is an aerial photo. So the application site itself is outlined in red. It's land to the east of East Street, Swinton, and just to pick up on a few features within the area. To the north of the site is the BSA Sports Hall and associated football pitches. To the northwest is the scrap yard, which is the subject of the noise impact assessment. And to the east of the site, you can make out a pond, which is it would form part of the agricultural land that would remain to the east. And to the south is the B1257, the main road linking Molten to Hovingham. And also, I've just highlighted East Street and the approximate position of the road widening works, which I'll show in a photo later on. So just moving on to the next slide, please. This is, so this is a close up of the site aerial photo, just to highlight the position of the site in relation to Pearson's yard, which is a development, which is referred to in the report. Also, just to highlight, obviously the site is outside but adjacent to development limits of the village of Swinton, which is a service village within the local plant. Moving on to the next slide, this is an extract from the local plant itself, and it just illustrates the position of the development limits for Swinton, which is highlighted by the thick black line. So as you can see that the site is outside, I'd put adjacent to the development limits with the exception of the access, which is within development limits. So to the west of the site, there's a series of detached properties, which front East Street, and as confirmed in the report, we've had a number of objections from occupants of those properties. Just moving on to the next slide, so this is the site layout plan, just to give you an indication of the arrangement of development within the site. Obviously accessed from the west, the site would have an adoptable roadway within it that would loop around a courtyard development of 10 plots, with the other 10 plots being on the parallel to the southern boundary of the site. So also just to highlight within the northwest corner, there would be an acoustic bund, an acoustic fence to provide the necessary mitigation to provide immunity given the proximity to the scrapyard. So within that northern green area, that's the open space, and there would also be an informal play area provided which would be secured by legal agreement. So the next slide is just a artist impression 3D visualization of how the site would look. So this is taken from the east of the site. So in the foreground, you can see the eastern boundary of the application site, and up towards the top corner of the site, you can see an indication of the acoustic barrier, albeit the actual planting that would be provided is transparent, so you can't really to make it out there. Also just to highlight the position of the battery storage facility, which you might be able to make out, but it's adjacent to the access road, up on the western boundary of the site, so towards the top side of the site on this image. Just moving on to the next slide, please. So this is a view taken looking into the site from facing east. So this is looking at the first dwellings that would be visible as you enter the site. So as you can see, it's a mixture of bungalows and two-story dwellings, and the access road would loop around the site. So that just gives an impression of the general appearance and style of housing that proposed. So the next slide is the battery storage building itself. So this is constructed from materials matching the dwellings. So 3.9 metres to the apex, 2.4 to the eaves. The main opening on the, well, the only opening on the building is on the southern front elevation to provide access for maintenance purposes. And that would be positioned, I like to say, on the western boundary adjacent to the access road. So it's moving on to the next slide. So these are onto the photos of the site in the surrounding area. This one is taken facing east along off East Street. So this is facing down the access road with it into the application site. So the nearest residential receptors are pipins to the left and the nestlings to the right on that photo. So this road would be 5.5 metres wide with a 1.8 metre, 1.8 metre wide footpath on the southern side. So it's moving on to the next slide. This is panning across the neighbouring properties to the north of the access and the next slide is panning across properties to the south of the access. And then just showing the side elevation of pipins to the north of the access and the next slide is the side elevation of the nestlings on the southern side. So the next slide is facing into the site from the access road. You might be able to make out the pond that's in the background to the east of the application site in that photo. And this photo is taken from the access road from what would be the access road facing out of the site towards East Street. So again, just to sort of show the relationship of the site to the rear of the neighbouring properties. And the next photo is taken from the western boundary of the site facing the southern boundary. And on the right hand side you can see the western boundary of the site as well. So you can just see that the planting that's in existence along the site boundaries at present. And then just the next series of slides are panning around the site. So showing the southern boundary, as you can see, it's a field that is relatively flat. It's currently used for grazing purposes. And just panning around so the eastern application boundary is not shown on the ground as members will have saw during the visit. It's been agreed with the applicant that that could be formed from a timber post and rail fence with a native hedge row. So the landowner who's a farmer is keen to make sure that the adjacent land is still usable. And so it would be a stop-proof fence. So it also retains the sort of the overall aesthetic. So panning around to show the northern boundary. So just move on to the next slide as well, please, Nikki. Thank you. So