Transcript

You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You The Meeting of the planning Committee of Telven and Reaking council. As this is the planning Committee in the chamber, Some housekeeping has to Follow. No fire alarms are expected and in the case of a fire, there is an exit in the room and Want to the left of the doors outside the chamber. Toilets are situated outside the chamber near to the Lifts. This evening's meeting is held in public to ensure that all those Involved or interested in the planning applications and Process can see and hear how the decisions are made. It is important that the speakers are able to present their Information without interruption and that the council members of the Committee are able to hear and consider the material presented. Only those people who have been notified are able to speak and I Would ask everyone else to remain quiet not to interrupt the meeting until Allow the members to make their decisions. I would remind everyone that council meetings can be photographed or Recorded and ask all our participants to recognize the importance Of the planning process. Finally, please could I ask that everybody silence their Phone or turn them off and when indicated to speak, please Press the right hand button once and the green light will appear. Once the red light is showing, please begin to speak. Okay, so thank you. Right, agenda item one is the apologies for absence. Chair, we have apologies from Councillor Janice Jones and we have A substitute on Rick Duall and we have apologies from Graham Cook. There's no substitute and we have apologies from Thomas Janke as well and again no substitute. Item two, any declarations of interest? No, none. Oh, Steve? I don't know whether it's. I don't know whether it's pertinent but I do know the applicant And he's held him very well. Okay. Do you really note it? Yep. Okay, thank you, Steve. No more. No. Item three, the minutes of the previous meeting. That has been distributed. Anything to amend or shall I take it as red? Okay, thank you. Item four, any deferred or withdrawn applications? They're an on chair. Okay, thank you. Site visits, item five. They're an on proposed chair. Okay. Right, planning applications for determination. Right. The first one is the first two. TWC 202010356, the site of the Argue Rayburne, Colbrookdale Works, Wellington Road, Colbrookdale and TWC 2021 0358, which we'll take, we'll go through them at the same time. And can I ask for Penny to give the report? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. As you mentioned, once we have two separate applications to consider this evening, the proposal as a whole relates to both the full planning and a listed building consent application. Okay. Apologies. Yes, whilst we have two separate applications to consider this evening, the proposal as a whole relates to both full and listed building consent applications for the redevelopment of the former Argue site to include the associated access. Okay. An infrastructure following demolition of the existing industrial buildings. The proposal will provide 101 new dwellings and include the rebuilding of the pattern shop, the conversion of the compressor house and the wing shop buildings, with the listed building applications specifically only relating to the conversion of the listed building situated to the north of the site. As members will be aware from the Planning Committee report, these applications are the subject for non-determination planning appeal. The applications are before members today to seek advice on what their likely resolution would have been had the applications been put forward to them for determination. To be absolutely clear, members are not making any determination on the applications today. The rights received from members today on your likely determination will be fed into the local planning authority statement of case, which has to be submitted to the planning inspectorate by the 1st of May. Termination of the applications are now in the hands of the planning inspectorate. And on that note, I'll pass back to you chair to allow speakers to make the representation. Okay, thank you. Right. Can I ask for Councillor Carolyn Healy to come forward, please? Thank you. Members, your decision tonight will set the toll of how officers present this application at appeal. So the correct stay from you is really important. It's acknowledged by both the planning officers and the applicants that this development does cause harm to the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage site. But in the information you've been provided, this harm in my view is downplayed with the perceived benefits overstated. This is not similar to planning decisions at Liverpool waterfront, but the City Council planners stated that the substantial public benefits far outweigh any heritage harm. UNESCO disagreed and renewed World Heritage site status. This downplayed of the harm is in stark contrast to previous delegated decisions that have determined that things like simple timber burglars or timber garage on the footprint of a previous store was shed, or even a small bike shed in the Kirchledge of a listed building is considered substantial harm as such developments have been refused and the subject of enforcement. It's also in contrast to the view of Ichamos, who have a huge influence on World Heritage site status. The Office of Report references Ichamos UK, but more important is the view of Ichamos International and their technical review of September 2022, which isn't included in your pack, and which specifically says that the current proposals with their limited changes will still have a highly adverse impact on outstanding universal value. A key element that Ichamos want to see changed is leaving the northwest section of the site where the four-story apartment block is proposed, free of development to preserve the archaeology and give a more open feel to the site. The Office of Report says that these opinions are not a material consideration, however MPPF paragraph two states that planning policies and decisions must also reflect relevant international obligations and statutory requirements. The UK is a state party to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and therefore must comply with the obligations of the Convention to preserve and enhance outstanding universal value. It should also be noted that Ichamos are not aware of other developments that could have an impact on outstanding universal value on the surrounding the World Heritage site, such as the Power Station, more modern developments on beach road, and also developments on the Shopter Council side of the World Heritage site where Article 4 doesn't apply. And again, that cumulative impact could have an impact on OUV as it did in Liverpool. You'll hear more about issues of density and impact in archaeology from other speakers. I recognise that the site has to be developed and there are aspects of the proposal that I applaud but currently the harm and the rest of the World Heritage site status can't be ignored and further revisions to remove development from the area of more significant archaeological significance must be sought to make the scheme acceptable and therefore I urge you this evening to suggest that you would have used this application so that that can be discussed with other planning hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask for Councillor Maureen Bragg of the Gorge Parish Council. Thank you. I'm speaking to you today on behalf of the local residents of the Gorge and their concerns were articulated at a public meeting held two weeks ago attended by over 50 residents. They're concerned about the impact on their local community and also placing the World Heritage site status at risk. Density is one of the key issues. And the main one is this apartment block that was added to the revised plan to enable the developer to get their required level of viability for the development. And this one block would have 19% of the beds of the whole application. There are single bedroom units here which again existing residents in the area do not feel are appropriate for the Colbertdale community. They're more suitable for a town centre for the centre of Talford, Manchester but not for Colbertdale. Another concern is the nonadherence to planning guidelines by the local planning authority. They have a separation standard as good practice which should be 27.5 metres between building faces for three stories and above. When you look at this development there are only 10 metres between this four story block and the two listed buildings and there's less than 10 metres between the four story apartment block and the three story block. So this is quite contrary to the existing planning guidelines as published by the council and we're wondering why this has been approved or accepted by the planning officer. Another concern is at the flood risk as the proposal includes a major engineering of the Colbrooke to divert it to an open channel. Colbrookedale is a rapid response catchment area subject to significant flooding immediately downstream of this site. Now we're aware that the new developments only have to make the flooding no worse. At a meeting Shropshire Homes announced in a public forum that they were now proposing a betterment scheme. The modelling couldn't be provided at the meeting and it has not arrived since that meeting. So theoretically this is not a betterment scheme. It's an existing scheme that will cope with what's there and it's not betterment as said in the applicants documents. Finally there are big concerns over the parking impact. Wellington Road, as I'm sure many of you will know, is a single track road because of residents having to park on the road. Therefore we're going to have 200 plus cars coming out of this new development onto Wellington Road which is a one-way system basically and it's just not capable of coping with these number of cars. So again I think this should be borne in mind if any when you're considering whether to theoretically accept this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Can I ask now for a Marion