Transcript

Thank you, and good evening to the Planning South Committee meeting. Before we move to the agenda items, I would just like to welcome our sole public speaker this evening, and remind you that this is a meeting in which the public are present, although it is not a public meeting. We're not expecting a fire drill this evening, so should you hear the alarm, please make your way to the nearest fire exit, one over there, one behind me, and we meet by the van stand in the centre of Horsham. I'd like to remind members that we are being live streamed this evening, and that remember to switch your phone to silent, or better still, turn it off. And that when we are taking the count, please could you make sure your hand is clearly raised, so that the officer can make an accurate account. Thank you very much. Before we start, I'd also like to ask the officers to introduce themselves this evening. Thank you. Good evening, I'm Adrian Smith, Major Applications Team Leader. Good evening, I'm Emma Parks, Head of Development and Building Control. Good evening, I'm Claire Brown, I'm the Principal Planning Solicitor. And I'm Liz Fenwick, Democratic Services Officer. Thank you very much, and when making a comment, please make sure that your microphone is turned on, and that once you've finished, please make sure it's turned to silent. Thank you very much. Do we have any apologies for absence, please? Yes, apologies have been received from Councillor John Campbell, Councillor Joy Dennis, and Councillor Nicholas Marks. Thank you. And Councillor John Milne as well. Yes, thank you. Minutes of the previous meeting. Does anyone want to raise anything regarding the minutes from the previous meeting, or can I take these minutes as agreed? Thank you, therefore I agreed. applications of members' interests. Are there any ... No? Okay, thank you. I have no announcements, nor has the Chief Exec, so anything on appeals. Does anybody wish that Agenda Item Number 5 raise anything regarding appeals? No? Okay, thank you very much. Moving on to Agenda Item Number 6, which is our first application to consider this evening, which is DC23-1001, and it's land between 16 and 20 Mayers Wood, Partridge Green. And please could the officer present the application to the committee? Good evening. So this application site comprises a parcel of land within the built-up area boundary of Partridge Green. The site sits adjacent to residential dwellings to the north and south, and backs onto the Star Road Trading Estate at the rear. This is an aerial photo of the site. Three trees immediately to the north of the site are subject to tree preservation orders, as shown here. This is the site as seen from the street, and this is the site as seen from the rear. Planning permission has historically been granted for a building comprising two flats on the site. This permission was implemented, as explained in this letter on screen now, but not completed. A lawful development certificate was granted in 2008, which confirms that this 1973 permission to be extant, meaning it can still be lawfully completed. This is the site layout and elevations for this extant permission, and these are the floor plans. So the current application seeks planning permission for a pair of two bedroom semi-detached houses on this site, set forward of the extant permission to sit level with the existing property adjacent at 20 Mayers Wood. So this is the proposed site layout, with two parking spaces shown adjacent to the northern boundary, and a further two new parking spaces roadside. The site layout accommodates the root protection areas of the adjacent TPO trees, as shown here. These are the floor plans, and this is the front elevation showing 20 Mayers Wood adjacent. This is the north side, the south side, and the rear elevation again showing 20 Mayers Wood. And for comparison, this is the proposed on the left, and the extant permission on the right. And this is a comparison of the front elevations. So given the location of the site within the defined built-up area boundary of Partridge Green, the principle of development accords with Policy 3 of the HDPF, regardless of this extant permission. The proposal would sit more comfortably within the plot and the street scene compared to the extant permission, with a better relationship to the trading estate to the rear. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our first and only speaker this evening, Tom Cuthbert. May I remind you, you have two minutes. Thank you. I work for Baker Brown. We are the architects and the agents for the application. So just to really add a little bit more detail, it's a very constrained site. The application has been in itself for probably, I think it's fair to say, over 12 months now. We've been working through a process with the case officer of making sure that all of those constraints have really been responded to adequately. Part of that has included resolving water main that runs through the site. We managed to get permission from Southern Water. The proposal was acceptable in terms of the keep clear distances. Sorry, could you speak a little closer to the microphone? Clearly. Thank you. Despite the fact that initially they'd requested