this is showing the northwest corner of the site which is where the proposed acoustic bond would be formed. So that would comprise a two-metre high bond itself and a two-metre high acoustic fence on top. So that would be inset from the site boundary itself as well. And just the next slide, this is just showing the boundary with the neighbors to the west. So this is also actually just a highlight. This is the approximate position of the proposed battery storage building which would be just off the access road on the northern side of the access road. So the next series of photos are taken from within the site facing west towards the rear elevation of the neighboring properties and their gardens. So as you can see, it's a mixture of boundary treatments at present. Obviously, there are views towards the site from principally first floor but a degree of ground floor visibility. And just panning round along that boundary. So as you can see, it's I think the seven detached properties that back on to the application site. And just facing the northwest corner which is where the acoustic barrier would be formed. And then the next, yeah, this slide, it shows the position of the battery storage building in the center of that photo. Okay, so this point, these photos are taken on East Street itself facing south towards the B1257. So I'll just walk members through what we did on the site visits in terms of leaving the site and walking up to the main road. So the next slide is just showing the sort of general width of the highway which does vary along its length. I think the pinch points are about 3.3 meters in width, which has been highlighted in the highway's response. So just moving on yet. So this is also just showing the change in levels as you head towards the B1257. Yeah, and so this photo I've attempted to illustrate the approximate positions of the road widening works. So we are in receipt of a detailed highways drawing in terms of the position of the works. But it wouldn't be shown clearly on this presentation. So what's proposed is roughly 0.3 meters on the left hand side and sort of an excavation of the existing highway verge on the right hand side to a maximum of 1.2 meters to create 1.5 meters in additional width. So that would take the roadway to 4.8 meters in this position. So that's over the length of 18 meters. So it would be just either side of the existing access which is at the moment a highway is describing it as an unofficial passing place which is being used. So this would formalise that arrangement which we can come back on to as part of my presentation. So moving on to the next and final photograph in the presentation. This is just to highlight the existing raised footpath which is referred to in the highways response. So the proposed highways recommendation is that this is widened. So this is to be widened to 1 meter. It's not currently 1 meter and this would provide improved accessibility particularly for those less able and for those with prams and pushchairs. So the actual fencing that Sean would be retained or reinstalled so there is an improvement there. So that just that completes the actual presentation and I think it might be worth going back to one of the site layout slides if possible Nikki plays. So moving on to the report itself. The proposals come forward as a role exception site proposal which is 100% affordable housing. So the site is adjacent to development limits of a service village which is supported by policies SP2 and SP3 of the local plan strategy. Local residents and the neighbouring parish council have questioned whether the proposal exceeds proven local need and that is referenced within all the SP3. So it is of relevance. The council's housing officers are satisfied with the applicant's housing needs assessment which is summarised within the report and have provided detail of those on the waiting list which is North Yorkshire home choice and those in need of affordable housing in the locality. It's also relevant to note that there have been no affordable housing completions in either the parishes of Swinton or a mother be during the current plan period so since 2012-2013. So in these circumstances offices are of the view that are a refusal on the basis that the proposal exceeds local need would be very difficult to support. The proposal itself provides a suitable mix of house types and tenure which reflects local need and the houses are proposed to be built in line with national space standards. In terms of residential amenity the plans provide for an acoustic bund in set from the boundary in the northwest corner and this would protect future occupants from noise associated with the adjacent scrapyard. The remaining land on the northern boundary would form the green open space which would include an informal play area. As it can be seen from the plans the proposed dwellings would in terms of their sighting scale and orientation would not give rise to any loss of privacy or overbearing impacts. There have been concerns raised in relation to the sighting of the battery storage building in terms of potential noise nuisance and fire risk. The proposal itself is a community fit 1.3 megawatt system which is obviously relatively small scale and the applicant has confirmed that its installation would have to require with would have to comply with building and fire safety regulations. The applicant has also described in the late pages how the system would have a built-in fail safe system for any overheating which would be monitored within the building itself. So moving on to the highways impact access to the site would be along the existing track which is to be upgraded to adoptable standards. Based on the predicted vehicle movements there is no unacceptable adverse impact anticipated in terms of local amenity. The proposed the proposal would have to incorporate highway improvements which as shown would be the road widening works on East Street where there's an existing passing place formed from a neighbor's driveway. All the