Blockley member of the public? Hello. I'm the member of the public. I've been advised to say why I'm dealing with this sort of issue. I've lived in the gorge 35 years nearly as a residence which is my most important qualification but I'm also the chair of the World Heritage Site Steering Group. I'm the former director of the Ironbridge Institute which is part of the partnership between the University of Birmingham and the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust and was senior lecturer in heritage management of the University of Birmingham. I'm also a former council member of the Institute of Field Archaeology which is an elected post. There are basic points and I hope you've had a chance to see the illustrations I'm referring to because it would be impossible to understand precisely what I'm saying. It's a very technical point about the buried archaeology but it is a very important point because it can lead to significant harm to the outstanding universal value of the site. In the original presentations and all subsequent technical reports and documents by Historic England, the assumption was that the buried archaeology which is of great significance was below 15 metres of Bova Burden and I would argue from the information I've researched that this is not the case and in fact the buried archaeology is much shallower. This is critically important because the raft, the concrete raft that's being proposed to protect the buried archaeology will have to have foundations which take it down to 3 metres which will in fact destroy the buried archaeology. There is one structure in particular which is a furnace which is unique within the world and it's the first example of a furnace that was designed to use coke. It's actually probably more important than the old Derby furnace and that is very vulnerable to potential damage and these are the things that matter most to Icamos. If this were to happen, it would affect the world heritage status of the site. I would argue that the various technical reports, particularly the archaeological management plan and the heritage impact assessment, need to take into account that there probably were buildings belonging to the Derby era surviving at less than 1.5 and 3 metres deep and I have copies of reports where the trial pits that were carried out is part of this program identified buried archaeological remains going down to between 1.5 and 3 metres. If they remove and consolidate and re-engineer the ground, they will destroy this buried archaeology which is about standing universal value contrary to national planning policy guidelines and the national planning policy framework. Marion, can I gather that you... Marion, I gather that you've also got something else to say regarding the other application for the arga. I don't know if you want to say it now, we're right. My point is about the setting of the listed building, the compressor house and the scale, the size of the apartment block which for its design reference in a sense is probably more like one of the huge textile mills from Hancock and Coats in Manchester rather than the structure of the smaller industrial buildings that were typical of Colbert Dale at that time. What particularly are coming back really to the large concrete raft again which this structure, the element that's adjacent to the listed building will be overwhelming to it. It's clear from the reports by geo risk management and the engineers that the raft is not a done deal. In fact, the geotechnical engineer and geo risk management both say they feel there should be piles rather than the concrete raft and they also not convinced that the ground is actually sufficiently stable to cope with the building of such great size and could lead to warping etc. So I view this as a concern for the listed buildings at the north end of the site. That's my only other point, thank you. Okay, thank you. Right, can I ask for Andy Sheldon, the applicant? Good evening, thanks very much indeed for the opportunity to speak tonight. I do intend to brief as I think the message I've got is really quite simple. I don't intend to respond to the number of issues that have been raised because I think all of them are covered in the office's report. That said, the latest one that's been raised regarding the archaeological remains and debts, we have assessed that in great detail as is noted in the report. But if there were concerns around that in terms of the type of investigations and the type of foundation, quite capable of being conditioned. Outside of that, the application site is in a derelict state in what's clearly a really significant location being situated within the World Heritage site. It needs to be brought back into a beneficial use. And without our scheme going ahead, I cannot see a way for the site to be removed from which current situation is an ISIL. Our proposed development will provide an exceptionally high quality scheme which recognises and is sympathetic to its location and history and has been designed following extensive investigations and assessments. All the statutory consulties, including your planning, highways and drainage officers, along with the historic England support, along with historic England, support the scheme and the benefits it will bring. They confirm there are no technical reasons why the site can't be developed as we've proposed and that the design of the scheme is appropriate for this location. We recognise that it can must have objected, but they aren't a statutory consultee and despite our request have not visited the site and as a result we don't believe their comments are based on a full understanding of the situation. We also recognise there have been a large number of objections. This however isn't unusual for applications in sensitive locations and it doesn't mean that our proposals should be refused as a result of those objections. I therefore urge you to consider the quality of the proposed scheme and its associated benefits and support your officers recommendation to confirm that you will be minded to grant permission. Thank you very much. Andrew, why are you there? Are you further to Marion's comments? Is there anything else you want to add to answer her queries about that? Yes, thank you for that Chair. One comment was made regarding the design, scale, nature of the department block. That was inappropriate. I think you can be seen. Any members who visited the site today will have seen the scale of current buildings, the apartment block is certainly not any greater than those. In fact, the apartment block came about as from discussions particularly with Historic England who felt that that was actually the best development as echoing and recognising the historic past of the site and therefore came about as a result of those discussions. Thank you. Right. I'll open it up now to the – oh, sorry. Penny, do you want to respond accordingly? Yes. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to give a bit of a summary really and also try and respond to some of the comments made by the speakers. It's appreciated that the history of this application is somewhat complicated, so I wanted to just try and summarize the involvement with Ichimos UK and Ichimos. Ichimos are not a statutory consultation and it is for Historic England to notify them through the Department of Culture and Media and Sport known as DCMS of any applications they feel relevant. Ichimos UK were notified of the application by third parties and they made comments on the application posted to the initial consultation period. The local planning authority met with Ichimos UK alongside Historic England and Shropshire Archaeology to discuss their comments and make them aware of the site's history, constraints and the viability issues. They made it clear during the discussions that they were not formally objecting to the application and understood the need for redevelopment to take place but would like to see their comments and suggestions considered. The biggest area of concern for Ichimos UK and Ichimos are set out in the technical review was the northern portion of the site that potentially holds archaeological remains, which could potentially relate back to the time of the Abraham Derby's involvement in the site. Shropshire homes have undertaken a substantial level of additional work to support their application, trying to demonstrate how the proposal tells the site narrative, irrespective of its former industrial past and respects the surrounding landscape character all of which are points raised by Ichimos. They have also made efforts to go away and consider redesigning the site in order to retain the northern portion of the site, where the earliest archaeology may be present, to overcome the main concern relating to density and archaeological impacts. However, what the Ichimos concerns do not consider is the planning balance, and that is the approach in which officers are governed by through legislation and national policy. The site has a plethora of abnormal costings, not only the remediation of the site itself, given its array of past uses, but the conversion of the listed buildings and the wing shop, a heritage asset, which historically were keen to see preserved, the daylighting of the culvert, as well as the bespoke design details which will make this proposal unique to its location and site history. All of these factors are presented to help tell the site's narrative, demonstrate its evolution and make it accessible to the public. But these do come with substantial costs, which are not necessarily recognised in the technical review from Ichimos. The West mid-combined authority funding of 1.5 million is required to make this site viable, and there is no recognition of that within their comments, only recognising that the management plan for the seven-gore conservation area seeks to secure viable solutions for its redevelopment. Officers consider that the applicants have gone to great lengths to tell the site story from the design of specific units, the roofscape patterns which reflect its industrial past, which can be seen in the aerials that are within your packs today, conversion