Transcript

Please note that this meeting is being audio live streamed and the recording of the meeting is available to hear on the Council's website. The recording will begin at the commencement of the meeting and will conclude when I have declared the meeting closed. The recording of this meeting will be available for one year and will be deleted after that period. Please can members and registered speakers be reminded to position your microphone close to your face and speak clearly so that the sound system can capture all the audio content. Anything said off mic will not be heard on the recording. The Council has advertised all the planning applications to be considered this evening. Some people have applied to the Council to speak either in support or to object to a planning application. Objectors and supporters have three minutes each to speak. District Councillors and Parish Councillors have three minutes each to speak. If you have registered to speak, I will announce you at the right time. You must keep your comments to planning matters and speak within your time limit. Following the representations, the committee will discuss the planning applications in turn and vote on each application to reach a decision. Before we get going, we will have a health and safety notice read out by Caroline Perry. Thank you. Thank you. Please familiarise yourself with the fire exits from this room. There are marked refuge points at the top of all the staircases for mobility vehicle users. There is no fire alarm plan during this meeting. Therefore, if the fire alarm does sound, please leave via the fire exit to the assembly point, which is the far side of the car park by the flint wall. Should you become aware of a fire situation, the call points to sound the alarm are next to the fire exit in this room and at the set of doors to the balcony. There is no return into the building until advised it is safe to do so. Thanks very much. So we come to item number one on the agenda. Any substitute members? Thank you. I'm Councillor Andy McGregor, substituting for Councillor Steve Nicklaus. Thank you, Councillor McGregor. Item number two, any declarations of interest? And then item number three, we have got public question time. And we have got one question from Steve Stefton, who is from the Mariners Point Resident Association. If you would like to come and speak. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening, chair members and officers. I'm Steve Stefton. I'm asking a question on behalf of Mariners Point residents. I'm here to ask the committee to delegate the offices to hold a site meeting with Councillors, residents and the Environment Agency at Mariners Point regarding our inadequate flood defences and report back at a future committee meeting. The history is on the 5th of July 2021, the planning committee unanimously endorsed a breach of condition be served to require the developer to rectify breaches of conditions associated with the planning permission to ensure that the development is safe from flooding. We wish to present a report to officers with video evidence of preventable flooding on the night of the 8th, 9th of April and ask officers to respond having inspected the inadequate flood defences that had previously been judged by them as acceptable when the breach of condition notice was rescinded. And I'd like to just quickly emphasise the following. The flood defence wall at Surrey Hard is too low, especially taking account of global warming and the river substantially over top the Surrey Hard defence wall and its associated gaps in April. There are physical and installation defects and almost all of the flood defence is provided by the developer. We still don't have a flood evacuation plan that is fit for purpose and written in plain English, we just have a crude rehash of the flood risk assessment that they produced in 2012. We discovered there was no scheme in place for the operation of the on-site flood defence measures on the 8th of April despite early warnings being issued by the Environment Agency. In fact it was left to residents to figure out how to fit the demountable flood defence barriers in the dark just before midnight. Those barriers are stored underground in an area that's only protected by the car park flood gate which already has missing structural components and is not in its original as tested condition when the breach of condition notice was lifted. We believe that there are structural defects in the building so we'd ask the council to verify what new powers it may have with regards building control as there is water ingress through the walls and floor surface of the underground car park. The landlord has imposed the need of a manned flood monitoring service, a flood watch with an associated charge for every high tide and I mean basically the contractors who were on duty that evening were asleep and they still didn't know how to fit the barriers or really where they were kept. There would be no need for a manned watch if the flood defence provisions were in place and I mean really residents being asked to pay out an awful lot of money because the development was permitted to be developed and be unsafe. So really what we want is for the planning officers to come back to consider the new findings and maybe put another report back to the committee and we think that that's quite urgent so that is our question. Would you delegate or approve the officers coming out for a site meeting? Thank you for your question Mr Stephen. I will hand over to Gary Peck who will be able to advise you on that. Yes thank you chair. I'm not particularly familiar with the site for this. The case officer was Mr Barnett I believe and I have seen some emails that Mr Appleton the head of development has been copied into as well about this subject. So I will obviously pass that on as a public question to them and ask them to come back to you with that. As I said I'm sorry I can't answer the questions directly I have been copied into the odd email about it but I don't have any direct knowledge but most certainly I'll bring that to their respective attentions and then they will liaise with the chair as well as the environment agency to get the respective people together. Thanks very much. So we come to item number 4 so that's members questions and there are none. Item number 5 is the agreement of minutes from the 4th of March 2024. Have we got any objections to those? I know there's many new members. And then we come to item number 6 so any items to be raised under urgency provisions of which there are none. And so we move on to item 7 which is planning applications and so I will hand over to Gary Peck regarding planning AWDM/0284/24. Yes thank you chair. So I do have an update for the committee. On Friday afternoon we received the following from the applicant which stated after careful consideration it is of our opinion that we do not need planning permission. We are therefore withdrawing our