further separation distance. We went through a process of updating ecology reports, revising tree agricultural statements to respond to the true root protection areas as well as we could. We've also been through several rounds of queries responding to noise concerns raised for the industrial estate behind and got to a point where we've done everything we can really with and accepting several conditions on top of that to make sure that we're mitigating as best as we possibly can. There is the extant planning permission there which the applicants are reluctant to build out. We've been appointed to put together a better proposal that's better suited to the site than that of the extant proposal. So we're imposing two family dwellings rather than two three bed flats. The footprint is slightly larger, but we meet sort of current space standards with Part M42 requirements on floor plans etc etc. But the overall density of the building, not all of that is two story effectively so we have kind of set everything to respond to the neighbour. We've also, with Beth and the case officer, we've been through a round of iterations responding to comments from the neighbours. We've revised the front elevation to sit better with the neighbouring properties. We've reduced the overall width of the property. We've reduced the units from three beds to two beds and made sure basically that the site coverage is as close as it can be to that of the extant scheme but still meeting sort of space requirements and Part M42 requirements for disabled access. I think that's more or less everything really. Yeah, just, yeah, I mean, yeah. Nothing more to add. Thank you very much. I'll ask the ward councillors to speak if I may, starting with Councillor Lambert. I would agree that the current application is definitely better than the one before. However, I have a few observations. The first thing being that environmental health cannot support it as a history of noise and complaints from the adjacent industrial site. And if it's granted and the occupiers do become likely to be prejudiced by the noise, we have little powers to abate this thing. And they conclude that we need a condition. Well, we have a condition, number three, which is that if the noise during the day exceeds that which it's allowed and the windows are open, then the answer is to close the windows. Well, I don't think that's suitable at all because the building is not going to have air conditioning and most of us in the summer like the fresh air and the window open. So I think that's not nice at all. The parking is already a nightmare down there. Another two on the road is going to make it just impossible. And yes, it's right at the end where there's a turning circle, but there's only a turning circle if people aren't parked there. So that's going to be a nightmare. And that's a worry of the residents that are already there. And I notice we say it sits comfortably on the site. To my mind, it's squeezed on the site. And the parking in the lay-by, I noticed that it's going to be a grampian-style condition to require the parking spaces to be built prior to the commencement of the houses, which I think is a good idea. But I think they'll probably be gobbled up by the people already living there. And I'm pleased to see that the oak trees are going to be a retention. Water neutrality I find somewhat interesting. Gone are the days when we need copies of water bills to prove water usage. What we have is a lump of concrete that hasn't assumed water usage. And we're saying that this building, because of its better utilities and better appliance, will have a lesser water usage than a lump of concrete. I find that bemusing, but never mind. And I'm glad that the family development revights have been removed. I think that's all I've got to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll just provide comments on the first matter raised around the environmental health comments. And I'll find an appropriate image here. So you can see the Star Road trading estate at the back, and if my cursor will work, here we are. I don't know if you can see that there. We've got a property here called Neil Steels and then further commercial units here. These are restricted by condition to the hours of operation to be daytime only. And in theory, Neil Steels can work on Saturday mornings, but they do not. So the noise environment is very much only during the daytime. There have been a couple of complaints in the last year from residents around noise dropping of steels, music playing, etc. The views of officers is that there's already existing residential, there's already existing consent for a building in a worse position, closer to those properties. There is mitigation being proposed in the form of improved glazing. In order to have an acceptable internal environment during the day, windows do technically need to be shut, although they could be opened if occupiers want to. But the recommendation is that mechanical ventilation is included as well as an alternative, which means that in the hot summer months, for instance, or elsewhere, there is the alternative for fresh air. An acoustic fence is also recommended at the back garden. So all in all, given