lander subject of the road widening works are within the highway extent so within the public highway. The recommended condition number six along with the section 278 process will consider the full detailed engineering drawings which may require an adoptable retaining structure to be constructed in the highway boundary and so that's just linking back to that photo which we can come back to if members have questions on that particular aspect. In terms of construction traffic condition number nine would control that detail we would have the opportunity to review those proposals but it does include a restriction on vehicles accessing the site via Middle Street which was pointed out on the site visit. In terms of the drainage arrangements the lead local flood authority are satisfied with the drainage proposals in principle but as mentioned earlier further details are required before any conditions can be imposed. The proposal itself incorporates sustainable design in the form of air source heating roof mounted solar panels which are in turn connected to the communal battery storage system and also electric vehicle charging to each plot. It's considered that there are no unacceptable design highways, amenity or drainage issues that cannot be made acceptable through the imposition of conditions and a legal agreement. In conclusion it is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the completion of a section 106 in relation to affordable housing and public open space and its management and also the 31 conditions as listed at the end of the report. Thank you Chair. Thanks Alan. We have two speakers for this application and I'm going to invite you to come forward. Apologies if I don't say this quite correctly. So Kavitha the Angora Jam. You have three minutes to make your presentation. I'll give you a heads up when you've got 30 seconds left. Thank you for letting me address the committee. I'm a resident of E Street for the last 14 years and I've seen the village grow from a population of older people to visibly younger families living there. I bring my concerns as well as other residents' concerns to you today. I believe the site is not suitable because of the access and transport provisions. The traffic using E Street regularly has to reverse if you meet a bus or a truck. You go all the way down to Pearson's Yard or you have to actually reverse out into the B1257. I have done that several times and it's quite dangerous. That roads 40 miles per hour. The visibility onto E Street is a concern and it has always been a concern in that village. We have brought it to the attention. When delivery trucks are parked at the pub or for the garage you can't see out of it and it's invariably between eight and nine at commuting hours. The plan to widen the road while it's supposed to alleviate is not going to affect it because we have quite large vehicles going up and down it. Parking on E Street is now on and off the road so pedestrians using it have to actually walk on the road if they've got a push chair or if you're in a wheelchair. The Swinton Parish Council has just sent out a consultation to E Street to put up a fence down the verges to prevent overtaking and parking on the verges and destroying the verges on E Street. The transport assessment says that you're going to encourage people for the scheme to use public transport. There's very limited public transport coming through the village. There is services between eight and five pm and it runs only every two hours so if you're expecting affordable houses to use public transport for work it's not going to work. My final concern is regarding transport is access for the emergency services. If there's a oil trunker someone delivering they're not going to get down E Street further down. The Housing Needs Survey suggested 16 houses the planning permission is for 20. The site is a clay soil from my garden I can tell that. It gets waterlogged especially with the recent rains that we've had. There is in the plans there are no sorry the report says there are no safe soaker ways you have to do other stuff for it and the Mother Bee Village has already got planning permission for 58 affordable homes and we're supposed to be a joint up village and the final thing is in the Gazenta Herald, Molten Town Council has said we've got outdated and outstretched facilities in Molten and we feed into this. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr Saddington. You've three minutes Mr Saddington so now we'll try and remember to give you a 30 second warning. Okay no problem. Hello again. I'm speaking in support of the application. The application was submitted some 17 months ago. During that time we've engaged in constructive dialogue with the council amending the layout on several occasions and submitting further information to address site-specific issues and pleased to confirm that the application has now been given the all-clear by all technical consultees and recommended for approval by your officers. The proposal constitutes a rural exception site under policy SP3 providing 100% affordable housing on a site adjacent to the development limits. The proposal would make an important contribution towards the supply of affordable homes in accordance with policy SP2. The council's rural housing enable and most recently identified need for 17 affordable dwellings for occupation by Swinton residents. The application is also supported by a housing need assessment produced by ARC4. This assessment concludes that within the Ridell West Villages area a minimum of 68 additional affordable dwellings are needed. That's over and above the mother be scheme. Over the next five years and that includes 25 social and affordable rent and 43 home ownership properties. On that basis a need for 20 dwellings that Swinton is clearly established. The proposed dwelling is well related to the existing built form and reflects the more recent form of development to the south and west. The proposed dwellings would be sympathetic addition to the village