of the heritage assets and design nods through the public open space and the public art provision. There has been substantial discussions and design changes made through negotiation with myself as planning officer, the built heritage team and also historic England, and these are discussed at length within the committee report. In terms of archaeology, it is standard practice that should archaeological remains be found on private development sites, they are recorded and preserved in situ. Remains are not generally exposed and made a feature of or moved off-site. The applicants have provided a comprehensive archaeological management plan to support the application, which cite recommendations for further investigations and includes the recommendation of less impactful raftmentations on properties at North should it be deemed necessary. This approach has been accepted by structure archaeology and historic England and conditioned accordingly. Of note, historic England have been heavily involved in the massing and layout of the site even before it was first presented to the local planning authority as a pre-application, and although they recognise the comments from Icomos and Icomos UK and as advises to the local planning authority, ensure that we do take account of these concerns, historic England are more aware of the need for a planning balance and consider this to be the most viable use for the site. Both historic England and our bill territory team have deemed the harm to be less than substantial and in this instance para 208 of the MPF requires us to determine the application in the planning balance with the harm weighed against the public benefits. Officers and historic England believe the proposal put forward has significant public benefits as is outlined in the report and reiterated in the conclusions. In notifying DCMS through historic England of the LPA's likely intention to support the application, DCMS wrote to the LPA acknowledging this intention but advising this to address Icomos concerns as much as is feasible. They further advised that should the development go ahead and the Icomos concerns remain, there was a risk that the World Heritage Committee could judge the World Heritage site to have been severely compromised and thus put on heritage at list. This does not mean the World Heritage site status is to be lost, but only that there is a risk that needs to be evaluated. Whilst Icomos concerns are recognised and acknowledged, they are not a decision-taker and thus their comments give little recognition to site constraints, issues surrounding viability, nor the public benefits arising from their scheme. Officers considered the applicants have demonstrated the best and most viable solution for the site and there are no further amendments that could be made which would overcome the remaining concerns raised by Icomos while still achieving a viable site. Turn to some of the comments made by speakers. In terms of the increase in traffic, this has been reviewed by our local highways authority and there is no objection to the application. There was mention of parking and the loss of on-street parking on Wellington Road. The application site has an over-provision of parking and the changes to the access will not result in the loss of any on-street parking on Wellington Road. There was discussion regarding apartments and the density and whether that's suitable in this location and whether there is a need for it. As identified in the committee report, there is a need as identified within the local plan and this is also a feature in terms of the apartment block that was mentioned that it replicates a former three-story building that was on the site in the same orientation and it's something that was first discussed and agreed with historic England when they were looking at the massing and layout of the site before it came to the LPA. I just wanted to touch upon the Colver because I don't think it's necessarily been mentioned too much in the previous sort of presentations really, but what was mentioned in passing. So the site is currently a Brian Field Heart Service site, which just through its redevelopment alone, being made to meet Greenfield runoff rates, there is obviously a vast betterment on this point. Drainage betterment is also being achieved by the daylight of the Colver as members will have seen on their site visit this morning. This involves removing the current restricted and ancient pipe work to which the Colbrook feeds through at a fast pressured rate. This allows a greater area of storage through the site with mechanisms in place to slow the rate of discharge further down stream. In terms of the archaeological remains, the level at which the archaeological remains, if they are present, are currently unknown. As is mentioned in the report, there are a level of overburden from 10 to 15 metres across most of the site. To allow the applicants to do those investigations, they will have to clear the site first, remove all the industrial buildings and it may involve certain radar systems to allow them to determine exactly where those archaeological remains are. Marion Blockley referred to a specific building that she had included in her presentation documents. The applicants have looked at that and tried to align it with the site plan and it's not currently clear where or if the remains of that building are still present. Obviously, that will form part of their further investigations that would be conditioned. Raft foundations have been suggested where necessary and obviously this will result in some intrusion, but this would be managed through the archaeological management plan. It's considered that all the points raised by speakers have been addressed in detail within the committee report with a vast array of very specific detail conditions imposed. Just before I conclude, I wanted to make members aware as well that we have received this week, not yet being validated, but an application to demolish the non-heritage industrial buildings that are on the site. As members will have seen today, the Wing Shop has had some partial demolition and the pattern shop, which is a listed building, has also had to be demolished due to safety and stability concerns, but whilst the site is covered by CCTV and security events and they are obviously still having problems of urban trespassers and the like and therefore with the safety of the site, they have submitted that application just to make you aware. So, in conclusion, officers have given due consideration to Ichamoss comments and the risk of the loss of the World Heritage Site status, but this is not a material planning reason to warrant the refusal of the application. Any planning refusal can only be justified if the harm was substantial. On balance, taking care of the site constraints, the identified level of harm, which is considered less than substantial, as was discussed with our bill territory team and historic England, and the variety of public benefits as outlined in the report, officers considered that the proposal is compliant and relevant policies of the Telford Rican local plan and the guidance contained within the MPF. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. Right, I'll open it up to the members, please. Yes, Peter. Are we through? Yes, I'm on. Okay, I find it a bit bizarre, really, to be asked to make a decision on this, so we're not going to make a decision on. And if it had come to us a few months ago, I think I would have had a different view than I do now, which I find quite interesting. Just to confirm that, Penny, can you underline the fact that we, as a planning committee, cannot take the risk of the loss of the heritage site as part of our decision. Is that correct? Because that's a big concern, obviously. Thank you. Yeah, it's not a material planning consideration. Obviously, it's something that you need to consider, and it's concerns that have been raised, but it's not a material planning consideration. We have to consider it in the planning balance and consider it in corners for paragraph 208. Okay, thank you. There's a huge benefit, actually, to be able to go on the site visit today. I've never been in the site. I know what to expect to go into that site, and to be perfectly honest, I never really noted it much when it was open. So it did help me to understand it, and it is in a terrible condition that it stands right now. I do think that the proposals are actually very sympathetic to the area. From a visual point of view, I think that in itself is actually a good thing, and I would not be against it in those terms. I can't see how it's going to be redeveloped any other way. I do fully understand the concerns about the heritage site. I mean, that would, to lose it, would be a disaster. But I can't see that there's anything in this report. I mean, I've never heard of Ichamoss. I've never heard of Ichamoss International before. I don't know what their strength is. But one thing that I would like to just touch on, if I may, here we have another large development, potentially. I'd like to know what discussion was made with health services locally to deal with the influx of potentially 200 plus people, maybe more, because we can't keep giving out large developments without something being done to help the local health services. And I'm, of course, talking about doctors, surgeries and dentists. Was there a conversation at least? Thank you. I think we've had this conversation many times, haven't we? There has been no conversation. There has been no request to make contributions to it. Obviously, this site is one that is currently in the built up area of Telford. There will be discussions with them as the local plan review progresses and further additional sites. But obviously, this site is in the built up area of Telford, in principle, the location is suitable. So therefore, they have not made any request for the country. I think that's very, very wrong and it has to change. It really does have to change. My thoughts on Interarch include on this is that as a development site, it is actually good. I do like what I'm seeing. I'm going to have to balance up my decision on whether, and I'm hearing from other people, obviously, whether the threat of loss of the world heritage site is real. I have to understand that. So I shall refer and defer my decision until the end. But overall, as I say, because I've been and I've walked on that site and I've seen what's there and I've seen what could be there, I am touching towards, yes, I'd like it. OK, thank you. Thank you, Peter. Can I ask Councillor Giles? Peter, please. OK, I'll keep this brief. I would have concerns to the current plans on the basis of risking the UNESCO World Heritage Site status, because I believe it's of too high value to the borough of Talfillarican Council to lose that and also losing an important local archaeological site. I also appreciate that the buildings do need to be brought back into use or they could potentially be lost forever completely as well. So if this were to have come to us as a planning committee, for those reasons, I personally would have objected to the plans and asked for further consultation, but it's not a decision that's going to be made by this committee. So that would have been my view on it. Thank you. Thank you. Any? Yes? Thanks. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yeah, I was really glad I went on the site visit. I mean, it's actually the second time I've been around that foundry and went a few years ago. But this site is terribly derelict and overgrown. I mean, I think there's any application on this site would be deemed controversial and could be regarded as a threat to the World Heritage status. I mean, you know, would there be support if there was a proposal to put a foundry on there? Probably. But the thing is that the site is definitely going to have to have something done with it because the buildings are virtually, well, they were too dangerous for us to go inside. And certainly the heritage buildings that are proposed to be kept with this development, you know, sort of they need attention now before they get too far gone and have to be demolished completely. There doesn't seem to be a lot of workers gone into this application and, you know, into the detail of trying to make sure that it does not to the heritage and what has gone before, even the aerial viewpoint from those buildings that overlook the site, you know, sort of the actual look of the site from above does reflect what the foundry used to look like. I'm very glad that the entrance gates are proposed to be kept. I didn't notice that in the report. But I didn't notice it's on the screen. And I think that's quite important. I mean, with regards to the coal brook, I was quite surprised as to how rapid a torrent it is going through there. Really surprised. And I do think that if this development was to go ahead, well, then there should be some fencing or something done because obviously there's going to be children on the site. And it's quite a rapid flow. And I see that there's ponds and all sorts of things going to be on site. Now, the thing is, is that, you know, sort of, yeah, I'm really concerned about the loss of any danger towards the World Heritage site. However, you know, sort of this site has been sort of, has been private. There's been nothing happening for several years on it. And we have got quite a lot of world-class attractions across the gorge. And I would be very, very surprised if, you know, sort of, yes, there may be a danger to the loss of the heritage of the Derby foundry, but I'm not sure how you would mitigate that with any development. And the thing is, though, I can't see how the loss of that particular site is going to be reflected across the entire gorge because, as we know, we've got lots of really good world-class attractions across the gorge. And I'll be very, very surprised if this one little bit that hasn't been utilized at all would put that into mind. Would put that into jeopardy. So, well, so the development as a whole, you know, sort of looks very good. The looks acceptable. The developer has done quite a few things, quite a few developments across Telford and Reakin with regards to bringing back into use assets, as we've seen in the report. So, you know, sort of, I'm minded to think that this would be OK, although, as I say, I do have serious concerns like my colleagues on the committee, if the World Heritage site was going to be put into jeopardy. Thank you. Can I ask Councillor JEMMA-Oflund, please. Thanks, Chair. So, yeah, looking at the site itself, I think you've already noted that we can't take into account World Heritage, but I think it's really important locally. Archaeology and retaining all that is definitely key to local area and local history. Also, I think the key point is, with regards to egg mass, egg mass looks at best practice. On my day job, I look at best practice across my job to in order patient care across the thing. And then when we come into the actual area on, we have more residents within the area. We haven't done anything to mitigate local amenities. I think, and I think we need to do more of that. So, if we've got GPs that have fallen already, if we've got any certain shops within the area, we all say that, well, we can come to Telford Town Centre, but actual fact, where does it stop when we're getting more and more of a population into areas. So, for me, that would be the World Heritage and Protecting History and local amenities, actually not feasibility wise and looked at that. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Stupendly? Thank you. Fortunately, three years ago, I wasn't on the planning committee, so I wouldn't have had to make this decision, would I? Having said that, I do recognise the historical value of the site dating back, of course, to the 18th century, and probably before that as well. However, it is a brownfield site, it is derelict, and whilst I wasn't on the trip to date around it, I do know the site very well. I also know the applicants very well, and I have to say, I have a lot of faith in what they will do, in what they will bring to the community, how they will engage with the community. I am not convinced about what is drawn within there, with the architecture, but that, again, I think can be rectified. The highways issues, I think they need to be looked at again. I do think there will be issues with regards to parking along Wellington Road, and I think within this report somewhere I read, that our highways have done a model that doesn't actually say there will be any impact on Kerry Cree Hill with traffic. Given the number of times that Gigas Bank is closed, I failed to see how that one works. Having said that, something does need to be done. I think there is more to do about it. It surprises me that only since it became in the media that the applicant was actually making an application to the inspector for non-determination, the various people started raising their heads. Why weren't they doing that two or three years ago? They knew it was going to happen. And I appreciate the World Heritage Site needs to be protected. But I think that also fell by the wayside when Shropshire County Council approved the site of Builders. I think if we were to take this to the inspector now, we'd lose. Thank you. Chair, I read this report. It's a comprehensive report a couple of times. And to be fair, I visited this place. I was a mayor for two or three years ago. And at that time, they gave someone a vote to the old furnace, the one we just talked about. Even at that time, I could see a solid state of the whole thing, because it's not being maintained properly. It's not the money not being spent to keep the building, the things up to scratch, and they are falling down. And as far as the application is concerned, I haven't seen any of the utilities complaining about their, you know, any problems. And also, the applicant has decided to give one or six money to, they're going to 20% discounted market dwelling, 10,000 financial contribution towards the maintenance of many men of jail copies. And 15,000 financial contributions to traffic calming improvements in our bridge and 23,000 towards installation of play equipment, cherry help, and 106 monitoring fees. What I'm trying to say is that something need to be done. If we don't do anything, it will get worse and worse, and it's an eyesore at the moment. I think this is the one opportunity where we can actually save the heritage, this heritage place, because the money that's going to be invested in there will save, that can be saved for a long time to come. So I think this is a good application, and I will be supporting this one. Thank you. Thank you. Can, Pena, if you want to comment on any of those points that the members have raised? There's anything specifically that I haven't really already pressed upon in my speech, so unless there's anything specific you'd like me to comment on, I think I'm good. No, as long as you're happy. Right, if that's the case, sort of recommendation. Sorry, Peter. I pressed the button, yeah. Can I just say that whatever decision is made? I mean, bear in mind this is not wholly binding on anyone as such. Can it be expressed that unanimously this community had concerns and have concerns over the world heritage status? That must be part of any, whether we refuse or whether we agree it, it must be plain that it was unanimous amongst us, please. Okay, thank you. Right, the recommendation is to grant the delegated authority to the service delivery manager to grant full planning permission. Yeah, that's all. It's all, isn't it? We just want you to refer to the... At the very start, isn't it, of the committee report? Okay, hold on a sec. Hold on a sec. Hold it easy. That one, that one, sorry. Right, take it all back. It is recommended that the committee advise whether they would have been minded to grant the application for the reasons below to, oh, that have been discussed to assist the council's response to the non-determination appeal. So if we can have a vote on that, if those that are for that particular recommendation, okay, those are against... Any abstentions? One. Oh, I'm sorry, I'll go for four. All right, okay, that is carried. Okay, thank you. All right. And