those restrictions on the neighbouring properties, etc., officers are with the view that noise environment will be acceptable here, and certainly no worse than what exists for any of the existing residents in the area. Thank you. Councillor Lambert, yes. Sorry, the acoustic fence, are we going to have an acoustic fence or are we thinking about it? That's part of the recommendations of the noise report. Can we make that, that we definitely have to have an acoustic fence? I mean, these poor people, they've gone so deep, they're going to be the closest. Of the others? Well, there's one such thing as well. I mean, we do get a lot of complaints coming at parish council. It fits and starts, so I have to say, but predominantly in the summer. So yes, under Condition 3, Part C talks about noise environment within external spaces, and the acoustic fence would help to partially mitigate that. Okay, super. Thank you. Councillor Knowles. Thank you. I agree very much with Councillor Lambert's points, and I'm pleased to hear that the acoustic fencing and the mechanical ventilation will be fitted. And also that we're not going with the extent which is two, three bedrooms, so that would have been more residents and potentially more cars. So whilst this is going to cause problems on the parking, I think the fact that the two street parking places are going to be within the area, I don't think it's going to impact too much on the turning circle. That's my hopes anyway. And that there will be two parking spaces on the site as well. So it's the least bad on your situation. So I have nothing further to say. I'll ask on that. Thank you. Okay, open for debate. Councillor Potts. Just a quick point of clarification if I may, Chairman. Paragraph 3.9 says there's only five letters of representation, yet the reason for inclusion in the agenda are that there's more than eight. Could you please explain that? This is because one of the letters that came in, it's quite a unique situation here, was signed by a number of the residents on individual properties within the estate. And so we took that as separate letters of representation even though it was on one. It didn't necessarily qualify as a petition, but because it was clearly all the residents in the local area, specifically this estate, we treated them as individual representations. Councillor Clark. A request. The first request is could you show again the before application and the after application just for a few seconds so as to get a better understanding. And the second thing is can you clarify a bit what you mean by this mechanical ventilation system and exactly how it works please. So if we could see the before and the after that would be helpful again because they went through quite quickly. Okay, so this is the comparison for the site layouts for ease. Right. And that's the comparison front elevation as you'd see from the street scene within Mayers Wood. And also if you can explain which one that faces towards the industrial estate. So in terms of the proposed development, this is the back that would face towards the industrial estate. So first floor window, ground floor, French doors, on the first house. The other house would face to the east, so at an angle to the industrial estate with its windows in that direction. In terms of the extant permission, these are the elevations there. As you can see from the right hand side, the concrete plinth that was installed back in 1975 sits further back in the site. The rear elevation is at the bottom here on the left hand side, which shows four windows directly overlooking the industrial estate at the back, so the proximity is much closer. And in terms of mechanical ventilation, that effectively draws the air from outside. And then because it's mechanically added here, I guess it works similar to an air conditioning system. You're talking like fans or something? Effectively, yes. Similar to what you might have in a bathroom, for instance, but running quietly. But running the other way, I would assume. Indeed. Thank you. Councillor Croker. Thank you, Chair. A couple of points I'd like to make. The first one, going back to the acoustics, I note from the report submitted by the applicant that because of their microphone position with reference to a container, which I assume is plumped on the site somewhere, I think it was just in one of your pictures earlier, they're basically removing a factor of three decibels from all their microphone measurements. Looking at it, personally, I'm not convinced that it's actually true facade conditions that would warrant that subtraction. And the point being, of course, that all subsequent modelling has been based on those on-site measurements. So that's my first concern. The second is more really a comment, I think, about we're trying to encourage sustainable transport and indeed we are providing or requesting, or one is shown, a cycle store. Looking at the size of it, I suspect we might be able to get two, maybe three bicycles in it. Now, I don't know how many people will actually be in that house, but if they all have bicycles, they ain't all going to fit. And the other problem is you're expecting a family, two families, to share one bicycle store, which seems a bit illogical to me. So those are my points. Thank you. We have condition 12, which seeks to secure what's on the plans in terms of cycle parking. Now, alternative means potentially to the rear. Of course, we could alternatively amend the condition to require further details of cycle parking if that's an important matter for consideration. In terms of the noise, I can't necessarily at this stage comment in terms of the three decibels, but the noise survey does sort of indicate that there does appear to be some sort of headroom a little bit in the figures against the British standards for internal noise. And we can make sure that what comes in to satisfy condition three does satisfy the necessary standards. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. With regard to the noise, with regard to the cycle storage, I think I would like to amend the condition to reflect that. Because realistically, sharing a space with a different family could prove quite tricky apart from the actual size constraints present. Thank you. Second, you captured that. Yes. Okay, before we come back to that motion, Councillor Nowell. Thank you, Chairman. The car parking facilities, it's car parking space in accordance with policy 40 of the HDPF. The last time I looked at policy 40, that would mean two cars per household in a two bedroom house, is that right? So we're talking about parking for four cars being required for this development. So if we could go to the aerial photographing, it's probably Google Earth image. It actually, although I don't know what time of day it was taken, but when I've parked down that particular road, it's been nigh on impossible to park. You can't really see what a car parking space is and which aren't there. But as far as I could see, the addition of four cars to that particular close would be very inconvenient for the amount of people that have to park there already. As I said, I don't know what time of day that was taken and we won't know. But in my experience, having to park at the end of the road to find a parking space, it's always very congestive at the moment. So my concern is parking. How are we going to account for the actual four cars there? I know you've got spaces already shown, but that's three cars, isn't it? Or not four. So this drawing here, again if you can see my cursor, hopefully shows two on-site bays just on the northern front in the properties there. The two new bays which link in with the existing bays that are on the street. So effectively there's four parking spaces there. The county parking standards say that for a two bedroom property, 1.7 is the average. So 3.4, they're providing four in effect. That's three and a half cars. Indeed. A small car. I don't know where the half car is going to fit. That's trouble. But thank you for that. Thank you. Councillor Croker. Thank you, Chair. Just a point on parking. I believe there's an error there. It's policy 41 in HDPF. Relates to parking 40, I think, according to my copy. I'm happy to amend that. Thank you. Councillor Trelle. Thank you, Chair. This is a question for Claire, please. I might sound a bit crass asking this, but I just want clarity. If you purchase a house, normally there would be some sort of a land survey, and the land survey would say this is a noisy property. You're right by an industrial estate. And then I purchase a house nonetheless. What sort of position do I have to then complain about the noise that had been pre-existing to the purchase? Assuming the noise stays the same, it doesn't significantly increase from the purchase time. Well, Chair, I'm a planning lawyer, not a property lawyer, so I'm not really familiar with what surveys have done prior to house purchase other than from my own experience. I don't seem to remember being a report on whether things are noisy or not. I think you've got to turn up, haven't you, and work it out for yourself. You certainly get a report of what's registered as a local land charge, but other than that, I'm not really sure. There's the usual recourse to reporting breaches of condition if Neil steals, which are apparently subject to conditions to work during the day only. So if they breach that, then obviously that's a breach of planning control, and that can be subject to enforcement. Things that interfere with your enjoyment of property, they can be reported to environmental health. So there is recourse out there, and then of course if your neighbours are causing the problem, well, perhaps there are functions of the council that can assist, or you seek recourse to private rights. Okay, I suppose my point is that if you purchase right next to an airport, then you're kind of in a bad position to then complain about the aeroplanes taking off, unless there's a significant difference in the frequency or the time. I think we might be wandering out of the planning arena. Okay, any other questions before I come back to Councillor Croker? Councillor Sir, could you give your hand up? I just wanted to clarify that last point. I know you think it's going off the target a bit, but of course there is the point that in preliminary inquiries, the question does arise as to whether or not there's been any sort of dispute or