retrospective planning application. So as of Friday afternoon the applicants withdrew the application because they don't believe planning permission is required. In a sense of what we're discussing tonight though that still leaves a matter for the committee to consider because the second part of the resolution was to consider enforcement action and so in effect committees still would need to go through the same process of considering whether the houseboat as constructed is acceptable and if it is not then it would follow that we'd be looking at enforcement action. So we do have the same process to go through. I think it's a shame that the applicants withdrawn the application at this late stage and not come along to address the committee. And in fact it was a correspondence I'd had before the application was submitted with the applicant because at the point when they were carrying out the development they said to me they didn't require planning permission and for the reasons set out in your report it's my view that they do. And hence the application was submitted so it seems a bit unusual to have submitted the application to get to two days before a meeting and then withdraw it but that's where we are. But I will go through the presentation the same way as normal because the second part of the recommendation at the end of your reports is still relevant. So I'll present in the normal way. The application site is edged in red here just where my cursor is and as we were seeing from the reports one of the key points in its location is its proximity to a number of residential properties in River Close. I'm sure members will be aware that many of the houseboats are not as close to residential properties as this little stretch here so the effect is greater. We have Beech Green obviously to the west where there's an open area and some of the houses further on to the west are also set further back. So there's the site there and then just closer up showing again the proximity to the residential properties and the actual application site itself. The overhead view is a previous one so that's the old boat when the Google images were shown. So again it's centrally located within the run of houseboats and we see the residential properties immediately to the south in River Close. In terms of the drawings we did receive for the planning application, I'll show some photographs, many of which are in your agendas already, but the two side elevations there as it were, the south and the north, the southern elevation is the one that's directly in front of the properties in River Close but because of the slight angle of the riverbank the side elevations can also be seen as well and they are quite long as you can see in two storeys as well so that's the western elevation and then the eastern elevation shown there. Members will see in the report that the Environment Agency had asked for floor plans to be submitted. They were eventually submitted after this report was written and have been sent to the Environment Agency, although we haven't had a response from the Environment Agency as yet on that, but the upper deck here shows this bedroom, fourth bedroom here and the living area, lounge area and then on the lower deck is where the rest of the bedrooms and bathroom is as well as the entrance to the building. So some of these photographs are in your agenda already, that's the southern elevation when viewed from the jetty, they're moving slightly around that's one of the side elevations and set out in your report that is one particular elevation that gave officers concerns as to the compliance or otherwise with the council's houseboat guidance and then turning back from in effect in front of where the boat is, that's looking back towards the nearest properties in River Close, they are clearly visible from there. Then a few from outside the site, one of the speakers will also, I'll be showing some photos when they speak as well but just for some photographs here. So this is actually within the entrance to River Close, it can be seen from the public viewpoint beyond the riverbank itself, so that's the building there. This is a view from one of the residential properties, again so this is the building here and another view from another of the residential properties here again showing the boat here at that point. And as we pan along further to the east in that stretch as you can see here, the majority of the boats are of a much lower level where they are adjacent to River Close and that's from the garden of one of the properties again, there'll be some further photos shown in a minute, but you can see here that some of the other boats then disappear because they're single storey in nature view from the gardens but because of the upper storey here, this one can now be visible. Then looking across from the other side, from the town side and from the bridge, some of these photos again are within your reports but it's just to get a flavour of the nature of the character of the area. There are a couple of taller boats there, that's one that was recently granted permission. There are two elements in the houseboat guidance which is a nautical appearance generally and they're low height so most of these are of a lower height and there is the subject building just on the left hand side there. And then panning across and with the angle here, again as I mentioned a moment ago, most of the boats near the properties in River Close are of a lower level and of a more boat-like appearance it might be said, but there are two aspects here in terms of that visual appearance and the impact upon residential properties. Just a bit closer up again so our building is here on the right and then the other boats on the left hand side there. So although the planning application has been withdrawn, in effect the second part of the resolution would have only followed on if the first part had been refused. So for members consideration it is still to consider whether if a planning application had been submitted it would have been approved or refused and if it were the latter to then consider whether enforcement action is to be taken in line with resolution 2 in the recommendation. Thank you chair. Thanks so do we have any questions at all? Councillor Albury. Thank you very much chair. To Gary, Gary just so we can understand, so the applicants have completely withdrawn saying they do not need planning permission, is that correct? Yes that's correct. But you are an experienced planning officer, you will have looked at this in depth, you will have looked at every aspect of this and your experience will say that it does need planning permission, is that correct or is there a fine line where it might actually not need planning permission? I hope I am an experienced planning officer, I don't think anyone has full experience in houseboats and that's why I have written it, I think I mentioned a grey area in my report. However what we have always done and I