Transcript

[ Pause ]

Okay, let's start again. Apologies for that. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning applications committee for April 24. My name is Tony Burton. I'm the chair of the committee, and I am a counselor representing Battersea part ward. I'm going to ask everyone to introduce themselves when they feel the need to speak. I think it was mass introduction at the start. People will just forget the names. Bar the people on the front table, who I think people might be interested to know who they are. So I'll start with the most important, who is the committee clerk. Michael Flowers, Democratic Services. He's the most important, because he takes note of what we decide, a turn to my left. Nick Calderon, the Head of Development Management. [ Pause ] We've silenced the legal adviser. Good evening, I'm Duncan Moore, the external legal adviser. Great. Can I say to members, sorry, not members, people in general, that many of these committee papers, but they're all being carefully read by the members concerned. If we pass something as it were immediately, it's purely and simply because we have no particular arguments or discussions, and that we just simply accept the officer's recommendation. But I'm sure that won't be the case all the way through the evening. Some things will happen. The first item I've got is the minutes, and before asking for approval of the minutes, can I say that the really complex application of Springfield Hospital result in some discussion between various interests about things like measurements, and one particular example, if I can give, is that 60 meters was used as a measurement, and it's been re-measured and more accurately, but some other figure around 50. The minutes are correct in my book in that they are actually a record of the meeting that we had, but there's an erotum coming through round, which I'll certainly make sure Council Humphrey sees, which has a few technical amendments of that kind. Given that, are the minutes accepted? Thank you. Minutes are agreed. Can I move on from that to say that there are some people in the public agenda, a pen of public gallery, who have particular interests in a couple of applications, and we have two other applications where there are reasons not to keep the officers concerned up all evening. So I'm going to change the agenda if that's okay, and go to the enforcement papers first on page 217. Councillor Gavindia, is this really necessary? Yes, it is declaration of interest. Oh, thank you. Thank you indeed. Okay, but I will go to the enforcement papers first, and then take the school, whichever one that is, Emmanuel School, application number five, and the paddle tennis application as well, because that's what the people in the public gallery are interested in. Councillor Gavindia, thank you, reminds me about declaration of interest. Can I ask members if they have any declaration of interest in this? Councillor Humphreys. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I've got a declaration of interest in item number five, Emmanuel School, because my son was a pupil at Emmanuel School, so although that was a while ago, I think I should excuse myself on that one, just in case, doing things I've got any long-term loyalties towards the school, which of course I do know. That's very proper of you. Thank you. Noted. So given that declaration of interest, Councillor Gavindia, I beg your pardon, that little hand from Councillor Gavindia, go on. Thank you, Chair. In relation to item seven, the Garret-Langry Generation site, I've been advised that I ought to let you know that I'm a registered patient of the Brocklebank Health Centre, and a regular client of the pharmacy at that site. And in light of Councillor Humphreys' declaration, I just want you to know that my step-son attended the same school. Oh, let's not go too far on this. I might have to declare that I once attended a public meeting there, or something like that. Come on, let's be sensible. But thank you very much for those declarations of interest. Can we move on to page 217, which is about parma-crescent and a notice of enforcement? And we have Mr. Raybould online somewhere over. You there, Mr. Raybould. I am. Good evening. Mr. Raybould, Planning Enforcement Team Manager. Sorry? I was introducing myself, Craig Raybould, Planning Enforcement Team Manager. Right. Okay. Could you talk us through the application, or your recommendations rather? Yes, of course. So the first item on the enforcement agenda is 76, parma-crescent SW11. This is a two-story end of Terrace House, located on the east side of parma-crescent. Without planning permission, the rear roof and gable have been removed and a second floor rear extension has been built in its place. This extends vertically up from the eaves to ridge height and occupies the entire rear roof space. As a result, it reads an additional story to the rear of the building, rather than a dormer extension as can be found on other properties in the street. Its size and scale are out of proportion with the property and create a boxy rectilinear form at roof level. It's been finished in zinc cladding, which adds a single block of colour that emphasises its size and fails to match the existing roof tiles. Its design relates poorly to the existing building and is out of character in the street. It's also overbearing in relation to properties to the rear on Eccles Road, as it's been built only 6.5 metres from their rear facades. The extension also includes a large window, which allows for overlooking between these properties and is harmful to the amenities of neighbours. Officers have tried to resolve the breach, requesting submission of a revised planning application or the remedial work to be carried out to remedy the harm. But to date, no action has been taken and we're recommending service of a new enforcement notice to resolve the breach. Enforcement seems fairly uncontentious to me. Is that agreed? Agreed that you proceed with enforcement