then we need to do it for the list of building ones. Oh, yeah, for the same one, for zero, three, five, eight. Yeah. Okay, yeah, that's fine. So a recommendation is exactly the same on application TWC 2021 0358. So can we have a vote for the recommendation for the second application for the ARG. Okay, those that are against... Okay, before we do that, can we just ask a question? What will you say? We're proving there. Are we approving the full planning application now? No, the list of building... Oh, right. ...on the second application, 0358. Okay. So might as well just repeat. Those are the four, that particular application. Okay, five. Those are the against. Okay, that is carried. Thank you. Right. The next application to be discussed is TWC. TWC 2023 0481. The site of haven, boarding kennels and category. The ridge is one, light more road, light more Telford. Okay. Andy? Thank you, chair. Okay, thank you. This application seeks full planning permission for the reaction of windwellings, following the demolition of one welling and existing outbuildings at the site of haven, boarding kennels and category, light more. The application has been determined by members at the request of Dorely Hamlet's parish council, at which point chair, I'll hand over to you for the speakers. Okay, thank you. Right. Can I ask for Councillor Kate Barnes of the Dorely Hamlet's parish council? Dorely Hamlet's parish council object to the planning application on the main grounds of serious concerns for road safety for future residents. Whilst there are a number of objections on the portal in regards to the ecological impact, please note that the ecology's report does note the scenario of large population of great crested needs, and it's also in close proximity to three local nature reserves. And there's also concerns about development, but the crucial point that I'll be raising today is the highly dangerous highway conditions for future residents. For those who don't know the area, let me take you on a journey as a pedestrian. Existing the development, turn right and after a short walk through Woodland, you will hit the busy April 169, one of the main gateways to Telford, from Lourley, Shoe'sbury, I'm rich, much better than I can so on. Whilst the highway documents in close to your documents show plans to change this footpath to the bypass and include drop curbs, this is not address safety concerns for pedestrians crossing a 60 mile per hour road. Take a moment to consider the young families here walking to the Woodside Amelities, T&A just made the academy, and consider this is already a reality for residents of Lourley Road. People are witnessing young families crossing what is known as the bypass, a fast-loan road that has seen two serious collisions in the last six months alone. One being a fatality, and one where the engine, the car, is thrown to the other side of the road, where residents are expected to walk. Let's continue our journey, but this time turn left. Lightmore Road is a busy through road used by residents of Doseley and Little Dourley, as well as drivers using it as a route ramp. Whilst the road has recently been changed 30 miles per hour, there are no traffic calming measures to enforce this, no street lighting, and no pavements, making it extremely dangerous for pedestrians. There are many places on the road that make it difficult for pedestrians to see oncoming vehicles, and drivers to see the coming pedestrians until the very last minute. Again, take a moment to imagine the young families with prams, T&A students, and various adults walking on this road with blind bends, and even worse, no lighting on dark mornings and nights. Again, we have seen and heard of the near misses. Finally, let's consider the road for drivers. The T-junction at Lightmore Road and the A4169 is extremely busy, especially at morning and evening rush hours. This we made worse by vehicles from boat developments, and again accidents and near misses are a common occurrence on this junction. To conclude, there are no safe routes to leave this development, and therefore objection and deferral is a pyramids until the infrastructure has been properly addressed by a telephone briefing council. If we expect residents to arrive, then significant improvements need to be made to the bypass, maybe an underpass, or we expect residents to left and then lighting and improve pavements are needed. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Can I ask for Mr. David Humphries, the applicant's agent, please. Good evening, chair and members. This application will be going on for some time. I was originally employed to design a scheme and submit an application three years ago. It's been delayed due to further ecology reports and highway issues, which I will say they're all up to date. The phase two ecology report concluded that no evidence of roosting bats or burbs recorded on site and no direct impacts are expected, and all recommendations will be adhered to in the report, i.e. restricted lighting, provision of bat box, etc. The site is a branch of the site situated within the boundary for Telford and is considered as a stable site. The design is a well thought out scheme within the wooded area in south side, like, or with plenty of space between properties and large public community area on site. The design culture features from local areas such as the chimneys, dormer windows, and the choice of materials will be complemented with the surrounding area. East dwelling complies with national described housing standards spaces within dwellings. The houses of good design and have been approved elsewhere in immediate area. Each dwelling has more than adequate garden space. Each property is being provided with two spaces, which is in accordance with a local plan, a parking standard, and an eerie charging point provided. The vast majority of trees, which are located on the site, will be maintained. There's very few trees within the centre which need to be removed. There was a request for a refuge collection vehicle to enter the site, which needed an increased road width. But then it was subsequently decided that the site wasn't going to be adopted. Or even though that we've left the road the same, and so it gives a better format and a better access and better access from emergency vehicles. We've carried out speed tests and provided a highway report to provide the existing access junction is suitable for the development. The existing access, which currently serves two properties, will be used for the new development. Clear visibility and access width, which we've proposed a link to the development from the existing footpath on Lightmore Road. I understand that highway improvements have been undertaken, or will be undertaken, as part of the development of the adjacent site of 52 houses on Lightmore Road on the Oxford River Works. There has been a few highway incidents on the main A416. But these are away from the site, and the local highway department have approved upposals for this site. It is agreed that the principal of drainage for the site for both founds of water has been a great agreement to agree that the principal's engineers and the detail of design will be submitted to clear areas. It's time for it. Time's up. Can you conclude? Yeah? Yeah, finish, yeah, conclusion. Getters that it's going to be, it's a well-designed site, and there's, will not have any significant detrimental impact on the immunity as a neighbouring residents' properties and technical issues. Okay, thank you. Right. Andrew, do you want to respond accordingly? Thank you, Chair. So, this scheme has been subject to significant consideration by the local highways authority, as we do with any scheme, but particularly with this scheme. They've, following their assessment, they've been able to support the scheme. That's their recommendation as professional highway officers to ourselves, as planners and to yourselves, as members. As part of the proposal, the applicant will provide a pedestrian footlink from the south, so, sorry, from the site to the existing pedestrian facilities and the junction of Lightmore Road. So, that's when you come out of the site itself, turn right, and then turn right on to the main Lightmore Road. It's a little bit confusing because they're both called Lightmore Road, the main one, and then when it tees off, wear access off to the site is provided. In addition to this, the applicant was going to carry out some appropriate resurfacing of the carriageway, where that's necessary, and any other engineer operations required in connection with the provision of the pedestrian facilities. The High Reserve Authority contend that adequate visibility splays and parking provision have been made to and from the site, and obviously the parking is on the site itself. As noted, there are some additional off-site fireworks that were approved as part of the development to the north, which is the former concrete works, that was for 52 dwellings. These improvements include the creation of a pedestrian refuge on the A4169 or the bypass, together with a reduction in the speed limit on Lightmore Road itself to 30 miles an hour, and then one of the slides, which is this one, shows that there's going to be some 30 mile an hour speed limit painted on the highway, together with some, what's known as Dragon's Teeth, to delineate the speed limit. We've also got some, the plan will show some improvements to the footpath along Lightmore Road itself, which shows a dropped curb across one of the accesses. In addition to this, and it's not secured as part of this scheme, but the council as a local hire authority are investigating if any improvements can be made to the pedestrian routes to the north to Little Dolly. There's no concrete scheme in place in the minute, but that is something that's being looked into. That said, our local hire authority contend that the scheme, as proposed, with the requirements that we've sought would be acceptable in planning terms, and therefore officer recommendation is for approval. I think that's everything I've got about the highways chair for the time being. Okay, thank you. Right, I'll open it up to the committee. Right, Peter. Thank you. The agent did say that the bin wagon wouldn't be going up that bank, so does that mean that the residents up there have to bring the bins down to the main road? So, what we, if it's not possible for a bin lorry to access the site itself or the property, a provision is made within the site, which is approximately 25 metres from the highway so that the bin lorry operators can kind of collect them. So, they'll have to bring them down, basically? Not only to the bin collection point. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Right. Yeah. As an overall design, I quite liked it. It's a great shame that that rather large and pleasant house has to be demonish, but that's the decision of the owner I take. It was good to see that there was a new footpath being made from the entrance to the site right round to the A4 169, and I agree with the decision to close the little pathway through the woods, because really you can see how dangerous it is for particularly children and maybe even on bikes from coming down that bank and straight on to what is currently a fast road, which is what we saw today, so that in itself is a good thing. I think it's also good to know that there is going to be a reduction and more safety features on that particular road, but I know the A4 169 is not part of this application, and I know from speaking with the highways officer this afternoon that there is a bid at some point to reduce the speed on that. I often wonder why it takes so long to get something like that done, because you're going to have people coming down the road at 60 miles an hour and be expected to be in 30, within seconds. That's absolutely crackers, so whoever can deal with this, at the same time as this site gets done, that road needs to have the limit dropped, and I would personally suggest 40, it doesn't need to be any faster than that, but it can't stay as it is because it will have an impact on like more road itself. But overall, there's nothing wrong with the actual design, it would be a very nice place to live. I could imagine it being another pleasant, so I would support it, I will support it, but I would like to see something happening with this speed on the A4 169 in relation to this particular road, because it needs doing, but I wish someone could explain to me why it takes so long. Anyway, that's my view, thank you. Thank you Peter, Giles please. Okay, thank you very much. I've looked at the plans in detail, it's been something that's been rumbling on for quite some time. I don't think the size of the development will have such a significant impact on the volume of traffic that will be using that road, it's busy and well used anyway. And I don't believe it's over development, I think it's quite a well-contained, smallish site, and similar developments across the borough have had planning permission for very similar types of development. So I think we need to be aware of being consistent and fair with people putting planning applications in. Also, as a brownfield site, we have to hit housing targets as a council, and if we don't want to see more greener areas being used for housing development then I think we need to be aware of that, and we have to meet those targets that are set by central government. So I personally, on planning grounds, I can't see any reason why I would object to this application. Thank you. Thank you, Giles. Councillor Stupendly? Thank you, Chair. I listened to what's playing off so much to get into said about the highways and what's proposed there. More interestingly, I'm concerned because this application was withdrawn if I remember right, because of the fatality in that vicinity. It is the comments from Councillor Barnes. Perhaps it would be more useful to go back to Dolly Hamlin, it's Paris Council, our highway department, and have an in-depth conversation with them, get them on board and then be comfortable with this. At this present moment in time, irrespective of how lovely this may look, I think the highways again causes a problem. Thank you, Steve. Councillor Nod, you're talking more? Well, yes, yes. The development itself is fine. It is a highways issue. I mean, the things that are going to be done in sort of in the next week or so, I think the highway guys said on site are welcome. But at the end of the day, the A5169, the speed needs to be reduced. I think 40, to be honest, nobody's going to do 40. It's quite a major highway, particularly once the power station site starts to get finished. Well, the traffic on there is going to be even greater. Basically, it needs a signalised crossing, pedestrian crossing there. And that should have been part of the 106 agreement when they were doing the concrete works. Because when I was going to the site visit this afternoon, I watched people trying to cross. And it is virtually impossible because people are doing 60, 70 miles an hour down there. Until there's a signalised crossing there, it's never going to be right and appropriate. But as far as this particular development goes, it's nine houses and it's not going to make any significant extra impact on that. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. Andrew, do you want to get back on any of those? Okay, right, the recommendation, it's recommended that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager grant full planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives. So can we have a vote? So those that are for the application. Okay, those that are against? Okay, no, no, no, no, no, we're all right. Okay, that is carried. Okay, thank you. Right. The next application is TWC 2024 0087, 60 Spring Meadow, Sutton Hill, Telford. So can I ask for? Yeah, the office, please. Okay. Thank you, Chair. This application is for the conversion of three existing garages to one dwelling at 60 Spring Meadow in Sutton Hill. The application has been called in by Councillor White and the Office of Recommendation is that delegated authority be granted to the service delivery manager to grant full planning permission. There are speakers for this application, Chair. Okay, thank you. Can I ask for Councillor Derek White to come forward? I was not here. Oh, right, okay. In that case, can I ask for Mr Paul Sanders, a member of the public, please? Are there presses? No. Looks like I'm on the old. I lived at 61 Spring Meadow. I purchased my flat six and a half years ago for Mr Thornton. The day it was, I got the garage under number 60, because the garage is under number under my garage. We're all rented out. I've not been rented out over two years. The current three of it will not let me out, but it will take things that are obvious. My wife has cancer. She has six months of intensive chemo therapy, made operation to move three countries from last year. She's now starting a 17 course second round of chemo. She's very ill. I'm down to 35% art function. I just have a four-hour operation on your heart. I don't think we can cope with this. The noise is going to be terrific. If you've been in a flat, you will know that any noise will just be very aggressive in a flat. If the council were doing this, they would enter the flats and do a lot. That would have been reasonable. I couldn't understand that. This is going to stick out up a sore thumb. My access and the access to number 60 stays that the area down the bottom of the stage, which is tiny, and the only way through is for 60 and 61. There's no other easements. It's in the deeds of one of the leases. This application would have all the front of the garages and the backguard in. What does that believe us? The guy doesn't even live around here. I pay my rent for Gary's number 60 to challenge those properties limited. His load would put load. It's going to be some place. He's going to make our lives a mission. We've got enough problems with bringing that up. More than enough. You've got people in your own shop and it's got life. I spent 75,000 pounds on my flat. And some of it can come to the building that needs me. I'm about to receive my fourth pre-old in ten months. Is that right? I can't be right. The guy who was old, my pre-old, were only up the other day and offered me 30,000 pounds on my flat. I think it's pretty obvious what they were going to do. The pre-old was always one. When I was offered the pre-old, I must have told him when his wife died four years ago, I went to the church. I was told no, because of the status and the access. It can't be done on the maintenance on the building. Okay. He's not maintenance on mental. He's just six and a half years. Mr. Saunders, I say, time's up, but okay, but thank you for attending today. Okay, thank you. Andrew, do you want to come in there? Sorry, from... Thank you. The application site is located within the built barrier of Telford, where the principle of residential development is considered acceptable. The scheme will provide a one-bedroom unit, and the applicant has confirmed that this will be for one resident. In this instance, the proposed unit would have a floor area of 43 square metres, and offices are satisfied that the flat will comply with the nationally described space standards, which state that a one bed, one person unit should have a floor area of 37 square metres. Some concern has been raised regarding insulation potentially being needed, and this making the unit even smaller. Even if this was the case, offices do remain of the view that the scale of the unit would remain acceptable. The proposed site plan has outlined that the existing garden will be split into two, with a private amenity area for the proposed unit measuring 35 square metres, and another garden area providing amenity space for the existing first floor flat with access through for the proposed unit. This will measure 42 square metres, and the size of both amenity areas are considered acceptable. The design of the proposal is also considered acceptable, and whilst the site does form part of a wider row of existing garages, and the ground floor will no longer have the appearance of three garages, this is not considered to result in significantly detrimental harm. The works are considered to