think residents are the same as this is that we do have one appeal decision in the past from the big warship at Fish, which some years ago and is a terribly involved document but where a lot of these issues were played out and in effect my understanding, I believe it's clear, is that the inspector there came to a conclusion that if you bring a boat in in its entirety from outside and more as they did in Fish that doesn't require planning permission, even though the inspector said well if it did need planning permission it's out of keeping the area but he said it didn't require permission, so that's that. But he also raised a couple of other cases along the bank where it was simply a pontoon and someone built on top of it and at that point the inspector then said that does require planning permission or did require planning permission and in my view that seems to be fairly clear. I do understand that it is possible to bring a large boat in and if it floats in and you just put it in situ then that's correct but it doesn't follow for everything and this is quite a different situation, so I won't sit here and say I am 100% certain because houseboat case law, if you Google it generally it comes up Evada council so it isn't something I can find out from elsewhere which is slightly problematic for me but I think the one bit of case law we have demonstrates to me quite clearly that permission is required. Thank you. May I ask one other question, Chair? So if we look at this we will go with your recommendation still that it does require planning permission and we will therefore look at this in that aspect, is that correct? Certainly, Chair. I am not advising the committee that because of what I received that my view is different and indeed as I mentioned I had this dialogue with the applicant for some time while we were trying to secure the planning application in the first place I think much to the frustration of some of the neighbours as to wondering what was happening while this was going on but we had that, we got the application in, my view stays the same and the simple statement I read out from the applicant just saying we don't think we require planning permission, well there isn't a reason why they are saying that they don't require it so as far as I am concerned my mind doesn't change on that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Harvey? Yes, thank you, Chair. It is unfortunate the applicant isn't here because I would have liked to address this question to him but in which case, Mr Peck, I wonder, it says in our notes that the applicant believes that planning permission is not required and has obviously reiterated that by withdrawing their planning permission. Are you aware if that was based on any professional opinion or is that just his own opinion? Has that been brought to you? It hasn't but there wasn't an agent used for the planning application so I wasn't aware of any professional opinion beyond an expression that they felt that the Fish case proved that permission wasn't needed and my account of that was, well if you read it, I don't agree that's the case. That's as far as we got so I am not aware that, ordinarily in this case, I might expect a planning consultant to challenge that but we haven't had any of that. Councillor McGregor? Thank you. Now I notice that there are no objections from environmental health. Does this mean that the houseboat will be finding another way to dispose of their raw sewage or will that sewage be discharged into the river? Thank you. A question that's often asked of me actually on houseboats and which I'm probably getting quite good at saying that's not planning's bit. I don't think I would take the environmental health non-objection as in there's carte blanche on that. I think it's no objection to the planning application because we were just asking them to look at the design of a houseboat so it's not surprising they would not object to that. But in terms of the separate matters which are out with the planning control, certainly I could look at separately, but it's not a planning matter. Councillor Thompson? Thank you, Chair. I have a few questions that I would like to ask which may be thought to have a bearing on whether we would have given permission if we were handling it as an application. First of all, I wonder whether it's valid to consider that the appeal of this whole houseboat site is the immense variety of houseboat styles and conditions and sizes to which people come from all over and it's a very popular place to visit and that contributes a lot to the local economy. It might be considered that the eclecticism and extreme variety here in the houseboats as a whole from traditional to modern to experimental to wacky in some cases may therefore be the site's most characteristic quality and in fact might be considered that the collection of houseboats does have a genre of examples which are not nautical in flavour, which are architectural. Therefore, might it be valid to say that the application should be assessed not in the context of the few houseboats near it but in the visual context of the whole collection of houseboats. For instance, if we were assessing a project, an application in a conservation area, would we be considering its qualities in the context of the whole environment that sets the tone that we want to see matched? I have a couple of other questions, might be better to deal with them individually, do you think? Or shall I go on? Have we got any other questions? I'll go to Councillor Albury and then I'll come back to you, Councillor Thompson. Thank you, Chair. Gary, if I could ask you, going back to Councillor McGregor's question, this houseboat is almost what could be referred to as a new build, if you looked at it in the way of a house, because it's a completely new build, isn't it? So therefore, should we not look at this about, are there not some legislations where new build houseboats are not allowed to pump raw sewage into the river? And should we not be looking at that as it is a completely new houseboat? I don't think it falls under the remit of when a planning application is required. That's the whole reason why, in a sense, well, it is the whole reason why I'm determining that planning permission is required. But I think it is separate legislation. And again, because of the vast majority of this, it doesn't come before us, because most of them don't require planning permission. I can certainly give members more guidance if I can find out about it, but I don't think it's a matter that's germane to the application itself. Councillor Thompson. Thank you, Chair. Another question that arose in my mind from several visits to see the site and talking to people there, including an architect living there. The applicant in his submission said that the new boat is similar in size to the previous one. This is referred to on page eight of our notes. In fact, it is said to be a little higher, 0.7 metres higher than