Transcript

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to committee members, other counselors, officers and members of the public to this meeting of the planning committee. Now, before we start the meeting, as usual, I need to run through a few housekeeping matters. So please may I remind all counselors at Gibson Hospitality Declaration Book is available outside. The meeting room for you to record any gifts or hospitality offered to you since the last committee meeting. Emergency procedure. Now this is important. On hearing any far along at all, please evacuate the building immediately by the nearest safe exit route and go directly to the fire assembly point at the front of the council offices. Please do not use the lift. As always, mobile technology can interfere with the PA system and any induction loop systems and, of course, distracts other people at the meeting. Please may I ask you to have a look at your phones now and either switch them off or put them on silent. Thank you. This meeting is being live streamed to YouTube, so please turn on your microphones when speaking and please remember to take them off afterwards. When we come to a vote on an application on the agenda tonight, I will hand over to our solicitor to take the vote. The committee manager will state the result of the vote. Details of the vote will not be minited unless a recorded vote is asked for. The planning committee being a regulatory committee of the council must base its decisions upon the local plan, the national planning policy framework, which we're all very, very familiar with, and other material planning considerations. In this regard, in accordance with the requirements to make a fair, open, balanced and objective decision for each application on its merits free of politics and previous ideas, councils are required to do the following. Please read the officer's report. I'm sure you all have. Have regard for any update references. Consider the representations made by public speakers at the committee meeting and have regard to the debate in its entirety, please, before reaching a decision. May I begin by asking members for the planning committee to introduce themselves and the ward they represent beginning with the left in a horseshoe. Please can members also confirm that they have read the committee reports in full. Thank you. Councillor Daniel Durochy, representing Riverside and Laylam, and yes I have. Thank you. Catherine Rutherford, Ashford Common, yes. Malcolm Beecher, Steins, yes I have. Councillor Chris Bates and Stane South, yes I have read the paper, what? Councillor Tony Burrell, Stane South and yes I have read the paper, work. Sean Beatty, Ashford North and Stane Worshauff and yes I have read the paper, work. Councillor Mayne Burke, Ashford North, done it herself, I read the papers. Councillor McLACHLAN, Councillor McLACHLAN, somebody who has read the reports. Sandra Durham, Hollywood and somebody who has read the reports. Councillor Paul Woodward, Ashford Town, yes I have read the reports. Karen Howe, King's, Laylam and Shelton Green, yes I have read all the reports. Ross Chandler, Ashford East, yes I have read the papers. Down Clark, Laylam and Shelton Green, I have read all the paperwork. And Matthew Lee, somebody east, yes I have read the paperwork. Thank you all and I am Councillor Gibson, Chair of the Planning Committee and I represent Riverside and Laylam Ward. I have read the committee papers in full. We also have a number of officers assisting us this evening who I am pleased to introduce. I have got S.B. Spinks, Nellie not your head off. Planning Development Manager will provide advice and guidance on planning matters. Paul Thompson on my left, Team Manager Planning Development Management will provide advice and guidance on planning matters. Kelly Walker in front of me, Principal Planning Officer will present the plans on item 4 and answer any technical questions. Matthew Clapham, Senior Planning Officer will present the report on item 5 and answer any technical questions. Susanna Angel, Planning Officer will present the report on item 6 and answer any technical questions. I have got Camille Dilebski on my right, Senior Solicitor will provide professional advice and guidance to the committee on any legal matters. And I have got Melise Owen, our lovely committee manager will record the minutes of tonight's meeting. Karen Worth on my left, Principal Committee Manager and she will be assisting in the streaming of this meeting. As me, have you got any updates on public speakers tonight? I can indeed, Chairman, I have got one speaker speaking for the application on the second item relating to the Desper Soding Club in Fevery Lane. Shepaton, I have John Graham speaking for the application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Esme. Now, turning to our committee agenda for tonight. Are there any apologies and/or substitutions, please? Yes, Chair, we've received apologies from Councillor Mather and Councillor Halkins is here as his substitute and we've also got Councillor Bortflower speaking as Ward Councillor as well. Lovely, thank you very much. Item 2, minutes of the meeting dated the 3rd of April 2024. Committee has asked to agree the minutes of the meeting held on the 3rd of April 2024 as a true and accurate record. Are all members happy to approve the minutes? Councillor Rutherford. Sorry, Councillor Williams also sends these apologies. I see, thank you so much. Yes, I think Malice has got that. Are we happy to approve the minutes? Thank you, the minutes will be signed at the end of the meeting. Item 3, disclosures of interest. Can members of the committee please indicate the disclosures of interest they have on any items on the agenda? I will ask each of you in turn. Councillor Bateson. Nothing to declare, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Beatty. Nothing to declare. Councillor Beecher. Nothing to declare, Chair. Councillor Buck. Nothing to declare, Chair. Councillor Burrell. I don't know if this is something to declare or not, but when I was looking on Google Maps for Crownish Court, I came across some videos of the inside that didn't impress me too much. But I don't know if that is a conflict of interest and I was just searching. I wouldn't have thought so, Councillor Burrell, but thank you very much for bringing it up. Appreciate that. Councillor Chandler. Nothing to declare. Councillor Klob. Nothing to declare. Councillor Dunne. Nothing to declare, thank