reflecting the prevailing character of the existing development nearby to retain sense of place and identity. The proposed layout has been significantly amended in order to mitigate against noise impacts from the scrap yards to the north with the orientation of plots being moved significantly and the mitigation at the top west corner. The nearest residential properties on east street whose rear elevations look towards the site some distance away with gardens exceeding the general rule of thumb separation distances in most cases. The fractal battery storage facility understand that members have now seen the presentation from April 2023 and hopefully that's answered any questions but in simple terms the battery is charged by solar panels which in turn provide energy to the proposed dwellings and the energy is then bought at a cheaper rate from the grid so householders benefit significantly from the lower bills and crucially planning information isn't needed for the battery storage facility but we've shown it on the proposals for completeness. Your engineers are happy with the proposals, they've reviewed all highways information subject to the introduction of that passing place which would be skewed under a section two seven eight agreement. I do hope that you'll support the proposal. Thanks for your time. Thank you very much. Yes thank you Ciao and we'll just briefly on a couple of items. The mention has been made of obviously the scheme that's gained planning permission at a mother bee which some members will be familiar with so that was a scheme for 58 dwellings on a site allocated for housing. That is mentioned within the section 10.10 of the report. I mean in terms of the current situation with that site there's no expected start date on site until March of next year so as it stands it isn't meeting any need and it's also important to note that it doesn't directly compare to the proposal in front of members which is obviously rural exception site. It's proposed on the basis of meeting a identified local need within the parishes and as highlighted Swinton Parrish itself has a need of 17. So that's you know that it does come down to question of three additional units. In terms of the other matters just on the obviously the highways situation members have seen from the photos that East Street is obviously far from ideal at the moment. It is a narrow road. The junction where it meets the B1257 I'm sure highways officers would agree that it's not ideal. Highways have obviously assessed it on the basis of what's proposed and the anticipated traffic movements and so the highways improvements are obviously proportionate to what's proposed and I'm sure highways they obviously have powers to do other works outside of this application to make local improvements but our view is that what is proposed and what can be secured and ultimately funded as part of this development is is acceptable and would be would represent a public benefit not just to the benefit of the those who would occupy these 20 dwellings. Thank you Chair. Thanks Helen. I'll now welcome you up for questions from the floor. Councillor Bekha. Thank you Alan can I just look at the picture of the battery storage building? I think you have it on there. Thank you. All right and also did we have on the presentation proposed elevations of the properties or did I must have missed in advancing down the land? Yeah I suppose when Nikki returns we can move to those slides but yeah with it. Yes. Yeah I think just in terms of the elevations I've not got the the actual scalable elevations it's just the street scenes so it's more of the visual indication. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry can I ask on that Alan? Is there any indication of if there will be a fence around that building or is it just going to stand as it is like a garage or will there be some sort of fencing around it? Thank you. Yeah in terms of the fencing in proximity to this building the it's adjacent to the western boundary which is shown on the site plans as being a 1.8 meter high-close-bodied fence so as it stands that would be the only fencing that would enclose it so it would be adjacent to the access road so on its northern and eastern sides, and my understanding is it would be open. I think in terms of the fencing members of all of noticed on site the neighbors boundary adjacent to this building is quite open so we do have a condition that would deal with boundary treatments if it was felt that say a 2.0 meter high fence would would provide a suitable screen if that's one of the matters. Sorry can I just ask on the top on the front elevation there is that a window or is it a panel like a door or what? It's yeah sorry so the front elevation so in the top left hand corner so that is double door access so that's the only access into the building so that would be for the maintenance and then just on the rear elevation it is a sort of a window open but I think it's more of a ventilation opening on the rear elevation. Yeah yes I did. Sorry Councillor. No it's fine Chairman thank you. So just for clarity Alan three questions what exactly is affordable because a lot of people get confused as to what exactly is affordable. Who are these houses actually for and we've mentioned locals quite a lot how is this going to be conditioned or kept an eye on and the last question is can you confirm exactly about how we conducted the local needs. It was a it was a survey that went round and my memory can't recall exactly how it was done but I just think we just need clarity that how that was conducted and about the need for the 17 dwellings. Please thank you Alan. Thank you Councillor but yeah so in terms of the specific tenure I don't think I've actually included the definition of affordable housing as stated within the MPPF but paragraph 10.18 sets out the breakdown of the tenure in this case so affordable rent rent to buy shared ownership because this is a role exception site we would require that there is I think that it's referred to as a