the previous one, but slightly narrower than the previous one. And another point of view that was given to me in this article is that the houseboat is smaller and lower than the size of the homes, from which some rejections have been raised. And as Mr Peck said, there are a number of houseboats under construction, including one with planning permission that is considerably higher. The notes, another thing that - Sorry, Councillor Thompson, can I just ask, is there a question in here? Yeah, I mean, is that a valid point of view in assessing this application? Chair, yes. There are matters for the committee to consider. There are valid points, which will be for the committee's deliberations. I don't think it's a question for me necessarily to guide you on, because I think the committee needs to come to their own conclusion in that. Probably what I will say in terms of the bit about the height, though, is that one of the photos I think that the speaker will show in a moment will clarify that. I haven't gone into that in particular detail, but I think that is - well, the committee will see the previous boat from itself. I think the highest point of the previous boat at one point may be comparable, but quite clearly it wasn't a two-storey boat all the way across, so members can look at that. But I think that that's a point that's been made. I don't agree with that, because I think the bulk at the first-floor level should be higher than what it was from my understanding looking at previous photos. But I think the other matters, Councillor, are certainly for members to look at when we come to debate. Councillor Watts, thanks. Hello, thank you, Chair. How much weight would there be for the lack of amenity for the residents of Riverside Close? So, in your report, you've highlighted that as one of the reasons for refusal and what constitutes amenity if it's not view? Thank you. Yes, I think 'view' is quite a difficult word in this. I think it has a couple of meanings, because I'm sure you would have heard in various parts of planning aspect that the view in itself is not a planning consideration. So, if any of the residents said, Well, look out my window and I can see the church or the Downs or this or that, and the boat now blocks that view, that in itself is not a valid planning reason. Perhaps amenity or appearance though is something slightly different. And I think that the – and again, this is really for members to come to a conclusion – but I think the point that Councillor Thompson just made about the height, I think there is more scope for increased heights where the boats are north of Beech Green, because there aren't residential properties nearby it. I think that where there are residential properties immediately to the south, I think that there is some impact of a taller boat. And I think, again, perhaps if I go back to my picture of the garden, if I can find it, this one here, I mean, that's not really a view but I think it has an impact just because that boat is now higher, whereas the single-storey ones are below that point, by and large. So, I wouldn't want to say, Oh, it's affected the view of the river, or anything like that, but I think the higher the boat goes, I think it has an effect. And I certainly, of course, would be very reticent to make any comparisons to the height of the houses because a boat is not going to be the size of a house unless it was a line or something. So, I think there's a balance there. But perhaps it's really for members to consider whether that impact, and again, I think some of the photos that Mr Kordabank will show in a moment, or I'll display on the screen, will show that impact. So, maybe it's an impact rather than a view. Anybody else? Councillor Harvey. Yes, another one for you, I'm afraid, Carrie. Thank you, Chair. On page 9, the Environment Agency report, it states that there has been no flood risk assessment received and therefore they are objecting to the application on those grounds. So, are you aware whether a flood risk assessment has been forthcoming since this was written? Yes, sorry if my report isn't quite clear on that. The flood risk assessment did come in, so that's the bit in sort of brackets in bold, but what the Environment Agency said to that is, Well, thanks for the flood risk assessment, we don't have any floor plans, so we can't get much further on that. So, the floor plans did come in, that was only, I think, a week or 10 days ago, so it went to the Environment Agency, we didn't get a response, and if they see the applications withdrawn, they won't need to respond to it. So, we did get a flood risk assessment in, but I wasn't surprised that the Environment Agency said that needed to be in more detail and we did get it. Thanks very much. Anyone else? Councillor Thompson. Thank you, Chair. Pursuant to Councillor Watt's question, I noticed that the Planning Officers say in this report on page 15 that it would be difficult to justify a refusal reason in itself regarding the adverse impact on the living conditions of the nearby residents, that's on page 15, and then later, I wonder if this conflicts with the later statement on page 16, that the application adversely affects the amenities of these residents, and if that is a conflict, are we then looking at that it's more on the matter of view than practical amenity damaged by this application? Again, apologies if my report doesn't give clarity to that. I think that the point I was initially making was that if there is a comment, for example, that the residents are overlooked by the windows of the boats or so on and so forth, then I don't think that's a refusal reason, because overlooking can occur from the riverbank path and at various points. So in effect of a living condition about overlooking, I don't think that's a refusal reason. However, I think the general amenity point about the fact that the building is higher, I think, is a point. So I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer, but I think that's the point. Normally when we talk about living conditions, we're talking about overlooking and overshadowing, that sort of thing. I don't think you can claim that, but I think that the matter of fact that the building or the boat is higher than it was before, I think does have an impact upon residents. Sorry, Councillor Thompson, could you just turn your microphone off? Thank you. Councillor Watts? Sorry, just one more. Again, how strong is the argument that it doesn't look like a boat and obviously, presumably it doesn't move like a boat, it doesn't have an engine? Well, in my view, that's fairly critical. Certainly in my recommendation and residents will refer to and will be aware of the houseboat to the west that has recently been constructed, which is, again, perhaps going back to Councillor Thompson's point, some people say that's a bit big or it's a bit funny looking or it's quite eclectic, but the point is it does have, to my mind, a nautical appearance and is