notice. I'll continue with items 2 and 3 together because they involve the same issues and are very close to each other. I think it might be more expeditious to deal with them that way. So these are platforms built over the banks of the River Wandel to the rear of 518 Lydon Grove. That's item 2 and 93 Twilight Street, which is item 3. The council have already enforced removal of many other similar platforms on this stretch of the river, including service of enforcement notices authorised by this committee last year. The platforms have been built by the owners of the adjacent properties on land that does not belong to them without planning permission from the council and without authorization from the environment agency. They're fixed into the concrete flood defences of the river, damaging their integrity. The platforms encroach on the open space provided by the river, which is an important habitat corridor for bats, small mammals and invertebrates. They also reduce the space available for bank site vegetation to grow. The platform, the platforms also degrade the sense of openness of the river channel, adding man-made clutter to it and undermining its landscape characteristics and appearance. A request from council to remove these two particular platforms from the land have not been met. So again, we're recommending service of an enforcement notice. Thank you. Again, I feel probably unconscious about Council of India. Just a question of Mr. Rabel. The environment agency which owns the land on which these platforms have been built. What is the role that they play or do they simply rely on us as the planning authority to do their bidding? That's a very good question, Councillor. They do have a role to play and they do have enforcement powers that they can use to remove such structures. But in my experience, they very rarely use those enforcement powers and often it does land to us and where appropriate to take action. Okay, subject to, well, not subject at all, but thank you for that interesting answer. Is it agreed? They're agreed. Thank you. Just to point out that Mr. Rabel would have been in the office today, but he's done well, so he's done that all from home. So thank you very much, Craig. I'd be better tomorrow. Moving on, I really messed up the start because another thing I missed and should have said was we've had apologies from Councillor Cooper for this evening. And Councillor Justin as well, okay, thank you, so we've got those two apologies. Right. Moving on to the school application, application number five. Do we have an introduction from here? Sorry, page 81. We weren't planning on having an introduction on this because it seemed reasonably unconscious. I know one or two people have got some questions, however, which I think it might be useful, especially given the audience, to express. So there it is, the application is on page 81, and the recommendation is to approve the demolition existing buildings and the erection of the replacement for story, science and dining block. I've visited there as it happens as part of a design review panel. And one thing one can't doubt is that the school definitely needs more space for a decent space for a dining at the moment. It's an impossible position, but I'd just say that in passing. I know that people have got comments in general about their application. Does anyone want to make particular comments? Councillor Vindira, C, Councillor White, Councillor Ayers. Let me start with you. Let's be alphabetic. Thank you. My name's Finna Ayers. I represent East Putney. Thank you. Actually, it's a relatively small point, but it's to do with demolition, which so much energy is lost in demolition. But I hope that there is some condition which invites or insists that the contractor uses any materials which result from the demolition can be used again as aggregate or backfill or on the construction and doesn't get charted away into landfill. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Vindira. Thank you, Chair. Two separate points. One is about, am I just looking at the plans and the supporting drawings. There were a number of CGI's showing the new building with trees and without trees. And what I could not work out was whether the trees that were being sort of put forward as ones that will shield the building are to be the new trees. Or are there existing trees? Because I couldn't find that. So perhaps an officer could clarify that a bit for me. My second point is that there is a condition requiring the school to make a contribution to the economic development office of something like 16,500 pounds on the basis that these improved and much needed facilities may not generate additional jobs. Now, I try to compare that with the Francis Barber school improvements that we voted on not too long ago. And no such condition was in that one. And in fact, the condition there, which is different from here, was that the Francis Barber school be asked to use its best endeavors to provide, to obtain local employment during the construction, et cetera, et cetera. Which is a perfectly sensible and a good thing to do. And there is no echo of this in here. And yet, however, 16 and a half grand or whatever is being extracted. So I don't know what the basis of that sum is. And I don't know why different conditions apply to different education establishments. And Council White, do you want to make your point as well? Yeah, there's sorry, Council White, that's it in Backward. I would like to go on from Councillor Air's point, actually, that through demolition also there's a massive release of carbon through the building. And in all ways, I think most organizations involved in the environment at the moment are basically saying refit and refurb is much better than demolition. And of course, if we don't have demolition, we won't have to destroy the mature plane tree, which we should be doing everything to preserve. So the third point I'd like to make as well is that this school was not made