staircase in limit where it's not possible for them to be owned privately because the requirement is that it's affordable in perpetuity. In terms of the arrangements for the allocation of those properties that would be secured as part of the section 106 and sort of a cascade arrangement that works outward there is sort of standard criteria that works outward from the parish of Swinton based on on where you live and work and so that would be included in the legal agreement and it would be monitored by the Council and housing officers in terms of applications that are made and whether there's anybody existing on the list locally who could benefit from these properties. The surveys themselves I believe there's been two parish surveys in recent years and most submit I don't know the exact details as to how they were conducted possibly leaflet drops and responses I know there has been a meeting locally at some stage as well so it's a combination of those factors but I think it would be our rural housing officers that would have a better idea and I think that covers the questions I believe. Thanks very much Alan that was that was great thank you. Councillor Taylor. Yes thank you Chair I just want to touch on paragraph 715 the highways issue is obviously you've given us some detail and obviously the highways is the authority that have deemed that this is acceptable in terms of the improvements and obviously welcome the improvements both to the road width and to the footpath which obviously will help with the issues and I've got to ask this question from the site visit it would appear there'd been some mission creep from a garden onto the highways and if you're going to cut back to make the width of the carriage way more acceptable and more suitable for lorries and vehicles to a two-way traffic to travel up there I mean I presume that that will be addressed by highways and it's all going to be secured under the section 278 agreement but it was just something that leapt out as when we're on that site visit that that will have to be dealt with and presumably highways will deal with that. Yeah thank you. Yes it was apparent on the site visit that there might have been a degree of encroachment into the highway verge so yes ultimately as Pat the 278 and the acceptance of the proposed works and the completion of those works then there would need to be a conversation with somebody locally but ultimately it's within the highways gift to to make those changes which like say it could include a retaining structure given the embankment. Anyone else? Now Alan I just want to just touch on a couple of things. One of the one of the things that was an issue on the site visit was the location of the pond and whilst it wasn't terribly deep it's still deep enough for it for a child a small child to come to grief in such an event. Can we organise some fencing and I think there was an ask for a life belt etc and I appreciate the pond isn't part of the scheme technically but we are mindful that you know if it is families that move in with young children the other issue that I wanted clarity on and this is just clarity so whilst this site is outside the development limit because it's affordable housing it qualifies as a rural exception site and so is allowable under the plan. Yeah that's that's great I just wanted that clarifying and put out into the oven so that we understood why the development would be allowed outside of the development limits. Councillor BERKE you indicated again. Sorry Chair I was going to leave about the pond I was going to request that as young persons champion and also actually I felt it important that we do the security of the pond and I was going to ask as it appeared from the site visit that the pond was in the same land ownership as the site that we're discussing that I feel that we should be looking at some sort of fencing round the pond and certainly some sort of life favour I don't remember the proper technical word like life boy yeah and following on from that I was going to say because I was concerned that there was no fencing around the battery storage and as we all know children find ways and mean so once they break through those doors so I would like to see some sort of secure fencing around that building as well for child safety as part of the conditions thank you. Has anybody got anything else because I'll move it into debate? Yes yeah yeah just just one minute while Alan comes back on the conditions. Chair just to comment on the safety concerns that have been raised. Following on from the site visit this week I did run it past the applicant in terms of the potential for a condition or an amendment to one of the proposed conditions to deal with the boundary treatments where we could include a scheme for safety or signage or what potential life belt so yeah certainly there would be a boundary treatment a means of control in that and I think we could also add something in in relation to the battery storage container at building if that's reasonable. I'm now happy to move this into debate. Councillor BOUR, I think this is part of your division is it not? Oh it's Councillor Mayes sense okay it did used to be yes part of my division but it's not at the moment would you like me to lead? Yep okay so first of all maybe I should declare an interest because in my previous role I did give money to the Swint November 5th bonfire night and I have helped on many many of these events so I do think I need to declare that interest and the first thing is that there's no doubt that local young people need local housing. Swinton did used to be in my division but it's not in my division anymore and I do know the site and I haven't been lobbied by Councillor Mayes to give any views so these are my personal views. So over the years Pearson's Yard has been built out and it has enhanced the village and it was an exceptional development but it was quite expensive so we have got sort of some young people there but it's not you know full of the young people so I need to tell you