perhaps experimental but nonetheless has an appearance of a boat. I think this doesn't and I think that's really the point that when I came along to look at the site with a fresh mind, I'd only seen it from across in the town, I thought, well, we've written our houseboat guidance that talks about nautical appearance and I'm struggling in my recommendation to reconcile what we've put in our guidance with what I see before me and hence that was the reason for the recommendation as much as anything else. Thank you. Any other questions? No? Okay. So we come to our registered speakers next. First person we have to speak is David Calderbank. You have three minutes. I'm speaking on behalf of two residents. Yeah, that's fine, yeah. Thank you, Gary, for putting the slides up. Thank you, chair and councillors. So first of all, I would just emphasise that this was written before we knew the application had been withdrawn, so there's some slight difference to it. So yeah, in summary, we'd like you to agree with the officer's recommendation to reject and enforce. I'd like to point out that there are multiple conflicts with the aid of houseboat, good practice guide and also that we believe that the size and mass has been understated by the applicant. So I'd just like to draw your attention to from aid of district council, planning policy 11, which requires new proposals should be assessed against a good practice guide for houseboats and draw your attention to two particular sections within that guidance, first being section 3.1, where the requirement is that the new development should continue to preserve the open feel of the river community, allow excellent views across the river, not only for houseboat owners, but also for nearby residents and visitors, and we would contend this fails on that ground, and also to draw your attention to the fact that the size of sheds and the size of fences is actually covered within the houseboat guidance, even though that hasn't been recommended to you as part of the enforcement action, we would like you to consider whether that should be so. If you wouldn't mind the next slide, please. So in terms of the mass and the height, the application clearly shows that the overall height of the structure is a 1.07 metre of hull and 5.77 metres of superstructure, total of 6.84 metres, which is a 35% increase on the claimed height of the old vessel, the Laguna. I'll show you why I say claimed in a moment, and, as Gary has already mentioned, the applicant in his design and assess statement does claim, or did claim, that it was not too dissimilar in size to the old vessel. So I'd just now like to show you three before and after pictures from various houses along River Close. So this is the view from the kitchen of number 12, so the bottom floor. So the picture on the left was taken in 2020, when the Laguna was still there, prior to the Kingfisher being built, and you can see the size of the Kingfisher in comparison. We would argue certainly not dissimilar. It's quite difficult to see on those pictures, but in the right hand corner you can see the chimney of the next boat, which was clearly visible and the solar panels visible in 2020. Those are now obscured by the fence and the shed that's been built on that part of the plot. Thank you. Gary, if you wanted to put on this. So this is the view from the upstairs of number

1. So I've circled the old vessel, Laguna, and you can see clearly rope tackle is visible over that. Obviously you can see from the new view that that is clearly not the case anymore. The vessel is, I don't think, anywhere near the same size as Laguna was. Thank you. The last photograph. This is the view from my own house, number 19. We have the extra story on the top, or the extra extension on the top. This is the view from that taken in 2005, again of a highlighted Laguna in red. You can see it's the one with the sort of pink, pinkish door and white side. And then you can see the new structure Kingfisher. I just draw there as a visual comparison. Laguna barely comes up from the same angle, barely comes up to the top of the back of the fish. Whereas the Kingfisher comes clearly up to significantly further up the fish, so we would certainly contest the expression that it is of a similar size to the old vessel. Thank you. Just also then like to highlight one of our most significant concerns about this, which is the risk effectively of canyoning of River Close. Our gardens and our first floors sit below the level of the houseboats. We have always had houseboats there. That's not in tension. Nobody disputes they have a right to have a houseboat there. But by the development of structures of this size, especially if it's replicated along the back of River Close, we would end up effectively with a canyon effect behind our houses, which isn't suitable for the area. Thank you, Gary. Next slide. So I'm just turning then to the fish inquiry, which I had the pleasure of being heavily involved in and being questioned for many hours about. So as Gary said, the actual conclusion of the planning inspector in the fish inquiry was that it was oppressive and overbearing upon numbers eight and number nine River Close, the two closest houses, and therefore should be removed. The officers obviously said that the building Kingfisher is of comparable size to the form of a warship, the fish, and therefore we believe the strong precedent from the planning inspector at here that it should be removed. I'd also just like to add on this because of the withdrawal that there was an aspect of the fish inquiry which was around the jetty, which was deemed to be operational development, and that was required to be removed. The actual structure was moved from one side of the fish to the other so that it was less impactful upon the houses in River Close. We agree with the council official that it is clear that this is operational development on the site. It is not the replacement of one boat with another and therefore we believe it should be removed. So I can just ask for the next slide please. So in summary, we certainly don't dispute the right to replace one vessel with another. I actually knew Laguna slightly. It was falling apart and needed to be replaced. That's just not, yeah, that's not our position. There have been many changes along that river bank area that we haven't objected to, even though they possibly should have needed planning permission because they haven't had a significant impact. They haven't had the overbearing impact upon ourselves. As I think I've just demonstrated, the height is significantly different to the old structure and we would say it is definitely not nautical and nautical dictionary definition is of the sea. It does not look in any way, shape or form like any form of vessel. In terms of remedy, recognising the right for somebody to be there, we would like to see it reduced to one storey. Just get to that final point. Yeah, and there is going to make one further point that's come about because of the withdrawal, if that's acceptable. So it was just to ask for an enforcement within one month. So it was just to ask the committee to look at the enforcement time scale that's been suggested and to reduce that to one month, given that the applicant is clearly not prepared to be within the planning system and play within the planning system. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Has anyone got any questions just for clarification purposes? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. And our final speaker on this one is Tony Reikens. Good evening chair, good evening councillors. Thank you for your time. I'm coming to you as a concerned resident of River Close. I've only lived there for three years but love the area. First thing you see when you come into River Close, I see Mr Peck's pictures, literally you come into the Close and you now see this thank you, this corrugated, rusty corrugated iron as you come into the Close. It's obviously, we think, quite unsightly. It's not a characteristic use of materials. It doesn't fit in with the other houseboats or any of the other dwellings nearby. Due to its height and mass, again, as Mr Kordewijk has pointed out, it's clearly much larger than the previous houseboat. Unfortunately I don't have any pictures for before and after but just from within our property, I literally back on to the houseboat, you can just literally see from the ground floor you are looking at, that's the back one, thank you, you're literally looking at it and it's looking into our kitchen. But more of a concern is upstairs, literally our daughter's bedrooms are looking straight into the upstairs, the second storey. Obviously that's a bit of a concern from a privacy perspective, both of bedrooms and in the bathroom as well, which is next to the bedrooms. Sorry, I tried to read my notes. What also isn't 100% clear here is actually the fences taller as well. So the fence there is probably a good 40, 50 centimetres higher so the whole aspect now has completely changed and again, picking up on the canyoning point, when you actually walk down there now, the fences in general, there's more and more fences are creeping up, the houseboats are creeping up in height and again you just sort of feel that you're walking down this sort of almost solid wall and again it does now, I know there's not a right to a view but again in the Aida house guide it does clearly say you're meant to enhance the character and keep the views of the estuary and they're clearly being blocked here both by the fence, the other buildings on the site and of course the actual pontoon, I don't want to call it a boat, the floating pontoon itself. Again there's many points within the houseboat guide, it's obviously there for a reason, there's many points that aren't being met, again it's the open nature, contributing to the character, yeah I'm all up for it, being a bit wacky and a bit out there, it is great, it's amazing to look at, we love it but there's sort of a point where you sort of think is that really sort of pushing the boundaries and making it more eclectic. I think here with sort of rusty iron cladding it doesn't really give that much of a benefit to the area and again that doesn't just affect the residents it's the visitors, people walking along as well, all they see now is some wooden fencing and a large structure. Finally as well I think there's a big impact on the environment, this is a large structure, it's in a site of special scientific interest, there's been no environmental impact assessments done here and this is just literally blocking out a lot for the marine life there and also impacting the birds and all the other RSPB sanctuary. Thank you very much. Any clarification needed from any of the councillors? Yes, Councillor Albury. Mr Chair, could I just ask Gary, what is the height of the fence? And also is there a restricted height as such as in a front garden on land as opposed to on here? I haven't measured the height of the fence and it is something that I think as the Speaker says is emerging as a problem. I mentioned in my report that although our guidance says they should be below one metre in height, as far as I can see the permitted development is two metres so most defences along there don't require plan permission or at least we could only reduce it to two metres. I think there may be a conversation to have to look at if we could take out an Article 4 direction in the future, that's very unwieldy. So the difficulty is some of the stuff in the guidance we've put in this guidance but it doesn't actually require permission so although we can say we'd like the fences to be a metre, if they go higher than that it doesn't actually require plan permission so we are in a bit of a difficult situation with one or two of those arguments. Is that something we could look at for the future, Gary, that we could put better guidance and perhaps not even guidance but actually some rules because as the gentleman has stated it is closing it in more and more with every fence that goes up there? Yes, I think we will have a look at that. I think it's something that to my mind appears to have got worse since the tidal wall was constructed, I don't know if that had a bearing on it but I think there is an issue there and there is a precedent there. We're lucky I think that most of the houseboats don't tend to do that extent. There was a fence there previously I should point out but I think that is something for us to look at in the longer term because we are facing increasing issues with this that our guidance won't necessarily cover. Councillor Watts. Thank you. Do houseboats fall under the permitted development rules because they're not buildings? Sorry. Do houseboats fall under the permitted development rules because they're not buildings? Sorry. Do houseboats fall under the permitted development rules because they're not buildings? Sorry. Do houseboats fall under the permitted development rules because they're not buildings? Just asking Gary. Yes, without getting too legalistic about it, if the houseboat is a floating boat then it's not in permitted development at all because it's not in development. So permitted development is things that are development but are permitted without planning permission. So the floating houseboats, the others if you like, are completely out of that. But in terms of a fence, that's not related to anything else. A fence is the same whether it serves a house or a building or anything like that. So that has its own separate use class or permitted development class should I say. So that's a separate matter unfortunately. So it's something we need to look at I think because it is, as I said to council, I think it is an issue that's going to carry on. Does anyone have any clarification of anything that Mr. Richards has said rather than just the general debate because we can then let him go and, yeah. Thank you chair. I just