you, Chair. Councillor Drouchy. Nothing to declare, thank you, Chair. Councillor Howkins. Nothing to declare. Councillor Lee. Nothing to declare, Chair. Councillor Nichols. Nothing, thank you, Chair. Councillor Rutherford. Nothing to declare. Councillor Williams is not here. Councillor Woodworth. Nothing to declare. On myself, Councillor Gibson, I do not have anything to declare. So, moving on to item 4, we have application number 24/00170FUL. The Addresses Crownage Court, 99 Stains Road West, Sunbury. Kelly, would you please provide the committee with any updates and present the report? Thank you so much. There are no speakers registered to speak on this application, just for information. Thank you. Right, thank you, Chair. So, this application relates to Crownage Court, which is 99 Stains Road West, and it's to provide an extension to existing building to provide 14 additional residential flats. So, just to note at this point, planning permission was given two years ago for exactly the same scheme. It expired on the 3rd of March this year, and therefore, the applicant ran out of time to implement the planning permission, and so have submitted this new planning application for the same scheme. So, that is a material planning consideration, given that the policies have not changed at the site, and there are no material changes to the designations at the site. So, it's something we need to take into account when we make the decision on this current planning application. So, just some history of the building. It was originally built as an office. Approximately eight years ago, it was converted under a prior approval application to 59 residential flats. So, you can see the application site outlined in red here. The building itself is an L-shape, and fronts the roads on Stains Road West, and also on green lane. So, the site is in an area that has a mix of uses. So, many of the properties to the east were originally built for commercial uses towards somebody across Surrey. Some of these have now been converted to other uses, including the building next door, which is a three-storey church building. On the opposite side of Stains Road West, there's a mix of uses and heights of buildings. We've got Kempton Point over here, which is a 16-storey block of flats. And this is the former fire station building, which recently got permission from Surrey County Council for the community hub. And buildings to the west and north are more domestic in scale. We still have some commercial uses down Stains Road West, including a car sales room on this corner here. And then there's some bungalows and houses along green lane. And then to the rear of the application site are two-storey residential properties on Heathcroft Avenue, whose rear gardens directly about the application site. Again, this is just a site location showing somebody across here, and obviously the larger taller buildings, and then we've got more residential style properties to the north and west. So, just to show you some photographs now. So, this is the front of the building front in Stains Road West. This is the building next door at the church, and you can make out the car sales place on the corner of green lane. Again, the left is looking towards somebody cross. You've got the application site with the trees in the front, and then the church, and the other commercial building, some which have been converted to residential. This is on the corner of green lane, front in Stains Road West still. And you can see the building has a variety of heights and settings on the corner with green lane. This photograph is further up towards somebody cross, looking towards Ashford. This is Kenton Point, opposite the application site, which you can see in the distance over here. And again, just a few more photographs looking in the similar direction and the car sales room. Then this is looking in the opposite direction towards somebody cross, so the application site's on the left-hand side. This is Stains Road West, and we've got Kenton Point, and some of the taller buildings towards Stains Road, somebody cross. This is looking up green lane, so we've got the car sales place on the left-hand side, and then you've got the residential properties behind. So, this is the frontage of the existing building on green lane. This photograph shows the rear of the site, so behind us are the rear gardens of the properties on Heathcroft Avenue. This is the entrance into the site from Green Lane, and this is the rear elevation of the building. This brick part here is an existing stairwell. So, this is now looking towards Stains Road West. These are the front of the properties on Heathcroft Avenue. That's the brick stairwell that I just showed you, so this is the back of the building on Stains Road West. And again, this just shows the entrance into the site, the side of the property on the corner of Heathcroft Avenue, and then their rear gardens are behind, and they directly join the rear of the application site. So, just going through some of the plans, there is a basement which has car parking, so this is the basement at the bottom of the building, and that will continue to have car parking on it. Basement 1 has car parking as existing on the left-hand side, and then the proposal provides some additional cycle storage spaces for the existing residents and the proposed residents. So, we've got 59 as existing, and then the additional 14 would make 73 in total. And then this is a plan of the ground floor, so these are the existing residential properties from Tint Road West and Green Lane, and then this is existing car parking layout. And then the proposal also includes some additional cycle storage, and also some additional refuse storage. So, the proposal will provide 64 car parking spaces. There's no additional spaces being provided, but in addition it will provide cycle storage and bin storage for all of the properties, proposed and existing at the site. So, the County Highway Authority have been consulted, and they raise no objection in relation to the car parking provision and highway safety, given the sustainable location, because it's with an easy walking distance of the shopping parade at Sunbury Cross, and also transport links, including Sunbury Station and bus stops. So, now moving on to the extension itself. This plan shows the existing third floor on the Stains Road West, which is currently here, and the proposal is to have a new third floor on top of the Green Lane element at