conflict with neighbouring properties, and if that's been truthfully answered, of course if it hasn't been truthfully answered, there are legal remedies, but if it has been truthfully answered, the prospective purchaser would have knowledge that there has been an issue, and what that issue relates to. Thank you. Yes, Chair, I think that comes up in the seller's property information form, but that's to do with the conveyancing process, and I must admit I've never done that as part of my legal practice at all ever. Okay, thank you. Any other questions before I come back to Councillor Croker? Councillor Croker, you were proposing a motion earlier, a change to a condition. Proposing a change to Condition 12. However, how to word it is somewhat tricky. Councillor, speak closer to the mic. Oh, I'm sorry. It seems quite low this evening. It certainly is. Let me try again. Pretend I'm speaking without the microphone. Yes, I'd like to propose a modification to Condition 12, but I'm not that sure how to do it. Councillor Croker, I suggest it would say something like, Notwithstanding the details submitted, a cycle parking plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Council prior to the occupation of the dwellings. So you're being clear that it's notwithstanding the plan submitted, you're requiring a new plan to be submitted with amended cycle parking details. So basically, something like, To fully reflect HDPF Policy 41, in that I believe it doesn't fully reflect the HDPF? You can say, For the reason for the condition, it can say, In accordance with Policy 40, that would be the general standard wording you would have on a reason for a condition. Okay, I think that's probably good enough. As is detailed in the bottom of the reason, where's the reason? So it would essentially be the same reason on the Condition 12, To ensure there is adequate provision for cycle parking in accordance with Policy 40. So it would be your same reason, but you're amending the core wording to require a new plan to be submitted. Thank you. And changing it to 41. Yes. So can I just check that we've got accurately what the proposal is? So I'll read out, Helpfully, on the other item on this agenda, Condition 11 is largely the wording we need. So that's what I'm referring to here. But basically, it's a preoccupation condition that says, Notwithstanding the details submitted, the dwellings hereby permitted should not be occupied unless and until the cycling parking facilities serving them have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The cycling parking facilities shall thereafter be retained as such for their designated use. And then reason being the same as before, but in accordance with Policy 41 of the HDPF. Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Finnegan? Thank you. All those in favour? Sorry, I just need clarity here. In doing so, we are voting to approve this application with the amendment. And that's what I'm just being told. Well, no, it's what you want to do. We just need to be clear. Amendments know what they're voting on. Is it the whole application? Are we just going to vote on the amendment to the condition? Yes, sorry. I think we should vote on the amendment first. Sorry, apologies. This is to amend the condition. Apologies. I had a seconder on Victoria Finnegan. And all those in favour to amend the condition? [inaudible] All those against? Any abstentions? Okay. So therefore, voting on the amendment to the condition, it was 13-4. No one's against. Four abstentions. Do we have any further comments before we go to the vote on this particular? Yes, Councillor Trollope? Sorry, a point of order. I didn't actually fully understand what the amendment was. And I felt rushed. I abstained for that reason, just for the record. But I just feel like the amendment was made and the discussion rushed and there was no discussion afterwards. Apologies. We did ask. It was read out. And it was seconded. And it was voted on. So apologies if you misunderstood. Any other comments before we go to the vote on this particular item? No. Okay. [inaudible] I think that's a very good idea. Can someone read that out? Can you read that out again, Adrienne? So I'll summarise first and then read out the amendment. So the amendment is to Condition 12, which currently, as it reads, requires the cycle parking facilities to be built in accordance with the submitted plans. The amendment is to seek further details of those plans to ensure they are better suited to the proposed dwellings. So the new Condition 12 will read as a preoccupation condition that notwithstanding the submitted details, no part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the cycle parking facilities serving it have been constructed and made -- sorry. My error there. I'm reading the wrong one here. I'll start again. Preoccupation condition. Notwithstanding the details submitted, the dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until the cycle parking facilities serving them have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The cycle parking facilities shall thereafter be retained as such for their designated use. Thank you. Is everyone clear on that? Good. So therefore, the recommendation is