wanted clarification on whether those two points the gentleman raised, the question of overlooking and the question of the appearance of the rusty cladding, are those part of the reasons given for refusal and if they're not, are they valid to consider? Are you asking Mr. Richards or? No, I'm asking Mr. Baek. To the debate in just a second. Okay, sorry. My first time. Okay, we'll open it up for debate now. Councillor Thompson, if you just wanted to clarify what you were saying. Okay, thank you. I was wondering about those two points raised, like the overlooking aspect of the new boat on the existing property and the dislike of the rusty cladding. Are those, they didn't seem to me to be part of the reasons for objection and if that's the case are they to be considered by us now? So the overlooking point is one I touched on earlier. I don't think we could justify that as a refusal reason for the view into a bedroom because I think for overlooking to be a refusal reason you have to create overlooking where there's no overlooking from any other point and the fact is there's a public path there where the windows of all those properties can be seen so, albeit the elevation is different, I think that is a difficult one. In terms of the rusty material, if you like, I wouldn't say rusty material in itself is necessary and acceptable because we have such a variety of materials there. The problem is the extent of it. So while I've not mentioned rusty material in sort of explicitly, the fact that it's, from my right picture, the fact there's this much of it at that height I think is an issue so, you know, if it were a more modest structure and that formed part of that then I don't think I'd want to decree that any material along that stretch is necessarily unacceptable in its own right because we have the whole palette there. I think the problem is it's what it's on is the issue so really it would be to do with the overall scale of the building in my view. Thank you. Anyone else? Anything else? No? Okay. So we need to have a proposal on this. Yes, thank you, Chair. I would like to put forward a proposal. I would like to agree with the officer's recommendation to refuse, absolutely. I would like to say that it is overbearing, that the materials are not enhancing of the river area, that... Sorry, Councillor Albury, we're not looking at the planning permission as such because obviously that application's been withdrawn. Okay. So we are just looking about the enforcement action. Right, so I would agree totally with the enforcement action for, and do I need to give reasons for that or are we... That it is not in keeping with the river? There is nothing nautical about this, Councillor? We'll chair probably to keep it easier. If we do serve an enforcement notice, we'll have to give a reason as to why we're serving an enforcement notice. So effectively what I've put in as number one would make its way into the enforcement notice. So if members are happy with that or want to vary the wording or whatever it might be, then that's fine. So basically within the notice, if you agree to, then one sort of flows in with it. We don't have to debate it separately. Okay, so I've given up, have I? So just to clarify, so we're voting on the enforcement for the reasons specified in recommendation one? Yes, correct. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thanks very much. Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Watts, thank you. Yes, I second that. I'm worried about precedent. What if they're four storeys, five storeys? They're just buildings. Thanks very much. And we'll, Councillor Harvey. Yeah, just as a point of clarification, if I could, if we do agree to enforce an action notice, then does that mean that there would be some element of negotiation between the applicant or previous applicant and the Council as to how the current structure could be amended or does it mean a complete removal of? Basically it could be both. The enforcement notice would specify, I suspect, the removal, but it doesn't stop the applicant coming to us separately and seeing if there's a solution, because if I was advising the applicant, I'd say you're in a bit of a problem here and you may wish to speak to us as to whether there are any remedies that would avert the situation of the wholesale removal of the boat, because I think as the speakers have said, there's often objection in principles. There might be a way around this, but I think that's out of what you've just said. If the enforcement action proceeds, if the applicant wanted to speak to officers separately about that, then that's absolutely fine. We would do that. We wouldn't pen the enforcement action while those negotiations go on, because my previous experience would tell me you suddenly turn around nine months down the line and you're not getting any further forward with anything. Thanks very much. Councillor Thompson. Thank you, Chair. I wondered if a valid enforcement might include a condition, imposing some conditions to validate the application, for instance, removing that rusty cladding and introducing something that introduces a nautical theme, and also as the fence seemed to be almost as bad on restricting the lowering of the fence. Might there be measures like that that could have a beneficial effect and be acceptable as an alternative to shipping the boat out of the houseboat or demolishing it? With the fence, my concern with that is its permitted development anyway, as it stands. I think we could put it to the applicant in negotiations separately, so away from the enforcement notice, that if they were looking at improving the general environment, perhaps the lowering of that fence would assist that, as well as the overall things of the boat. What we can't really do in the enforcement notice is be so prescriptive to say do this and do that. I think it's difficult, because at present I can't quite see from the photograph I've got there how they could easily change that and current structure to make it something we would support, which is why I have a rather sense of regret as to how this has proceeded from various perspectives, because if it was something I could just say, oh well, take one and a half metres off and it'll all be fine, then we could specify that and be quite prescriptive, but that's not really going to work. So I don't think we should do that. I think we should just probably say the building in its entirety is not acceptable at the moment. Okay. Councillor McGregor. I see that the compliance period is three months. Is that realistic? I am assuming we'll receive an appeal against our decision on this, and one point that the Inspector will look at will be whether our compliance period was reasonable. I did hear one of the speakers say it should be a month. We won't get away with that one, I'm afraid, and I think three months is probably in the short time as well, but having said that, I minded to stick with it because of the process