the moment. So, this would have five flats. So, if you're looking, this is Green Lane elevation across the top, and then the corner of the property and Stains Road West along the side, just to get your bearings. So, each of these properties, these four properties have all got their outside amenity space private, and this one doesn't have any additional space. So, moving on to the fourth floor, this will be across Stains Road Frontage only. Here we go, so that's got six flats, and then some of them have got, this one's got a private amenity space, and then this is a communal amenity space that the flats can all use. And then this is the fifth floor, so this is on top of the proposed floor beneath on the Stains Road West Frontage, and you can see it's set back from the floor below, and again, some of these have got outside amenity space. Each of the proposed flats meet the internal floor space standards. They've also got an acceptable level of light and outlook from the units. And then this is the roof plan, so again, this is the Green Lane Frontage, this is the Sains Road West Frontage, and you can see the solar panels on the roof. And then just moving on to the elevations. So, the top shows the elevation of Stains Road West. The right-hand side one shows the frontage as existing, so you can see the existing plant across the top of the building. And then you can see the new proposal has a floor across the top with same materials on top of the existing, and then we have another floor on the fifth floor, which is set back from the main elevation. The top floor will be built with different materials. It's got larger windows and wooden cladding and a zinc cap across the top, so that it appears more lightweight and subservient to the building below. Moving down to the next picture, this is the frontage on Green Lane. So this is as existing on the right-hand side and proposed on the left-hand side. So again, you can see this is the new story on top of the Green Lane Frontage. It doesn't extend all the way to the back of the building. This is the stairwell as existing that I showed you. It is set back from there, and again, this is built with the different materials to have a subservient fill to reflect the materials of the existing building and the extension proposed above the same for a west frontage. So these are the elevations within the building. So this is the existing elevation if you're looking from the back of the property directly towards Stainford West. So again, this is the brick stairwell, and this is part of the building frontage Stainford West, and then we've got the two new stories on top of here, the very top one having the difference in materials. And then this is the element on the Green Lane Frontage that protrudes back into the site and the stairwell again. And then the bottom plan shows the elevation from within Green Lane. So looking out towards Green Lane, so this is the rear of the existing building. So the properties on the Heave Croft Avenue are behind here to the right-hand side. And then you can see again that this is that extension along Green Lane, and standing back into the site, but doesn't extend all the way back. So in terms of the design, it's considered that the materials are scale and the design do pay due regard to the existing building and it's acceptable and in keeping with the character of the area. We also consider that this is the closest point of the proposed extension to the neighbouring properties at the rear. So that's the extension on top of the Green Lane element. That's the closest point to the residential properties at the rear. And that is in fact 28 metres from the rear boundary and some 49 metres to the rear of the properties on the Heave Croft Avenue. So that's considered to have an acceptable impact that wouldn't result in a significant overlooking, overbearing or loss of light impact. In addition, the proposal does not cross the 25 degree line taken from the rear of the properties at Heave Croft Avenue or the properties across the other side of Green Lane from the front of the windows and therefore they would still provide a significant outlook and view of the sky as required by our supplementary planning document. So just to conclude, the proposal is considered to be an efficient use of land. It's on a brownfield site that has an existing residential use. It's in a sustainable location and will provide much needed housing. So therefore it's considered that there's no significant or demonstrable harm that would outweigh the benefits of the scheme given the tilted balance and also we have to take into account that we have already given permission for this scheme in recent times. Therefore the application is recommended for approval. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Kelly. That was well done. So this item is now with the committee. Please may I have a proposal? Councillor Drouchy, thank you very much. Have I got a seconder? Councillor Rutherford. Pipped Councillor Woodward to the post, thank you very much. Really appreciated. Okay, do either of you want to speak now or would you save it for later? I reserve my right to speak, thank you, Chair. Lovely, thank you. So? As do I. Awesome, thank you very much. So I know I invite Councillors who would like to ask any questions or make a comment. Please, Councillor Beecher, first, thank you so much. I've only got a couple of questions. First one is how likely are we to get this planning application back in another couple of years to decide? And secondly, as this is 14 units, is the development subjected by a diversity net gain? Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you. As I understand it, the reason the applicant didn't have time to implement this permission because it's been recently purchased by somebody else compared to who submitted the previous application. So they were keen to implement the permission, but they just didn't have enough time to do that because they had to discharge the pre-commencement conditions and make a start to work on site for it to not expire. And they have now discharged the pre-commencement conditions. So my understanding is they're looking to go ahead and carry out the development as and when they can if they get permission. I've forgotten what you said. BNG. This is 14 units. Does it subject you by a diversity net gain? Thank you, Kelly. This application was submitted before March, so it's not subject to BNG because of when it was submitted. Having said that, the way we currently understand it, because there would not be any reduction in habitat on the site. Actually, it might not have been required for this development in any event. Thanks, Kelly. Thank you, Kelly. I think, as we speak, I'd like to say something. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just really a general comment that normally planning permissions for housing for schemes are given for three years. When we prepared the Housing Delivery Test Action Plan, which went to the ENS Committee, because we were short of the requirement and we had a presumption in favour, we looked at different ways that we could try and boost the housing delivery. One of the ways that the MPPF suggests is worth exploring is to reduce the time period of planning permissions. So, therefore, under the Housing Delivery Test, we suggested a few years ago now that we should reduce the time period from the three years to two years, hence the two years it's come back. We will be reviewing that and we will be bringing a report back on the Housing Delivery Test to the June ENS Committee and we will be addressing that point as well. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Asmi. Have I got any other questions, please? Councillor BEATY. Thank you, Madam Chair. This may well be a stock question that I ask at most planning committees. Kelly, does the addition of the 14 units to the comment 59 have any effect in the requirement of the application to have any sociable, affordable, or key worker housing? And if not, why not? Thank you. Kelly? Yes, and the proposal is for 14 units, which is below the 15-unit threshold for affordable units. Thank you, Kelly, and I expect that was done deliberately. Thank you, Councillor BEATY. Have I got any other questions, please? Councillor Borrow. Come on back to what I was saying earlier, I came across some disturbing images of the inside with blown windows, with molds, with various problems in the inside. Is there any condition you can have to... So if you put it in another 14 units, the condition of the inside heavier use could get even worse. Is that the condition that you can possibly put onto it, who develops it, to make sure that it keeps the quality of the interior reasonable or not? Thank you, sir. Kelly, would you like to make a comment on that? We're setting the proposal on what's been applied for, so it's difficult to take into account what's some of the issues that are raised about management of the existing building with this particular application. It is quite interesting to note, however, from the previous application, we did get 24 letters of ejection to that scheme at that time, it's the same scheme. This time around, we did get less letters of ejection, we got nine letters of ejection, and there was certainly less from the existing residence than we had before. So from my understanding is it would appear that the management of the existing building has, in fact, perhaps improved since the last application, and actually you can see that from the frontage where the trees are, and they have taken some time to maintain the pavements at the front, which at the time of the previous application were not as well maintained as they currently are. Thank you very much, Kelly. I did notice, actually, that was images from about two years ago, so yes, we could have improved it. Thank you, Councillor Burrell. If I've got any other questions at all, would the proposal and the seconder want to make any comments? Are you OK? No comments from me. Thank you. One last chance if I've got any more questions, OK, in that case, the motion is to approve the application. I'm going to ask our solicitor to call for a vote. Will committee members indicate by whoever's show of hands when asked to vote either four against or to abstain? At the end of the vote, the committee manager will indicate the results. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. All Councillors, in favour of the motion, please, can you raise your hands now? Thank you. Thank you. That was 15 votes in favour. That looks unanimous. Thank you very much. So the motion is to approve application 24/00170FUL and it has been agreed. Thank you very much. Really appreciated. Lovely. Moving on, item 5 on the agenda is application 24/00119FUL and that is a desperate sailing club ferry lane, Shepperton, TW179LQ, Matthew, could you please provide the committee with any updates and please, could you present the report? Thank you. Yeah. There are no updates. Thank you, Chair. So to move on with the report, the application is for the erection of a vote shelter, which is going to be constructed with a scaffold pole framework with corrugated sheet steel roof and sides with a maximum height of 2.3 metres and to be placed on a existing porous cinder base that's adjacent to existing worksheds on the site. The site itself is based at Despera sailing club, which is the site itself is entirely within the green belt, entirely within the functional flood plane, is a site of nature conservation importance and there is a group tree preservation order also affecting the site. You can see here the site itself, there's the, do the aerial photo where the cursor is. That's the existing sailing club house there and you can see there's a parking area to the left here, lots of boats currently stored which are sailing boats with fibre glass material stored around the site and just here is the existing sheds and structures along to the right-hand side of which is going to be the proposed boat shelter which I can show later in a more indicative location plan. Just to show the, um, character of the area to the north here, the other side of the tributary to the Thames, which is, I think, known as the creek, are properties within church, square and shepherty. The L-shaped building here is the Warren Lodge Hotel and residential properties here along towards the left-hand side. The site joins but isn't within the shepherton conservation area and I've just shown this plan here so you can clearly see it's outside of the conservation area which runs along the northern points of the site just to the south of the tributary and the creek and the application site itself here is some 30 metres away from the conservation area boundary. Just to show some photos of the site, you can see here the existing porous base which is to be, you know, the base for the proposed boat shelter. You can see here the wood and skiff boat that's already on the site