to approve planning permission with the amendment to Condition 12, which has been read out, subject to the other appropriate conditions listed in the committee report. Therefore, I propose we vote on this application. Those for this application. That was unanimous. Thank you very much. So the application has been approved with an amendment to Condition 12 and appropriate conditions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to the next agenda item, which is agenda item -- sorry. Agenda item 7, which is DC 23040, Oakdine, Blackgate Lane, Paulborough. Please could the officer present the application to the committee. So this application site comprises a parcel of land within the countryside accessed off Blackgate Lane north of Codmore Hill. The site sits adjacent to the Oakdine mobile home site. This is an aerial photograph of the site. The application seeks planning permission for a two-bedroom detached house on the site, which is to be built in lieu of the two-bedroom workshop conversion granted in 2020. The conversion is shown at the top of the screen there. This plan shows the location of the proposed new house and the location of the approved workshop conversion. These are the floor plans for the new dwelling. And these are the elevations. This is the site plan of the approved workshop conversion. The floor plans showing two bedrooms and the elevations. And this is what the workshop currently looks like. Works have lawfully commenced through the laying of drains to the building. So this is the site for the new dwelling facing to the west, facing to the south, and the dwelling would be located roughly where the trampoline is on the lower right. And this is the site facing towards the north. And on the top left photograph you can just about see the workshop under the tree and the access on the right-hand side. Although contrary to policy, the proposed dwelling would be built in lieu of an existing consent for a workshop conversion on the site. With conditions to secure the demolition of the workshop and the section 106 legal agreement to secure that the permission for its conversion can no longer be implemented. Consequently, there will be no new dwellings in the countryside overall. The proposal makes for a better overall development than the poor quality workshop conversion and would not otherwise harm the area or amenities of the adjacent mobile home site. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and legal agreement as set out in the report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Call on the ward councillors. Councillor Clark. Thank you, Chairman. Before I propose an amendment to this planning permission, I would just ask officers to clarify. I mean, I know this quite well, but I'm not sure about other members because in 6.23 it talks about DC20-0699. It plainly says it's a two-bedroom application and that one was approved. This is the one that we're talking about, converting the existing workshop to a two-bedroom building. It's just fine. Paragraph 6.24 again clarifies 20-0699 is a two-bedroom. The refused planning application 22-0132 was for a three-bedroom was turned down. The paragraph 6.26 seems to get itself into a bit of a muddle-muddle. As it says, the current proposal is for two bedrooms. Tick. That is correct. The previously approved proposal was for three bedrooms, which is incorrect because that was turned down and the previous application that was approved was a two-bedroom one, so it looks like clause 6.26 is incorrect. I suspect it needs amendment. I would suggest. Can officers confirm that I've read this correctly, please? You are correct. That is now in the report. The consent for the workshop conversion is two-bedroom and that was approved and this proposes for two bedrooms. Thank you. As we have a legal person here to guide us on this, when I look at planning condition number three, the pre-commencement condition, it says, and I quote, Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, the workshop subject to planning permission, blah, blah, blah, shall be demolished and restored to grass. Question. Is shall be demolished strong enough? And should it, in legal terms, this is legal language I'm seeking clarification on now, should that be replaced by must be demolished? Can the officer clarify? I don't think that shall and must really makes too much difference, to be honest. I think that the real strength of 106 is how determined you are about the enforcement of it afterwards, rather than shall, must. Well, as a layman, shall is sort of more, I wouldn't say wishing, but shall, for me, must is stronger than shall, but I'm a layman, not a legal person. Well, we generally don't put shall in legal agreements, but I don't think it really matters. You've just got to understand the import of what you're putting. I just want belt and braces to be sure that everybody's clear. I'm sorry, I do think it's splitting heads. Well, if you think that, in legal terms, that shall is strong enough, then fine, I'm happy. Well, if it isn't, then we've got thousands of agreements with shall in that we've got a problem with. Sorry, can I just ask... I'm just thinking in terms of the context of which this application is