available. Any of their facilities, the very magnificent facilities, which has been subject to two pages worth of planning applications that we've allowed through. And including the sports pitches. And we've got a severe deficit in this borough of community sports pitches. And these sports pitches are not available for the general public. So I would really like to see a condition placed, rather in the same manner that Councillor Givinja spoke about, that they make good on the promise that all private schools should be making, given their tax exemptions, that they are making their facilities available for the local community. Well, Miss Richards, that's an interesting group. Can I say that with the dramatic development of political interest in the ecology for very, very good climate change reasons, I am sure we're going to get more and more questions about about demolitions and the impact on it and the carbon waste involved. And I suspect I'm going to be told that our planning powers are somewhat limited. I'll be interested to hear what Mr. Calder has to say about that. But whether they're limited or not, we're going to get more and more people querying it. So public authorities better start addressing this issue. Anyway, that's my comment. So, Miss Richards, as we've got demolition, the interesting issue about the £16,500 pound and the jobs involvement and facilities available for the public. And trees, indeed. And trees, thank you. Okay, thank you. My name is Ellen Richards. I'm the team leader for the West area. So in terms of the demolition, they have submitted, the applicants have submitted a sustainability statement, which sets out all the details in terms of how they propose to undertake the removal of spoil and so on. Associated with the development as is required for a major development of this nature. I'm afraid I don't have information directly with me in terms of where that would be located, but it is a requirement, as I understand, in terms of sustainable development to be able to demonstrate where they will be removing spoil and so on and recycling and use of materials on the site. There is a requirement for a construction environmental management plan to be submitted, which covers a lot of different issues associated with construction works on the site. As Councillor BELLTON has said, we are not the experts in terms of that particular subject, we rely on the information that is submitted, which is then assessed independently by our experts. And as there is also an offset payment under the Section 106 agreement for carbon offset associated with the overall development, which is substantial. In terms of the trees, I think CGIs probably, they are more indicative than factual, but there are landscape plans that have been submitted because this was negotiated considerably by officers because of the loss of the plain tree, which has been discussed in the report. It is almost inevitable if this building is to be built to meet with standards and with the school needs, that tree was located directly on the plot, essentially where this building would have to go. Officers have assessed that and have tried to mitigate the impact of the loss of that particular tree with replanting of 23 other trees. One group, if you like, are going to reintroduce an avenue feature along there, which makes more sense for the movement of children and so on from one class to another. It is regrettable, the loss of the tree without a doubt, but it is quite a wooded or bushy area, if you like, with quite a lot of greenery in the vicinity. The employment contributions are calculated through our planning obligations SPD, through consultation with our economic development officer in terms of what they would need to contribute. I know you've made reference to another site, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to answer or make a direct correlation between the two. I think that's where I think I need to come in. Thank you. Just to confirm with the Francis Barber, I think it was a different circumstance. They submitted a full economic and skills plan with the submission, but due, I think, to part of the funding nature of the Francis Barber, which was funded through central government, I don't think they were able to put a contribution in on that. So we've got additional facilities through the skills assessment. I think that's correct. I'll check with Mr Granger if he has a different recollection. Certainly, Nigel Granger, I managed to use their team. That is largely true. I mean, in terms of the scale and the financial contribution that was sort, it was reported in the text in the body of the report, and we are exploring mechanisms to not only get the actual employment and training on site during the construction phase, et cetera. But exploring how we can seek that contribution, there's also technical differences between the applicant and entering into planning obligations between essentially on a parcel of land and then estate, that's our own. So it was deemed necessary and also for the other school site. That's the name springs my, slips my mind at the moment, the new SCN school and Broadwater school, the same approach was taken for that. So in terms of scale, the ultimate quantity, the amount of money arrived at goes through a matrix and the bigger the floor area, the higher the sum. Sorry, just to add one more additional point to that. The Francis Barber extension or the additional was a lot less than proposed on this. So it's proportionate goes up a different fee in the policy. On this point, I'd like to know more. Perhaps the offices could write to me as to what is the basis on which it is done and what is the formula that is used because I do not recall a similar sum being extracted from the developments at the Puckney High School for girls. Well, it was a very significant development. So I just, you know, if the answer is this is a private school and they can afford it and Francis Barber can't afford it, fine, I'll take