that's gone on, because I'm tempted to say that our notes will show and neighbours will be well aware of this. This has been going on for some time already, and the applicant was warned at various points about A, shouldn't be carrying on with this, and B, if you are, get an application in for consideration quickly. Neither of those happened, certainly not to the speed I would want, so I'm tempted to say I'll stick at three months, and if the Inspector says it should be longer, then so be it. I can't say a month, because that would be deemed as unreasonable. So could we give them a deadline of the 3rd September? Because that's three months. I really would like to see that in the notice. That would be very nice. We will have to get the notice up, so it will be three months on the date of when we serve the notice, I'm afraid, and we will have to get that right, so that will need to be drafted, checked, Caroline or someone else will see it, it will need to be signed, so it won't be the 3rd September, I'm afraid, we need to do that. Once we've got a resolution, we can start acting upon that, and I've warned the Enforcement Officer this afternoon that something might be coming their way to draft up, depending on the decision, so it wouldn't be the 3rd September, it would be from the 3rd when we get the notice going, but we will do it at speed, because we need to get on with this, so it wouldn't be three months from today, in other words. Anybody else? No. Okay, so let's move to the vote then. We are voting to delegate to the Head of Planning and Development in consultation with the Head of Legal to issue enforcement action to remove the unauthorised development with a compliance period of three months due to the recommendation number one. Can we have all of those voting for that, raise your hands please. Okay. Eight in favour. And against. And abstaining. One abstention. Okay, so that is carried. So that brings us to the end of that planning application, so we move on to application AWDM/0401/24, and I will hand over to Gary again to present on that one. Yes, thank you, Chair. Item two, there's nothing further to add to this report, no further representations being received, and I think I've set out a report. This application is brought to you because the Council has an interest in the building, so there's no officer delegation rights for that, so constitutionally any such application has to come to committee. Now I'll put the application site on first, which is up here in the right-hand corner where the cursor is circling. It's a former bank on the north-eastern corner of the square, so the circle is edged in red here. The parade of shops and the supermarket and so on is to the west, and this is the bend of the road just as we come into Southwick Square from the eastern side. So the application site is edged in red. This shows the layout of the development. As stated in the report, these tables and chairs and so on are not parts of the application. The payment licences and so on post-COVID were taken out of the planning system, so that's now subject to a separate payment licence application. So it doesn't actually form part of this application. It is noted that there was one objection on that basis, but that's a separate matter, and the applicant would need to apply for a payment licence separately. So in effect, the application is basically for these external changes, shown here and here. And as we see on the photograph, for the use potentially as a café, these windows are probably not compatible with that and more signifying its previous use as a bank, so they're here, here and here. They're not especially attractive visually in any case, and again, here, here and here. So in effect, because the change of use doesn't require planning permission, or does the use of the payment, the matters you're dealing with are the external alterations here and here. And for that reason, the recommendation is as printed in your agenda. Thank you. So we have no registered speakers on this at all. So, oh yeah, so we are going to have any questions, first of all, for Gary. Councillor Albury. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I couldn't quite get the angle. Where these cycle racks are, does that impede on the area where the seating area is needed, or is that on a different side where those were? Yes, I'm assuming they would have to be moved, because if you look at the bit here, they're not shown on that plan. So I guess they would have to be relocated elsewhere into the square. Thanks. Councillor Thompson. Thank you, Chair. On that point, there are conditions on page 21, and that includes the cycle stands shall be relocated. So can we assume that if we approve this, that those conditions will be appended to that approval? Yes, indeed. Just as I finished my answer to Councillor Albury, I flicked over the page and actually saw that the condition was there, which I should have remembered. So that's right. So yes, we have to do that. So to comply with the condition, that's part of the development, and of course, given that we have an interest in the land, I'm sure that will happen. Anybody else? No? Okay, let's open for general debate then. Councillor Albury, yeah. Thank you, Chair. I think it's really nice that a bank is not going to be sitting empty. It looks absolutely ideal for a cafe once it gets permission to have the tables and chairs outside. It's got an ideal space there. It can only add far more character, more than it's got, to the area, and I can't see any reason why we would not agree to this. I think it's a great improvement and a really good use of the bank area. Thank you, Chair. Thanks very much. Councillor Harvey. Yes, I'd very much like to endorse what Councillor Albury's just said. And Southwick Square has been redeveloped, but we are losing some of the shops there, and so the revitalisation of this resource would certainly bring a boost back to the square, and I would very much support it. Anybody else? I'd like to chip in. Do we have a proposal from anybody then? Councillor Harvey? Yeah, I'm happy to propose that we'll approve the recommendation as is on our notes. And seconder? Anybody? Councillor Jenner, thank you. Okay, we'll move to a vote then. Yes, Councillor. Oh, I thought you had the last-minute point that you were going to make. So let's move to the vote then. So voting in favour of that. Everybody raise your hands. Unanimous in favour. Okay, many thanks. That's everything for this evening. So just before we end, I'd just like to say thank you very much to Councillor Albury who's chaired this committee before me, and so hopefully we can continue in the same way that I have witnessed over the last couple of years. Thank you very much, Chair. And can I say for your first meeting, what a very excellent job you do. Well, it could have gone much more wrong than it has done. Thanks very much. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please return to your seats.