there and it says, reiterate it's wood and so it needs some kind of shelter from the elements and such like there's another skiff here already on the site. The trees in the background here are within the group tree preservation order but I visited the site with the council's other cultural officer and he was satisfied there'd be no harm to those trees. This shows the additional amount of fibreglass sailing boats that need less protection than the weather, scattered around the site and mauled off the water and in the background of both photos you can see the existing clubhouse in the distance. The photo to the left where the cursor is shows the nearest residential properties to the site on the other side of the creek and just to indicate the existing structures that are on the site are here on the right hand side and as I'll show you shortly are of a similar height to the proposed shelter that we have. This is the indicative, it's not just scale but indicative representation of where the boat shelter will be so the photo I just showed you is this garage here with the render sides so the boat shelter that we're proposing here is this white rectangle just alongside and again you can see the distance to the conservation area and the residential properties in church square shepherton to the north. This just shows the elevations you can see the front elevation for example just showing eight skiff boats being stored in there in it's a hike that's commensurate with the adjoining garage and adjoining structures either side and just to clarify that there was a application that was submitted and refused a year ago on two grounds one was green belt and that had a height of 3.7 metres this has been reduced to 2.3 metres and there was also an issue regarding a concern from the Surrey Wildlife Trust that requested more information about the fact that they proposed a concrete base to the structure that's now been taken away and they utilised an existing porous structure that sold a porous base that I showed you photos of earlier so there'll be no ground works, no changes to grasslands, no impacts upon the habitat that's existing on the site. So as a result as an outdoor leisure recreation facility it's considered to be appropriate development within the green belt, wouldn't pile on the openness and it's not considered to affect the SNCI and the site of nature conservation importance and is therefore recommended for approval. Thank you, Chair. Slowly, thank you, Matthew, you really appreciated. Now we're going to hear from the speaker in relation to this item. John Graham, would you like to step up and read your submitted statement for the application? Now you will have your three minutes, don't be put off because there will be a 30-second warning. Thank you very much. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Councillors and Planning Committee, I just wanted this opportunity to explain why this skiff shelter is so important for us. A skiff is a Victorian built boat and in 2010 I started a club in Sunbury, it's the only club in Spellfall or your other boroughs have skiff clubs and I felt that Spellfall needed one. It's a registered charity and I've now got seven skiffs but they are out in the elements all year round, they are made of mahogany with oak keels and they're deteriorating very badly that I can't keep them maintained enough, I've got three boats that are out of action due to the fact that they just have canvas covers on and the covers blow off, the boats get damaged and they fill up with water, so it is affecting the club quite badly, costing the club a lot of money to repair them and I just wanted the opportunity to say how beneficial it would be for the club to have the skiff shelter and hopefully we can bring more people down to the river that we teach children and adults alike, that's what I'd like to say. Thank you. That's lovely, thank you very much Mr. Graham, now Matthew is there anything that you need to or would like to say to clarify as a result of the comments? No thank you Chair. Awesome, thank you very much. We now have Councillor Bortflower, you've called this application in as Ward Councillor, would you please read your submitted statement on the application, again you've got the three minutes with your thirty second warning, thank you. Thank you Chair, good evening committee members, I'm here tonight to speak against this application. There has been a number of objections as listed in your papers including the Shepperton Residence Association. I'll tell you the views of some of the residents of Shepperton as we know residents come first. Residents along the creek which borders the Desbra Sailing Club are rejected to the proposed boat store for the following reasons. This is a further development on precious Greenbelt land which is also part of the floodplain. The metal structure will spool the natural area and openness of the site. It will be even more visible in the winter months when the trees are not in leaf. The site overlooks the conservation area of Old Shepperton and the building will be a permanent and visible to neighbours all year round even when the club is not in use in the winter. This planning permission was refused even though this new proposed building has reduced height. The footprint in size is the same and will now be constructed with corrugated sheet metal sides and roof. This will not blend with the natural area. The site has already seen the recent construction of a large garage workshop which replaced much of the smaller shed. A new building will only add to the over development of the site. The Desbra Sailing Club bank is less than 60 metres from some properties along the creek. Once again it seems that the residents complaints are being ignored and another ugly mismatch building will be erected for them to look at. Whilst it seems good that some reskiff and hunting club are now able to share the sailing club site, it should not be at the detriment of the natural area or the local residents who have also threatened changes to the river Thames flood scheme hanging over them and the creek that they live alongside. I thank you for your time and ask that the committee rejects this application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Sir. Matthew, is there anything you would like to say to clarify as a result of the comments made? Just to reiterate, with regard to the corrugated steel sites and roof, the applicants are stated in the application that it's going to be cut or green and that's secured by our condition to make it as sort of blending in as possibly we could do with the surrounding area. Also, with regard to the river Thames scheme, the river Thames scheme is not a material consideration in such as whether or not this structure is allowed or not, it would not impact upon the river Thames scheme as a separate consideration. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Matthew. Well, this item is now with the committee. Please may I have a proposal? Councillor Durochy, thank you. And would you like to speak to your proposal now? I will reserve my right speak, thank you. May I have a seconder? Councillor Woodward, much appreciated, thank you very much. Would you like to speak to your proposal? No, I hope I'm right, thank you. Thank you very much. Really appreciated. Good. Well, now I'm going to ask, does anybody have a question or a comment to make? Thank you very much. Councillor Nichols. Thank you. What if you just clarify, wouldn't granting this permission change the status of the land from Greenbelt or would it remain as Greenbelt? It would remain Greenbelt. We wouldn't change the designation at all, no? Is that okay, Councillor Nichols? Lovely. I think in a second, Councillor Clarke, I think as me spings would like to make a comment. Thank you. Just in relation to Councillor Nichols' comments for you, Chair, the status of the land can only be changed with the local plan. Thank you. Councillor Clarke. Thanks, Chair. I'm kind of torn between this because I understand the importance of heritage of a skiff club and activity in getting out of the river, but then I'll understand the residents requirement that they don't want to be looking at an eyesaw in what is an absolutely stunningly beautiful area. It's absolutely incredible down there. Has there been any discussion between the planning team and the applicant about screening the garages or the infrastructure over on that side, because I think that might be a halfway house that might be acceptable to both. Thanks, Chair. Thank you, sir. Matthew, I think you've already made a comment, but you might want to reiterate. Yeah, there's been no discussions that Council considers that the scheme itself is acceptable. It's 50 metres away from the nearest residential property and its office scale reduced significantly for what was previously proposed at 2.3 metres high that wouldn't have any detrimental impact upon the character of the area, nor indeed the conservation area. So it wasn't felt appropriate or required to discuss any screening. Okay, thank you, Matthew. The nature of the complaints and certainly from the resident association is more about the green belt, of course, and the aesthetic of it, particularly in winter months, which I can entirely see what they're talking about. Perhaps it might have been useful to have, you know, brooch this ground with them. Matthew? From the recollection of the site visit, the trees are actually behind the structure. So I don't think there was any significance amount of tree or landscaping between the structure and the church square properties anyway. So I'm not sure whether any of the winter months would make any difference anyway. Thanks, Matthew. Thank you, sir. Councillor Rochi. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question off the back of Councillor Nichols' question. So I appreciate that it will remain green belt and that any future applications will still need to go through planning because it is green belt, but would this structure make any precedent or make it any easier or be taken into account for any future structures, for example, if they applied for a bigger clubhouse, would that then, would this structure then be taken into account as well as they've got another? Matthew? No, because each application is treated on its own merits and in this particular instance, it's deemed to be appropriate outdoor leisure and recreation facility that is acceptable within the green belt so there's no need for any very special circumstances, whether there to be something that wasn't appropriate, then we would have to go down a different consideration with very special circumstances. Thank you very much, Matthew. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Councillor Beetson. That's really an observation, we've had it clarified tonight that the land remains green belt until the designation is altered through the local plan. So in effect, what we are actually doing here is authorising, if we pass it, a permanent structure on green belt land, is that my understanding, perhaps that could be confirmed? Matthew? We'd be approving a boat shelter that's considered to be appropriate to develop it within the green belt, which is any MPPF, considered to be an extensible structure. Okay, but it would be a permanent structure, not a temporary structure that would be, for example, taken down at any point, if it was approved, it's a permanent structure, but if they decided for whatever reason to dismantle it over the winter or whatever, they will be taking down something that we will be giving permission as a permanent structure on green belt. That's just the point I wanted to highlight. Matthew? Yes, that's correct. There's no condition or any requirement to remove it at any time, you know, at the moment it says it stands, it's a permanent structure. Thank you, sir. Councillor Beecher, then Councillor Burrell. Councillor Huchen, sorry. On the matter of the permits, I'd fail to see any structure that is made from scaffolding poles and sheet steel with no foundation can be possibly permanent. All you need is a spanner and a bolt and bolting equipment to take it all down and take it away. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Councillor Burrell. Yes. Do you slap a concrete that was causing the problems in the earlier application? That's not going to be there, it's going to be a porous, like cinder base, but I was noticed on the bottom of PL62 underneath informatives, it says a Gaussian imperable membrane should be incorporated within the structure along with the ventilated subflow area because of pollution. It wouldn't be porous if you'd had a imperable membrane, I was just wondering, could you expand on the need for it, PL62 under informatives at the bottom of PL62? Thank you, sir. Just bear with me while we just look at the document, thank you. Yes, just to clarify, that's an informative, which is not a condition, so it's not something we would be able to enforce against, and that was provided as a advice to the applicant from the environmental health department. Is that because it's built on a landfill site? The reasoning behind it is because it's situated within 250 metres of a historic landfill or gravel pit, so it's a fairly standard, informative, this advice to the applicants to provide guidance that it's on a land that could potentially have had some contamination in the past. Thank you very much for that. Thank you, Councillor Burrell, before Councillor HOWlkins, as me, Sphinx? Yes, just in relation to that point for you, Chair, Councillor Bawill, if members feel that the informative number one, which is only an advice, should be removed apart from the last power graph, and we can do that for this committee if they see fit, and then we can just leave the informative on asking to contact the Council's pollution control team if members feel that that would help matters, but it is only an informative advice to the applicant, it's not anything which is a requirement. Councillor Burrell, would you like that to happen? No, I just wanted to try to work out the reason for it, really. Thank you. Thank you, so Councillor HOWlkins. Hi, I'm confused by this application, so I would like it to be a recorded vote. But my reason for confusion is the landlord to serve notice on the sailing club to vacate the site. So why are we even discussing it when the landlord doesn't want them on the site anyway? Thank you, ma'am. I will ask Matthew to make a comment on that, as I understand it, it's not a planning consideration, but bear with us, as me. Planning permission runs for the land for the Chair, so it's not a planning consideration of this application because the planning permission runs with the land and not the person. You're okay with that, Councillor HOWlkins? Yeah, but obviously, as the landlord is turning around and asking them to leave the site, I can't see why we need to turn around and give permission, but I know that permission is up to the applicant to apply for. It's through you, Chair, if the Councillor — if the local penal authority gave permission but the applicant couldn't be implemented, then that sets a matter, private matter, between the applicant and the owner, that all you're concerned with or the local penal authority should be concerned with is the planning issues relating to this application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Esme. Appreciate that. Have I got any further questions from the committee? Councillor BEATY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a point of clarity, I think. SP5, Matthew, talks about meeting community needs, and I note that John Graham spoke of adults and children being taught to — I don't know if the correct verb is skiff, but let's say it is. Obviously, from my perspective, when we look at meeting community needs, I look at perhaps the children and adults that maybe would not normally think of becoming part of this organisation, because through financial restrictions — now, I accept that's not planning consideration as such, but SP5 meeting community needs is, so I just wondered if you could comment on that further, Matthew. Thank you. Thank you. Matthew. We've got no specific information about the club providing taste sessions or anything else like that, but it is a publicly accessible club anyone can in theory join. Save this desk for sale in club itself and other growing clubs and other such facilities around the borough. So it is providing a community use that's granted yet, but there's no sort of particular scheme to allow the greater public to be able to use it granted here. Thank you. I think I made my point. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Councillor Lee. Thank you, Chair. I just have one question relating to flooding in the report. Does Matthew know if this particular area flooded in the most recent floods, please? With the most recent floods, I was on site this year in sort of every March time, and the river was extremely high, and it overrun the banks, and this particular part of the site hadn't flooded. I can't comment on 2014, which is obviously the most recent serious flood that we had. But the site is entirely within the function of floodplain, and we were classed. It has been a floodable structure. It's effectively opened to the front, and it's not considered to cause any problems regarding flood resistance or resilience and such, like. Thank you very much. I would like to ask one question on clarification. That is, could you clarify for me, am I right to note that there is actually already an edifice on that site? There's already a building on that site, is there? On the site of the actual proposed shelter, no, there's just a porous heart standing. There's the garages or structures to the site, as the two that I showed in the photos. And the actual structure itself is going to be a new structure on existing porous heart standing. Awesome. Thank you. Much appreciated. Have I got any other questions? Okay. Well, this item is now with the committee. The motion is actually to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in paragraph eight of the report, and I think we've all read that. We have been requested for a named vote, so I will ask the solicitor to read the names out as they come, and if you could please indicate by way of what you would like to say that would be for against or to abstain. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So I will call out the names of each councillor on the committee who is present in alphabetical order. When a councillor's name has been called, the councillor should respond as the chair indicated that they are for, against or abstain. Councillor Batesham, against, Councillor Beatty, for Councillor Bicham, for Councillor Bach, for Councillor Barrow, for Councillor Chandler, against, Councillor Clark, abstain. Councillor Dunne, for, thank you. Councillor Hawkins, against, Councillor Lee, against, Councillor Nichols, for, Councillor Ratford, for. I know I missed Councillor Kerachi, and I'm a bit of an apologise for that, and you, Chair. Councillor Woodward, apologise again, Councillor Woodward, for, and you, Chair. I've got nine in favour, four against, and one outside. Sorry, ten, ten in favour, ten in favour, four against, and one abstain. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The motion is to approve application 24/00119/FUL, and it has been agreed. Thank you very much. Moving on to item six, application 24/00178/FUL, and that is Hopper House 2931 Ford Bridge Road, Ashford, Susanna, please provide the committee with any updates and present your report. Thank you. Oh, sorry. There are no speakers registered to speak on this application. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, no updates. So the application site is Hopper House, and the proposal is for the erection of a fence with a trellis along the boundary wall with the neighbouring property of number 33, Ford Bridge Road. On the location plan, you can see the site outlined in red, Ford Bridge Road to the front, Chester Field Road to the rear and the site orders a number of residential properties. As you can see, the application is retrospective. The fence hadn't been erected in early March. It was erected in response to concerns raised by the neighbour who requested an increase in height of the fence. You can see number 31 is the white building in the background. That's the fence going down the full boundary of the garden. This is the front of Hopper House. You can see the fence isn't visible from the street scene. And this is a view from Chester Field Road. You can see the fence in the background there. This is the site plan. You can see here the red line shows, sorry, the boundary runs down the whole northern boundary of the residential property there. Following on this is the fence here at the top. You can see the fence, which is in situ at the moment along the boundary, the residential property and then the new fence below, which is 2.5 metres in height overall. The proposal is considered acceptable in appearance and would have an acceptable relationship in number 31 and is recommended for approval. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Sally. Well done. Now, this item is with the committee. Please may I have a proposal? Councillor Joshi, thank you. And a seconder. Councillor Bateson. Appreciate it. Would either of you like to speak now or hold your? I will reserve my right speak. Thank you, Chair. Councillor, thank you very much. Good. I'm going to invite any questions, please, Councillor Beecher. Why has this come to committee? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Susanna. Sorry, Councillor Beecher. I did mean to say that because the property is owned by the Council has got to come to Planning Committee. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Dunne. Thank you, Chair. Could I just ask why there was a problem with this neighbourhood? Why did they want the fence higher? Susanna, I believe it was an issue with the boss and things going over the fence, items going over the fence. So it was a response to complaints made. Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor CLOCK. Thank you, Chair. Does it forgive my curiosity? Is there a problem with the trellising or is it like the Venetian fence? Is it the overall height or is it a height of like the solid fence beneath? That's correct, Councillor. Two metres of high fence doesn't require planning, but 2.5 does. So the additional trellis means it requires planning permission due to its height. So the trellis is as part of the fence? Yes, it's all included within that. Okay. So there's no difference between trellising and thank you very much. Correct. Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Chandler. Thank you, Chair. It's a general question. When they are putting fence on their own side, do we need to ask the neighbour what they are doing? Yes, they did ask the neighbour and it was requested for the additional height to be put adjacent to their boundary fence, the new fence, so the new fence. Because I had one problem with some residents, they were saying the fence was for the next door and they never asked the neighbour, the next one, and there was a backside of this neighbour's side and the real house, they had the positive sides and this people were asking why you have not contact us. So they said we don't need to do that and they put the fence up. So you mean this is illegal, but they need to ask first to put the fence? They did ask the neighbour and the fence is actually within the cartilage of Harper House. I'm asking the general question, one resident was asking, this is happened and they never asked the neighbour what they are doing, that's the question. I see what you mean, yes, it's a civil matter. Chairman, if I can just explain to you, generally when you own a property, the deed show which fences fall within your ownership and which fences fall within another ownership, so if it falls within your ownership then you don't need any consent from the neighbour to your at the fence because it would be within your ownership, it's good practice to speak to neighbours because that's a good thing to do, but you don't actually need their consent to erect a fence, so obviously this fence was on the boundary of the owner of the Harper House, but they did communicate, so that was a good thing. Any further questions? I've got one small one to Zannah and that is what obviously as the fence is already there to retrospective planning application, how long ago was this fence actually erected? It was early March chair, thank you very much for that clarification. Well it looks like there aren't any more questions, so the motion is to approve the application, I will ask ourselves in the city for a vote, will the committee members indicate by way of sure of hands when asked to vote either for, against or to abstain? At the end of the vote, our committee manager will indicate the results, thank you so much. Thank you chair, all Councillors in favour of the motion, please raise your hands now. Thank you. I would say that looks unanimous, thank you very much everybody, really appreciated. Now from the perspective of item seven on the agenda, oh sorry, oh yeah, well the, sorry miss one bit, the motion is to approve application 24, 0, 0, 1, 7, 8, if you will and it has been agreed, thank you. Moving on to item seven we've got the planning appeals report, I know you've all read it and it is actually for noting only, but if you've got any questions could you please raise the queries with Esmee Spinks, thank you so much. And also item eight, major planning applications, ditto, future major planning application report is for noting only. If any member has a query on that, if you could please raise it directly with Esmee Spinks, that would be really great, thank you so much. So therefore that concludes the