that. But I just like more honesty and clarity. Well, I don't think it's a lack of honesty. I'm not, it's different groups of people working on different applications and possibly there's a very cogent. I think your comment about getting a reply offline is the best we're going to do. So it will perhaps provide accounts to give India with a reply offline. Just before going on to the one other issue that I know counts the white raised, I see Councillor Owens wanted to comment as well. Thank you. Obviously we supported this in conservation. Can you just introduce yourself? Oh, sorry. I'm Councillor Owens. I'm the Northcott Ward and actually we can see this development from our side of ones with common, not just from Arendor Close, but also from the ball pens on the common. Just picking up on Councillor White's point, I know that Emmanuel School have, over the years, have actually supported some of the local state schools. My children have been following Brook Academy, which is on the common opposite of Emmanuel School. And I know that in the past we've used the Boach House and we have used some of the facilities there. But I am curious in terms of the answers to that question because, obviously, they haven't had the same support in recent times. Thank you. I think I remember from when I visited, when I went around the Design Review panel, that the swimming pool was also used by some state schools. I may be wrong about that, but that's what I think I recalled. Councillor White asked about what the subject we've got onto about making the facilities available for public like playing fields. And generally the playing fields because we have got big debt in the borough. I mean, the only answer I can give is that we haven't negotiated that has or secured it as a necessary public field. It is a necessary public benefit, if you like, to the proposal. Because what the proposal is offering in itself, if you like, in terms of improvements to the existing school facility. And in terms of its overall design and performance and so on is sufficient. And the offsetting with contributions and also replacement of trees and so on as a package is sufficient for us not to have then pushed further for additional public benefits, if you like, through securing greater use for other schools in the facility. And that's all I can answer really. I would also add that it's not within the scope of this development to insist that a condition is put on the whole site to change and open access. It wouldn't stand up at an appeal, it would be ultra-virus and unenforceable. So we wouldn't be able to enforce it, wouldn't be able to take it further. And they have offered various aspects, so there's various improvements as part of this. I'm afraid. I think Councillor White. Could we, if it's not enforceable by law, could we just make that proposition to them? Because it is something that they should be providing as part of their exempt status. So I've got a real problem in the borough over playing fields and they've got these beautiful playing fields that are unavailable to the community. I think it's fair to say, Councillor White, there's no planning grounds at all, but the members of the school staff. I mentioned fairly significant ones are here and they can hear what's being said by committee members about both that and the other issues discussed. So I think that's as far as we can take it right now. Was there a last comment that Councillor Vindia was going to make? Well, I just was going to say that perhaps this is a matter for the Director of Children's Services to take offline. It's not a planning matter and I think there are better ways of handling this issue elsewhere in the Council. I think we've expressed our views in general. OK, subject to all that expression of view is the application agreed. Councillor interjecting. Councillor White is opposed. Is everyone else four? So that's, what do you do, seven to one. OK, moving on to the other people concerned in the public gallery, we're interested in application number six, the development of Patil tennis on the top of one's, in one's of town on the top of the multi-story car park. Again, I didn't, we weren't going to have an introduction to that. And we were, I think from the members point of view, we don't think it's very contentious, but I'm subject to being corrected on that. Anyone got any particular comments? Councillor Vindia again. Chairman, I'm just wondering whether the Director of Housing has any comments on this, because, you know, this is a development which is overseen by a large number of Council tenants and leaseholders. I would have thought that the Director of Housing had an interest, at least to share with us, his view about this. And I don't see any reference to that. I've got a couple of other points, but I'll come to this later. There was, I mean, I can recall reading it. There was reference to residents of those, the two town blocks in particular, being reasonably content, I seem to recall. And it is actually covered now most of it, isn't it? So, well, internal consultation should have gone, in my view, to the Director of Housing as landlord, and I don't know, I don't think we are afield, but I am a landlord and with somebody with a property interest in those areas. And it's just, it might be the same as what's in here, but I think it just looks like the Director of Housing does not care about the interests of something like 200 odd residents in that area. That's my concern. I'm sure that's not the Director of Housing's position. I know him, but, well, I know he's very keen on sport of all kinds, which might, yes, I know. Can't you take no sense of humour in this committee at all? Gosh, Almighty, Council White, did you have anything to say? I always giggle at your jokes, Tony. Sorry? I always giggle at your jokes. There is a sense of humour here. Yeah, just a couple of points, really. I think that, you know, the use of two really unused floors of car parking for a sports facility seems