being done, and previous history with the site and other sites in Paulborough around this area. And that's my concern. Thank you. I'll just ask Head of Development to comment. I think I concur. It is a general standard wording. But what I would say, Councillor Clark, is when we were discussing this application coming forward at committee, it was decided on this particular case that we would also have a legal agreement to secure those measures, particularly because the development's actually been implemented. So, I think it might be considered belt and braces to do that, but I think it provides that robust position that you're looking for, in that we've not just got a condition in this instance, we are requiring a legal agreement for the building to be demolished, and therefore it can't commence. So, in this case, we've got a kind of a two-pronged approach to provide that security. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay, I don't have any comments. Councillor Nolan. Just a very small point of clarification, please, Chairman. The Planning Officer referred to the fact that drains had been laid, and I assume those are to the existing barn, which is now not going to have planning permission. So, will those drains also be obstructed or finished off in some way or other so they can't be reused? So, you're right. Yes, those drains have been constructed to reach the workshop building that's been commenced, the conversion of which has been commenced. As they're underground, we didn't think it was necessary to have a specific requirement that they are removed. The legal agreement and the condition serve to remove the workshop, so therefore the drains would have no purpose otherwise. But if it was felt it was important, we could ensure that the legal agreement does make reference to removing any underground infrastructure that's been already installed. Yes, I mean, obviously there's a feeling certainly from this end of the room that there may be questions raised later should another application be put in at a later date to resurrect the one that's already been refused. So, that's the only reason I asked. Thank you very much. Councillor Manton. Thank you, Chairman. Sorry to bring you back to Condition 3 of my Councillor Clark here. I'm also just looking at that and obviously agree that the workshop subject to the Planning Commission 0699 shall be demolished and restored to grass. The reason is that this is a matter of fundamental principle of development and to limit water use. Water use obviously in the current climate framework is limited in perpetuity. So, in some way I'm struggling to, I would like to bring forward in Condition 3 something that with the existing workshop demolished that it can't come back at a later date. It is as a fundamental principle... A planning permission can't secure nothing ever happening in the future because ultimately somebody could have a right to submit something. Whether that's acceptable or not is another matter and we would consider it at that time. So, I think you can't secure, you know, nothing would ever happen on this site in perpetuity on that building. This permission, if granted, would secure the removal of the garage building and ensure that that consent that was granted is not implemented. But, you know, if the applicant chose to come in in a year or two time with a different proposal we would have to consider it on its own merits. At that time we could never prevent that from happening. But officers are of the view there is sufficient security as part of this permission with the measures we've outlined to ensure that the permission they've got for that workshop building could not be implemented and the building would be demolished. Thank you. Councillor Manton, yes. Thank you again, Chairman. So, just to be clear for myself here that this is a fundamental principle of limit of water usage but that cannot actually happen and therefore may not, in the future, improve the sustainability of the development in accordance with Policy 37. Can you explain that? The summary here is that it's not reasonable in planning terms to have a condition that sterilises a site for potential future uses. An application that comes in on this workshop site in future, let's say it's for another workshop building, would need to demonstrate water neutrality in its own right. It wouldn't be able to rely on the existing building because that's already being used to offset the proposed dwelling. Does that answer your question? Any other questions? No. Then I move to vote on the recommendation, which is to approve planning permissions subject to the conditions listed in the committee report and completion of a leaveable agreement stating that the applicant will not implement the extent permission for the conversion of the barn under DC-2006-99. Those for? OK. Thank you very much. So the application has been approved subject to the conditions and 106 agreement. Thank you. OK. Thank you. Urgent business, I have no urgent business and therefore I'd like to thank the officers and members for their contribution this evening. And at 18.18 I bring this meeting to a close. Thank you very much. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]