demonstrate an integrated design approach, and will respect and respond positively to the context of the site and its surrounding area. Whilst the proposal would see the loss of three internal garages, these have been measured and have a footprint of 2.6 metres by 5.1 metres. As per the Department for Transport's Manual for Streets, it is recommended that internal garages should measure a minimum of 3 by 6 metres, and as such the existing garages are inappropriately sized for the parking of vehicles, and their loss would not result in a displacement of parking. Furthermore, three off-road parking spaces have been shown to the front of the application site. After making Council's standards outlined that both the existing and proposed units would require 1.3 parking spaces, and the proposed site plan has demonstrated one space for both the existing and proposed units, as well as a visitor space, none of which would fall within the adopted highway. The local highways authority have been consulted and have supported the proposal subject to conditions with a level of parking proposed being considered acceptable, and no other concerns have been raised by statutory consultees in this instance. A window has been shown on the rear elevation of the proposed unit, and as this would open out onto the garden area for the existing first floor flat, to ensure that this would not result in overlooking or a loss of privacy, officers have proposed to include a condition requesting that this window is obscurely glazed and a top-ung window only with a restricted opening of 100 millimetres. This may however need to be openable further in emergency situations only in order to satisfy building regs, as it would serve the bedroom for the ground floor unit. Concern has also been raised regarding the impact of the proposed construction works on neighbouring properties, and whilst the level of development is considered to be minor, officers would be happy to include a condition on the decision notice requesting details of construction works, including items such as hours of operation and parking on site personnel, and details of that would be assessed further as part of a discharge conditions application. Officers are therefore satisfied that the proposal will not result in any significantly detrimental harm upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, and in terms of internal works as well, that would require building regs, so a further assessment would be carried out to ensure that the noise levels internally are acceptable. Finally, a number of concerns and comments have been raised regarding the ownership of the application site and the gardens to the rear. During the application process, the applicant has provided documents evidence in ownership, and the relevant certificate of ownership has been completed. Whilst officers are satisfied with this, it must be noted that the matter of land ownership is not a material consideration, but is instead a civil matter. A comment has also been raised regarding the existing communal areas for number 60 and 61, which is understood to be the area surrounding the existing external staircase, which is between the two, and whilst these concerns have been noted, no development has been proposed within this area, and so it's not considered to have any impact on neighbouring properties. To conclude, officers consider that the proposed works are acceptable, complying with the relevant local and national policies, and the officer recommendation is that delegated authority be granted to the service delivery manager to grant planning permission subject to the relevant conditions and informatives. Thank you. Thank you, Chloe. Right, I'll pass this over to the members of Councillor Steve Bentley. Thank you, Jane. First, I have no where issues with the development as is outlined here. I find it disappointing that the Councillor who called it in isn't here to support his ward resident, because that may have made a difference. So, I'm in favour of the recommendation. Thank you. Right, Councillor NARJORDS-DOGMOL. Very good. Yeah, well, I'm not very happy about this at all. It was very useful going on the site visit. I mean, you know, sort of, we're being told that this is a one-bed, one-person flat. Well, the flat above has got three people in it. So, you know, complying with the space standards, I don't think we can accept that, really. And so, I'm not convinced that it's big enough. And also, I do think that it starts to set a precedent. And if all the garages are converted into flats, well, there will be insufficient off-street parking, because nobody will be able to park anywhere at all. I do think that this is very ill thought out, and I'm quite surprised that it's being offered for approval, because it's totally unsuitable. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Can Sir Peter Scott? Thank you. Yes, I completely agree with Councillor Dunbar on this one. I actually do not like it at all. We spoke with Mr Saunders this afternoon. He came over to us and spoke, and he's spoken again tonight. And I know it's not material, product conditions, but, quite frankly, there was an emotional point of view, and my heart goes out to the man average. I live next door to what's going to happen here. It shouldn't happen. I know that isn't something we can decide. I feel it's wrong. There are some civil issues here that need sorting out on ownership. I would much rather this had been sorted out before it came anywhere near us. This garden they're talking about at the back, being cut into two, how the hell are you going to do that? Have you seen it? The whole thing doesn't fit. Yes, loss of garage space. You start doing that, and we already saw that this area has a lot of cars on the road anyway. The precedent that was set in Southgate, the precedent in Southgate, I believe, turned the whole thing into a house, top and bottom, two floors, two stories. That might have been more acceptable, but to turn garages into a flat. It just doesn't wash with me, so I really cannot support this at all. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor GRILL's letter. Thank you very much. I'm on that. Thank you very much. I agree with the other members of the committee. I just don't see this as an appropriate development. I think, albeit, that it might fit within guidelines for the size of a flat, I don't like this kind of cramped accommodation squeezed into areas like this with the removal of garages. I don't think it's a suitable place for this kind of property to be built. So I would agree with the rest of the committee that I don't think I could approve this application. Thank you. Councillor Ambrich, Johar. Thank you. I'm a little bit confused because garages used to be used for parking the cars in there. Nobody does these days. Either they're used for storage or some other properties. I mean, my own garages turned into sitting in the living room, what we call the study room. So, personally, I don't think I have any objection to this one. Because the use of that space is much more beneficial as a flat than using a storage or anything else. So long, the cars are parked on the roof. They have parking spaces. That's fine. I've got no problem with that. Thank you. Okay. So, Gemma, offaland. I think it's a difficult one because what we're going to get asked the question is what is our planning reason for objecting to the developments. And I think I've been here before where everybody's looked at me down the table trying to think of a planning reason to object to the application. My heart goes out to Mr Saunders with everything that you've got going on. And I think we're in a very difficult position. Unless we can think of a planning reason, then the application will potentially go through anyway because we haven't got a planning reason to object to it. But what we can do as part of the application is look at the mitigation around building times and things like that to support yourself and your wife during this difficult time. Of illness. And then hopefully your local Councillor can have discussions around ownership with you. But obviously that's what they're there to support with residents obviously from myself. I go out to residents. So I think it's going to be a difficult one. I don't agree that we should go forward and have garages turned into properties because that has a massive issue I think across the borough. Sorry Mr Saunders, you've had your time to speak. So basically I think for me it is a difficult one because I'm sitting here trying to wrap my head of what planning reason we can object to this. So members down the table who were old hats at this, please. You know. Okay. All right. Thank you, Gemma. Okay. Chloe. Anything to add? Okay. Right. We can go straight into the recommendation then. So it's recommended that delegated authority be granted to the development management service delivery manager to grant for planning permission subject to conditions and informatives. So if we can have a vote on that. Those that are for the application. Now. Okay. Those that are against the application. And any abstentions now. Okay. So that. Piles. So. Yep, we need so. Yeah. Is there any. If I may. In terms of your reasons for refusal. They must be contrary to the local plan and to the national planning policy guidance. You're aware of what's in our local plan. You're aware in terms of that there are parking standards within our local plan. They're confirmed that it complies with those parking standards. So in terms of a issue around parking grounds, I do have to worry his concerns around that. In terms of a mean tea within the property itself. You're talking about a cramped development. Well, we've already set out that it complies with the standards for a warm bed for the space of a warm bed unit. Now, these things are important within the bottom wherever the makeups are. So that's why we have these standards as well. So I just want you to be very clear and firm as to what. In terms of the bedroom size, though, it is the two two person, is it not? In terms of the bedroom size, it isn't a single bedroom. Is it? Yeah, it's. It was down as a