to be better use, really, than. So, for that, there seems to be a glut of paddle tennis in the area, but anyway, that's up to them if they want to do that. But I was a bit confused about how much schools access there was going to be, because it mentions that there would be school access, but there wasn't a level of school access, that would be a great facility for local schools, because there are many local schools in the area that could get a taste of playing tennis. Richard, have you got any view about that? Thank you. On page 136 of the report, that refers to what Councillor White is referring to, and the applicant has indicated that they work alongside rackets cubed, who are a local association that works with young children from school and outside of school, I believe, for activities and so on, support for mental health and everything. Because that information is quite vague at this point, we have made a recommendation for condition for further information to be submitted in that regard, because we want to secure that as well, especially in this location. When we know so many young people come to the shopping centre anyway, so, yeah. I'm pretty sure in general, most of us are very pleased to have more sporting facilities available in the borough, so I suspect we're all going to agree on this, Councillor Madill? I'm just thinking, Councillor White's point, I mean, I sort of looked at this in context of what we agreed with the other pedal tennis application we did a couple of cycles ago, where over 6,000 spaces, if I have opportunities, I think, were extracted from that particular operator. And I just wonder whether there is some sort of parity between that and here, and that's what I'd be looking for, and I'd also be looking for, in a sense, access to people who live on those estates immediately there. Rackets, which is based in Rahamsan, is fine and dandy, but what about the people of Albion and so on, and Alban and Knowles and so on. And I see, I think, there is a need for direct relationship between the people who immediately live around there, and actually on par with what we have extracted elsewhere, and that's what I hope that officers will be able to deliver, and we should have a condition that says so. I think we can get a little bit blase about comparing sites. I have no idea, and I'd rather suspect no Councillor does, and perhaps not many officers, about the different financial circumstances of using the top of the car park and using somewhere and better see power station site, the different costs, capital costs involved, all sorts of things. So to work out from that water, the exact equivalent condition should be, I think, is rather tricky, and I think you have to look at applications on their merits and circumstances as they're in. So I think that's a bit unrealistic, to be honest. If you don't ask, you don't get fair enough. In that case, you don't mind if I acknowledge the question and without an answer. Councillor Amfries. Opponents are continuing in the same vein, but I'll walk like one, second, third, Councillor White's suggestion. I think it's also particularly relevant. I agree, you're right, Chair. We can't be too prescriptive. But I think we should at least be able to have some pointers in there where we'd like to see it to go. And I think the idea of having some contribution for when that particular area where this is going to be located, there's a lot of children living in that area and those blocks around there, and something that's going to be a direct benefit to them who live on the doorstep, I think it's not unreasonable and I'll ask to quantum of it. As you say, I have to accept we can't give a number to that, but I think there should be an indication that there should be some kind of preferential treatment. It doesn't really so vague, it doesn't specify local children, it doesn't specify what's going to happen for those children who live in that area. There's a report, but it's very vague. I thought I saw Councillor Boswell and Councillor Collely. Councillor Boswell. Oh, yes, I just wanted to point out because obviously this is an area that I'm interested in, so I looked at this and actually on page 139, at condition 11, we have to ensure that provision is made for access to the sports facilities by members of the local community in accordance with the local plan. It is there. And when Councillor Boswell says of course I have an interest, she's the Chair of the Children's Committee. Councillor Collely. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Collely for St Mary's ward. I wanted to ask about the urban greening and biodiversity enhancement because I feel like there was an opportunity here. It's essentially, I didn't roof onto the car park and I feel like they have a small level of green roof, but I don't see why it can be extended or throughout it. It would have been a really good opportunity that there have been a few mentions in the report about how it was sort of accepted that there was not really much, that can be done. So, yeah, I'd like to know why can there be more done, especially with green roofs. Again, I'm not a structural engineer by any means, but I imagine that when you put a green roof in, as opposed to an ordinary roof, you have to increase the structural strength appreciably, and there must be a financial cost. If there's a lot of earth, that is heavy stuff, but perhaps there's just, you know, better. I mean, I'm not a structural person either. I'm just basically, it's a building that is functional for the purpose of playing the paddle tennis, which requires certain surfaces, probably, and acoustic as well. It's supposed to be an acoustic building. It's just not the structure that would take an awful lot of additional elements onto it in terms of what would be required to increase the urban greening factor. We understand that it's a disappointment that there isn't, they're not going to be able to meet that. Because of the need of the building, if you like, for