Councillors that there's very mixed views in the village and also within the parish council about this but I myself have always felt that houses should not always be put in towns if we don't put houses in our villages then the villages die the pubs die the shops die the local schools die and the young people have to move out so that's that's something that I've always advocated and this site is probably in the most open area of the village because at the top of the village it's densely populated. I think that we've got to be mindful that there has been a survey done and it has been identified that young people within that village do want to stay in that village and there is a need. The plan to widen the road even if this hasn't come hadn't have come forward would have been a massive improvement because it was really unbelievable how Pearson's yard got built out with that road so that is a massive massive improvement and will be a benefit to the whole village and the business at the bottom of the village so in summary Councillors and I know you know we can't please everybody but young people do need to get on that housing ladder and this is predominantly for young people. It's impurity that obviously it's going to be affordable people can come in keep the village alive and we do need more housing you know people are crying out for housing and so I'm not the world member but I do feel that in this instance with all the improvements to the road and I know there'll be some hassle you know when this has been done it will improve Swinton village and it will improve to make this housing estate be okay there's a proven need and we need to keep our villages, shops, pubs, etc. alive. I'd like to move. Councillor Turner. Yes thank you Chair. I think this is a good scheme. I think it addresses a need in the area and the village. I accept what obviously some of the objections have raised but there is a housing crisis and there's a particularly a housing crisis for our young people and this is an opportunity it is a rural exception site it is a site that's being brought forward it meets the local need. I think it's a good scheme it's a modern scheme with all the energy efficient savings that will benefit young families who will hopefully live there and find themselves at home much needed home. So on that basis I 100% support it and I would like to second Councillor Burs proposal that this be approved. Councillor Andrews. Thank you I'd just like to echo what the other two members have said and to also thank you for the report. I think it was a really good report it was really easy to and the work that's been put in with the officer and the developer to come to this final plan. I think it's when I first looked at the site I thought there doesn't see many houses for a plot that size really so I think it's been really sensitively done looking at not only the people that will be living there but the neighbours as well to make it as easy on the eye as possible and I thought yeah to reiterate the report was really really good and thank you for that. Councillor Lapson. Yeah thank you very much Chairman. I want to welcome Councillor Burs for you as the previous local member it's unfortunate that the local member isn't here to give their point of view. So I think it's a really good scheme. I welcome the road improvements I'm sure they're not perfect but I think looking at the prior development which didn't deliver any road improvements I think this is a real win for the community. I'm very pleased around the battery scheme I think that's innovative I think that's where we've got to go the EV charging on the site as well for residents welcome that and primarily as Councillor Burs said it's about delivering affordable housing for our young people to allow them to stay in the villages and that housing need I think has been proven proven by the rural housing enablers so yes I wish that there could be further road improvements and now the officer alluded to that's within the gift of highways to do further improvements but I think by securing these improvements in the village it'll be a real community benefit. Thank you very much Councillor Cross. We're all in agreement. I think the only one of the best things about this game although the road is not ideal and it is a narrow road there and you know the fact that it'll be increased by just over five foot you know should help the situation but I think one of the things that I like best about it is these affordable homes are going to be available in pursuit you know I mean they're going to be available we're going to be homes for however you know I mean and there is in all areas a shortage of affordable homes and you know I mean this is addressing some of the problems and I hope when we get the 58 units that have come in in a mother bay you know I mean that they're of a similar thing and we can actually have no problems floating them through and providing the youngsters some of them will never get on the house in latter you know I mean homes that they can live in forever thank you. Thank you members can I say thank you to the team who've delivered this report and done all the work in the background because it was really really good so I appreciate that thank you members for your comments which I endorsed entirely it has been moved and seconded for approval and that will be I think subject to some and that tweaks to the conditions so the correct term is if I can find it minded minded to approve subject to conditions and delegate authority to the planning officer chief planning officer and the chair so can we please go to the vote members. Actually I should say go to the vote all thank you that's carried unanimously. The next item on the agenda is any other business I don't have any the date of the next meeting is the 23rd or does it mean the 23rd of May or should that be June? Sorry I haven't explained to you to speak. 20th of June. And thank you members for your attendance this morning thank you very much. Thank you. a a a a [BLANK_AUDIO]