warm bedroom. Yeah. It's a warm bedroom unit. It's a warm bed. It's 12 foot 2.8. We don't get too many trouble with this. It's actually one or six. Yeah. And Andrew, do you want to come in there? Yes, please, thank you. Yeah. Right, I'm on now. Just in terms of the compliance with the nationally described space standards, that's in policy HO4 of a local plan. That only applies to major developments. What we've done to try and test whether the scheme is acceptable. We often look at it whether minor schemes, which are nine dwellings or below. That's this one because it's obviously one dwelling. Still comply. That's the reason why we put about the NDS compliance within the reports. But it doesn't actually need to comply with it to be policy compliant, if that makes sense. In terms of the other issues that have been raised, as Chloe outlined, the manual for streets is the highways document, which outlines how large parking spaces should be. And they include spaces within garages. What manual for streets says is that there needs to be three by six metres internally for it to constitute a space. The assessment we've undertaken is that it's too small to accommodate a car. So therefore, cars don't park in it. So there isn't any displacement. We also checked, because sometimes you get instances where - sorry, sorry, I rephrase that. And the parking spaces to the front, which are those three spaces, will also be retained. So what we've done is we've looked - there needs to be one parking space for the first floor flat, the existing first floor flat. And then one space for the proposed ground floor flat. And then the third space will become a visitor space or be allocated to one of those apartments. So we'd really struggled to say that we harm derived from the loss of parking because they're not big enough to constitute spaces. And then I think with the amenity space, again, there's nothing in the local plan that says that a garden must be x square metres. What we do as offices is we look at best practice. We're content that for two one bed units that the two gardens, which I think are 35 and 42 square metres roughly, they're compliant. So that's our response as offices in terms of the three issues being raised. I'm obviously happy to answer any further questions. OK, thank you. [INAUDIBLE] Houses. But it's a lack of parking. It's a reduction in parking provision within the environment. But I think on this one, I'd be quite happy for the applicant to go to appeal. Let's see what the... Just like the World Heritage site. Yeah. That's somebody else's decide, but... Well, as I'm concerned, it's totally unsuitable. Yeah, thank you, Noah, Joyles. So... So in terms of already being an existing garage, so it was built as a garage for a car. Is it no longer classed as that? Because planning regulations have changed, that no longer is classed as a garage then, if it's not deemed suitable for parking in a vehicle. Because surely if it's classed as a garage and its purpose was for parking of a vehicle and it met the requirements within previous planning law, it's still classed as a garage and therefore is its purpose by extension is for the parking of a vehicle. So surely that would still be classed, even though new planning law has superseded this. It's still technically classed as a garage and as a parking space. So in terms of it being a previously classed as a garage and a parking space, surely the previous planning that it had would still determine that it is classed as a parking space. And as such would be a reduction in parking. To respond. I think we may have complicated matters by trying to determine whether it's a usable garage or not because the main thing is that there's two one-bedroom flats that will use the three parking spaces. So to phrase it differently, even if these garages were big enough to accommodate a car, it wouldn't really matter if there would be a lost through conversion because the most important thing at the end of the conversion is that you have sufficient parking for the two units. Because the minute there's one unit that uses three parking spaces which is an over provision. Oh, it's okay. So Chloe's just informed me that the first floor flat doesn't have any rights through the lease, any leasehold to use the parking. So the minute none of the parking is required, is used by the first floor flat. But what I'd like members to consider is that if this were to be converted, you'd have two one-bedroom flats. The parking requirements are 1.3 spaces. So we will have three spaces which will meet the parking standards. So we can't say there's insufficient parking for the units. That's what I'm trying to convey. Because there's no loss of parking. In terms of the units themselves, those parking, those garages, they're not attached to any unit. There's no right by any property within the area to utilise those. The owner owns them separately. He doesn't live locally within that proximity to be able to partner and to utilise it. So this is effectively giving a use for those disused garages. Now, he also owns the forecourt that's in front of those parking spaces as well. So in terms of this planning application as well, it would give a right for parking. We can control that through condition for that first floor flat too. Okay. Yes, Steve. I don't know if you've been hung up on the parking provision here. When these garages were built in the early '60s, they were a lot, the vehicles that were around were a lot smaller, and therefore they would have been accommodated. If we were looking at this for a conversion now as a garage to shoot today's vehicles, you'd still lose one parking space because you could only create two garages out of three. And the situation of the ownership is not unusual across all our new town estates. Therefore, at this present moment in time, these garages cannot be used for anything other than standing empty and idle. And to try and bring something into use, provide a home for somebody, I don't think it's such a bad thing as long as it's done at the end of the day in a correct manner and we follow all the procedures and we keep an eye on this. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. So what we'll do is we'll recommend the planning application again. So, I was just trying to reconfirm in terms of members that you've already made your decision in terms of you want to refuse it. I just really want to get back out of you those reasons for refusal. All right. Okay. So you're directing them, discussing what's the reason? There needs to be two resolutions. One is that they're going to get also to be refused. So I did two grants have been refused. Okay. Okay. Right. So, yeah, the delegated approval has been denied on this particular one. So we do need to list. Yes? No. Nigel? No, Nigel? I bet you are. Shane? I don't think we'll fit pulled in Rags, but I think they won't win it down here. Okay. Get there is that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Determinate enabling properties. Boss of parking provision for the community. I'm setting a precedent. Okay. Did you get that? Yeah. Yeah. Just in terms of just that technicality, again, in terms of the loss of parking provision for the community. There's no right for the community to park there. It's private land. And therefore, for the technical reason, we will have difficulty defending that. That's a difficult one, isn't it? Yeah. If which applicant has a right to do? Every set of three garages around that area, suddenly thinking, Hello, we're going to have a flat here. You know, it is set in a precedent. And I do agree with character Doug Moore on the effect of noise on the people next door and surrounding people. So it just doesn't sound at all right. And the best you'll get out of me tonight is a refusal or I shall... I will not be able to say yes to this, whatever happens. It just isn't right. I just want to be... I'm happy in terms of your refusal. I just want to be very clear in terms of the reason why we are refusing it. And so that because by virtue of whatever you think and put it against it, by virtue of noise, though, is the last comment that you've made. The application is a residential scheme, so there's nothing unusual in terms of untoward of that use that comes from that. The issue is around building regulations which will control internal noise. So that's a matter outside of planning regime to control. So that would be a sufficient insulation that goes into that use of mitigation within the scheme. Okay, Giles, see? Oh, I was just going to just ask George. Well, I think... I've got to have some order. For the maintenance committee to do. Have you been an application to turn your book back into a hand for argument check? Would be more acceptable that the whole time is out. Well, I'd be able to please have your argument. I think we need to keep some order here. I believe I was next to speak. Well, I'd object on the basis standard. It changes the existing street view from what's predominantly a row of garages in one particular setting. And then it breaks the garages up and then it becomes flats within the street view of garages. So it changes the street view on the basis that that's the existing street view. Yeah? Yeah, thank you. So then you want to resolve to refuse all reason. Okay, so therefore it's resolved not to accept this application and... And we'll delegate that to, yeah? To delegate it to the service delivery manager to refuse the application on the grounds of the impact of the proposal on the street scene in accordance with the relevant policy within the local plan. And we will draft an approval verdict in addition and refuse all reason accordingly. That may also open up some dialogue between the landlord and the residents there as well. Okay. Sarah, did you need a vote on the recommendation? Can we have a vote on the new recommendation? Is everyone happy or for that resolution? Street view. Yeah, okay. Thank you. All right. Anybody again still? Yeah, a couple there. All right. Thank you. All right. I think that's the end of the evening. Thanks for attending tonight. Okay. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.