its functionality, our ecologist has discussed it with the applicants, and their main concern really with this location is that any additional building would impact on baths and that do forage and fly around that vicinity. So the applicants have indicated that they'd be more than happy to introduce sort of smaller scale additions around the site to assist in that, and to also limit any lighting and so on. But otherwise, and our ecologists have agreed that that's a good compromise, given the context of the site and the circumstances. So that's the reason why I'm afraid. Do we know what species of bat, with paper still, or we've got it? There is a little reference in the article. This is all interesting stuff, but seriously, personally I'm in favour of more sporting facilities. I think it looks and feels like a building, I think Mr Richard said it more or less, that it can be put up fairly quickly, and it's not of this kind of structure that you'd expect green roofs, et cetera. And I suggest that we accept the officer's recommendation. So agreed, agreed. I just wanted to bring the attention of members to the late items paper, because there has been a little change in the interim in regard to the fire strategy. We were a little bit concerned initially that it was a little bit vague. The applicants have now submitted further information in advance of the meeting, which negates the need for condition 12 that's recommended. And also we're going to amend condition two then to include the documents that they've subsequently submitted. And also, yeah, that's it. Thank you. Okay, I'm sure we all think that fire and DDA conditions are utmost important, and we've got to get those right. But accepting your recommendations, we've agreed it in any event, which I think brings us back to the agenda as printed, which takes us to land number one, land east of Faraday and Dorton House, known perhaps Balan Hill estate better. Any comments? Councilor Colkely. Thank you, Chair. I was just a bit curious because in one of the paragraphs it says both that it's the Council's own application, a contribution to the thousand homes program which would imply that it's social rent, but then it says to be less at London affordable. So I just wanted some clarification as to whether it was social or London affordable. There's London not affordable. Can you explain this or this isn't behind that? Mr. Granger. Thank you, Chair. My understanding is that it's London affordable rent. It's the mayor's version, basically, of social rent. All of these, these London affordable rents and social rent, they're all low-cost rents, so they're all within the same species, so to speak. I don't have with me the understanding why the housing team behind the thousand homes program allocates certain units as purely Wandsworth's own social rent and some LAR, but there are decisions behind it. The main thing is in policy terms is that it is low-cost housing that will be secured into perpetuity, so that's the main policy compliance and what weighs in favour of this proposal. Can I just add that it's actually a policy compliant with it? It wouldn't need to actually provide any affordable housing because it's less than ten units. It's because the Council are doing this, and it's the Council's housing policies that are dictating what the proposal is for, so that's probably a question maybe for a housing committee rather than for the planning. Is it part of the thousand homes? Yeah. Councillor MURPHY. Yeah, within the objections, I wasn't sure this isn't spoken about actually in the rest of the paper, but there's talk of a garden around the back which would be taken away, but does the garden exist? I mean, is it being re-provided or what's the nature of that objection? So, those objections basically translate to the fact that this proposal would occupy a certain amount of open amenity area. It's basically just grassed area levelled with some trees interspersed around that area. It's quite featureless, but it is open space that is grassed with some trees. So, I think they're loosely referring to the estate land as garden. The late comments, the late notices, says something about the person over the back concerned about the wall. Comment about the wall? Yeah, there's a very tall wall separating. There's many boundary treatments. As you can imagine, if you just look at the ordinance survey extract, I mean, how many separate boundary treatments just on Lynn Road alone separate the estate from those private properties? But as with any site of this nature, there's particularly to the northern boundary between the application site and the builders yard. There's a tall, very tall wall, a brick wall or masonry wall that has been asserted by the occupiers to be structurally, well, tall and potentially unsound. At this stage, we, certainly as part of the planning process, it's not for us to establish the ownership of that wall. But certainly, some remedial works would have to take place whether it would be a matter for the council to approach the builders merchants, if it's not in the council's ownership, to work together to stabilise that wall. Certainly, I mean, this is all a matter for future building regulations, applications, and we've also got condition four, which seeks further details of all the boundary treatments surrounding the site to make sure what's going on in terms of securing the gardens for the future occupiers for this proposal. You mentioned just talking about ownership at the moment, not about the site specifically. It's been raised with me by one or two councillors. I am right in saying that you don't have to own land to put a planning permission on it. In theory, put a planning permission. I could do it on your house or your mine. That would be fun, but that is true. And I think Councillors have a quick question. I wanted to alert the planners to a curiosity in this planning. In the one-bedroom houses, there's a curious space at the top of the landing, which is called Flexible Space, which I've never seen on a housing plan before. Now, I could imagine that it would be really useful in Flexible Space, but it should alert ones of the fact that a one-bedroom house that is with stairs is a very inefficient use of space. Because you end up with this extra space, which, if you made it a bit bigger, could be a bedroom, so it'd be a tea bedroom. Or, if you made it a bit smaller, you could fit more of the middle of the site. I know this is not whether you agree or not, either for or against. But it's a serious point coming out of a curiosity. Flexible Space, where did this creep in from? Well, this is a product of the nationally described standards, so this applies over England, so there are minimum space sizes for bedrooms, one beds, two beds, all sorts, and overall space standards. So, when a room is below that standard, we can't call it technically an additional, a second bedroom. And if they do, I mean, this is something that we, you know, because then the actual size of the unit, the overall size of the unit would have to increase, which this can't do. So, this goes across from Council's own developments through to speculative developments by private developers where they propose small rooms, and we say, you know, that your C drawings, your C spaces put as studies and things like that, and cinema rooms, et cetera, to deal with either substandard rooms that wouldn't normally, well, that wouldn't end up with a nationally prescribed compliance scheme or described scheme. I think we can await further interesting architectural contributions and councillors, who's added a dimension for the committee, genuinely, I mean, it's absolutely genuinely that perhaps we hadn't had before, so do you carry on? Councillor Humphries. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to drag us back to the garden, I'm afraid. It's a shame in the report. It's slightly disparaging about that space. And obviously, yes, it's not Hampton Court Palace Gardens, is it? But it's those people's garden. It's a space where you can have a kick about with the football for the kids or whatever it is, and it's treason. It might not be hortucals, leeks, outstanding, but let's not be too disparaging about what the residents live there now, let's learn any future residents want to use that space for. They do consider it as their garden quite rightly, too, so we shouldn't be too dismissive of that. And we are going to lose, you know, 400 square metres of that space. It's not a little tiny patch, it's a significant amount of land that we're taking away from the existing residents. Let alone the—this is all very well. But the housing department to get this agreed and functioning is going to improve the play areas and the general environment of this particular patch enormously, because the current play areas are not, as I understand it, terribly good, and they're going to be—the whole aspect for the estate will be very much better, I think. So I really do think, yeah, you're acknowledging that. Go on, Councillor Humphrey. I acknowledge what you're saying, that what will be left will be improved, absolutely, but we're still having a massive quantum, the third loss of area for those people to play in. My point was actually something secondary to that. It was a strange comment, and it's still on the sort of same theme or ecology anyway. On page 30 at the bottom, Para 714, it was a bit of strange paragraph. It says, It's noted that an initial BNG via diversity net gain assessment was submitted with the application. However, given that this proposal is on a small site, and the application was submitted in September, the requirement is not to follow—the requirement for a BNG is not to follow the requirement. That was interesting in the first place, because we've got a BNG report on item—the one bedroom house, isn't we? Which is one little house at the rear vector road item for that. That has a BNG somewhere in there, some detail. So I thought it was strange that we haven't got this one here. Then I thought, Well, that's interesting, that they refer to something and then sort of say, Well, it's superseded and outdated and bloody, bloody, bloody. So I thought, Well, it says it's in the report, so I went and had to look at it. That report, which has been dismissed, reports a net loss on biodiversity of 0.55 units, and a net decrease of 16.96% in ecological value as a result of this construction. It also says that I didn't actually quite understand. Trading rules will not be satisfied. So I can understand why it was, because it was worthy of dismissing it, but that isn't a great outcome. It says something along the line, what does it say at the end of that paragraph? Because the standards have changed, and it's not an accurate representation. The biodiversity gains on site in line was recently established standards. I doubted since September 2023 standards have improved so much that it's going to be a massively increased gain. But I just thought that was a bit of an anomaly that we refer to something and then dismiss it straight away because it doesn't say the right answers that the applicant would like it to say. Mr Granger? It's simply a case that they didn't need to calculate or perform what we now know at all know as biodiversity net gains, which has been enacted this year. So small sites have been captured by BNG on the thing that correct me if I'm wrong, anyone at the second of April this year. So the fact that that report, the ecology officer has seen that, the ecology officer is burningly aware that they couldn't take that report into consideration because it wasn't relevant to this application. Only applications submitted on or the second of April for small sites, BNG is mandatory for those, so they didn't need to do it, but they have done. But rightly so, the officer has acknowledged that they've produced a piece of work, but then we're looking back on to the urban greening factor, which we can rely on, even though it's not major, but that illustrates further the impacts. I mean, we have to recognise that the loss of irrespective of it just being grassland, there is some ecology in there and some is lost. Can I just add to that, you make an interesting point that the standards might have changed. We were actually very much delayed by the guidance coming out from central government. It came out from Defra rather than from Doolock and it was delayed a couple of times and we actually only just got the actual guidance about the time that small sites went. So there has been a massive delay and this assessment was probably done without knowing what the criteria was. So it is sort of a guess rather than what we would apply for now and what we would see coming forward. Thank you, I understand that, but just to be clear, we're not disputing that these figures are wrong. We're just saying they're not considered relevant in policy terms of this application, but we're not saying those figures are wrong, are we? It could be because the guidance has changed, how the degree of the whole of inaccuracy we don't know. Yeah, but you're not going to tell me now that we've gone from minus 16 point whatever percent to plus 20 percent, are we? Count of summaries is going to change the way you decide on this application. May, it's a factor in my decision. Alright, okay, well, okay, that's your consideration, Councillor Givinde. Two points, one actually just falling on from Councillor Humphreys thing. This area is becoming increasingly important and more and more complicated and relatively new. What area? Whole biodiversity measures and so on and ecology of developments in more generally. I wonder whether you would want to give some consideration to doing some training or instruction for us so that we better understand this area and these issues. Once offices have understood it, if I may put it, the moving to my more substantive point, I note that there'll be loss of nine car parking spaces and I note that the area is surrounded by CPZs. And although there is some talk of this being car-free, I mean, only those four houses may be car-free, but there are people who will be displaced into the streets. And so I understand that they'll have to be buying CPZ permits. I mean, I just want to make sure that that's my understanding is correct. So people who at the moment do not pay to park might in future have to pay to park. And secondly, in doing so, there is no restriction on their right to apply for parking permits. Is my understanding correct? Mr. Granger? Oh, Mr. Tiddley. Yes, even this, Councillor. Sorry, David Tiddley, the Hair to Transport Strategy. Thank you. Okay. Is the application agreed? Right, agreed, thank you. I take it, that's NEMCON, or is it unanimous? NEMCON looks to like to me. So it's now, I realize that some of the committee clerks don't recognize that old-fashioned frame, but there's no votes recorded against. Yes, I know. No, NEMCON, whatever it is. Okay, move on to application two, which is Chillerton Road. First down. Again, I think it's reasonably uncontentious. Are the officers, Councillor Humphreys? Sorry, Chair, just a quick point. There was some concern in the objections about the potential on, again, it's speculation about the future, it is a concern of residents evidently about it being possibly conversed into an HMO when it's bigger, and we could just get a reminder of what the rules are on that, whether it could or couldn't be turned into an HMO, depending on the size of the HMO, because I know the licensing thing is different within a certain size, isn't it? The number of residents. Did you understand that? I understood that perfectly. It was a bit quick for me, but don't. No, no, no. My brain can take it. Yeah, that was covered off in 4.1, so given the larger size of the property, the Planning Commission would also be required to create an HMO. Seven occupants, rooms or more, so under that, you can actually swap around within the use class from C3 to C4, but it's larger HMOs, which is seven and occupants or more, that becomes three generals. But a Latin, Chair. Okay, is that agreed? Councillor White. So, just make a quick point about the materials being used, and I noticed they're going to be using UPVC windows, which aren't very healthy. So, yeah, I'm just making that point, really, that I hope that it goes back, that more healthy and more sustainable materials should be being used. Tell me if my comments are wrong, Mr. Granger. On the development of this size, we wouldn't have any control over such a matter, and whatever we may feel about PVC windows in general across the board, that's hardly a matter for this committee. We can only control what relates to the application, so it's only the extension, and within that context, we can't insist that all the other windows within the dwelling house are different materials, but this isn't in a conservation area. There is no heritage premise or policy standing with which to insist on timber sash windows, for instance, and UPVC windows in a location like this are very common, and wouldn't have a detrimental impact to the spatial character of the location, irrespective of their sustainability credentials, which we can't apply on to extensions such as this. Okay, understandable resolution, but subject to that, is it agreed? Thank you, moving on to... For the minutes, we just need to note that Councillor Boswell didn't vote on that because she left the room. I remember, but we've had this issue before with... She dropped her drink, so I don't know whether we want to quick break before she comes back. It's any half the state. Perhaps it would be worthwhile, given the instructions we got from the legal advisor last time, might bring forward a break slightly early, just to not to embarrass whatever Councillor Boswell's issue is. So, can we have a couple of minutes break? Be back. Yeah, that's a very relevant factor as I can say. Thank you. [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end]