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] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]

Thank you very much. So we're live now. Next for absence, please. None received, Chair, but Councillor Eccleston is joining remotely. Thank you. So somebody, yes. Next, the minutes. We've got two lots of minutes to approve. Shall we do the 15th of May, the most recent one first? Which is the way we voted in the new Vice-Chair and the new members of the committee. Is everybody in agreement with that proposal? Okay, those are agreed, thank you. And then the minutes of the previous planning meeting on the 18th of April. Does anybody have any issues with that? So I propose that we say they are a correct record. Yeah, that's a correct record, thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO] [INAUDIBLE] Were there any urgent items of business? None notified. Thank you. So the planning applications are, the first one, the garage block to the rear of Mostyn House, Maryhill Road. I think that's Officer McKibbett, thank you. Thank you, Chair, I've shared the presentation. This is a full application to redevelop the site, provide 11 two-story houses, six two-bedroom and five three-bedroom units. 38 parking spaces are provided. 14 parking spaces will serve the existing Mostyn House, Mulberry House, and Marsham House adjacent to the site. Two spaces will be provided for each house to be developed, and two visitor parking spaces will be provided. Parking meets the council's adopted parking standards and also provides an additional six parking spaces for additional facts in Mostyn, Mulberry, and Marsham Houses, which is above the eight spaces currently provided. The application is being considered by the planning committee because more than five objections have been received. At the moment, the site contains 55 garages which are largely in poor condition and do not meet current garage size standards. 19 of the garages are still in use. Ten garages are rented out and nine are privately owned. The applicant has previously demolished 43 garages on the site and this area of the site is currently used by Silver Homes as a storage area. Alternative garages are available in Dukes Hill Road for tenants and owners of occupied garages and there are currently 29 vacant garages in Dukes Hill Road. Owners of garages will be offered the option of the applicant buying back their garages if they do not wish to have a replacement one. The application includes surveys submitted by the applicant to show the extent of additional parking taking place on the site which could be displaced if the site was redeveloped. Two surveys were carried out over a period of time which show three additional vehicles who identified parking within the site in the first survey and two additional cars in the second survey. The site does not appear to be widely used as an overflow parking area by local residents and any additional parking that does take place within the site is considered to be unauthorised. The proposal does meet adopted parking standards and provides the additional parking. The access to the site is from the existing access on Maryhill Road and there's a pedestrian link from Shepherds Lane which travels through the site to Maryhill Road and that will be retained. The houses will be two storeys in height, a mix of semi-detached and terraced properties. The houses are shown to be brick built with tile hanging detail shown on the plan on the screen. All houses will be provided with pv panels on the roof. Plots 1 and 2 are closest to properties in Shepherds Lane and these do not have first floor windows in the elevation facing the properties so no overlooking of properties in Shepherds Lane would take place. Plot 1 is a single storey element, a two storey element and another single storey element and that's designed to reduce the bulk of the building along the boundary with properties in Shepherds Lane. A plan has been provided by applicants to show distances between the properties and the outside of the site. The distance between plot 1 and the boundary here is approximately 4.5 to 5 metres but the distances between the properties here are over 20 metres and these are side to rear. Between the plots here and properties in Hartclose there's distances between 30 and 32 metres which is considered acceptable in accordance with our guidance which generally seeks 21 metres window to window distance between properties. Landscaping will be provided with the site along the access road along the properties with Hartclose and also behind the parking areas around here along the boundary with the Kingdom Hall behind. The scheme will achieve a biodiversity net gain of 226% in area habitats and 63% in hedges. Four units of affordable housing will be provided which does achieve the 35% affordable housing as required by policy LP16 of the local plan. One unit is also provided to wheelchair accessible standards and that's shown as plot 1. This will meet the requirements of policy LP38 of the local plan. A climate change assessment has been submitted which is considered to be acceptable. Members did visit the site at the weekend and so I have some photos of the site. Just to remind you this is the existing hard standing areas with properties behind and again here some of the buildings here and the properties adjacent to the site. These are the properties in Hartclose looking over the site. This is the site of the existing terraces of garages. Some of these are occupied but many are not with the existing apartments behind. And another view of the garages with the apartments behind. This is the area of the site from north where silver homes use for storage of construction areas where garages used to be on the site but were demolished a few years ago. And this is a view of the existing access to the site onto Mary Hall Road which will be retained but I believe will also be widened with some signage to allow two-way traffic. A supplementary report has been prepared which sets out amendments to conditions and the recommendation is set out in the main report and is following the completion of planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act relating to the following measures. There is a requirement to enter 278 and section 38 agreements with the Highway Authority to include works to Mary Hall Road from the site access and works of the pedestrian linked to Shepherds Lane. To progress a Town and Country Planning Act section 247 and 248 applications which relate to stopping up and offering of adoption areas within the site. Affordable housing, contributions towards off-site open space and public value, subset specification and management strategy to include a monitoring contribution. Thames Basin Heath SPA mitigation payments and on-site biodiversity net gain management obligations that the assistant director planning be recommended to approve the application subject to conditions in the main report and the supplementary report. Thank you Chair. Thank you very much. So considering the supplementary as well. Now it's question time. Let me... Public speaking. Oh my goodness. I forgot the public speaking. Yes, so we have the objective first and then speaking in response. So is Kelly Hargreaves here please? Hello. Oh, you're online. Thank you. Yes. Lovely. Oh, yes. Speaking virtually. So can't see you. Where can I see you? On that one. Hi Kelly. You'll have three minutes. And then I will give you a warning at 20 seconds left. But you can carry on speaking till I say stop. But I first of all got to get my timer. Hang on. Clock. There we go. Okay. Are you ready? Yes. Lovely. Would you like to start now? The entrance to the garage block is not safe, but you see when you are coming out of the garage block, your view is obstructed from the left. And because of the overflow of parking from the flats, because there are not enough parking spaces, people are coming down on the wrong side of the road. So you don't see them until you're pulling out. This has been an issue for many years and adding traffic to that is going to make that a lot worse. The flats, as it stands, there are 28 flats with only eight parking spaces currently. They're not proposing that they have 28 parking spaces for the flats, which would alleviate parking on the current streets that we already have. Which is making parking in the other streets a lot more difficult than it needs to be. This is causing them to park. Some people are having to park halfway up the path to make road on the road for people to walk past or to drive down. This is also an issue should there be a fire and a fire engine needs to get down that road because there's simply not the space. People who own their own garages do not want to sell and do plan to fight all the way not to sell their garages. The proposed site for Duke's Hill Road for where people can move their garages is also in an appalling state where people are finding their garages have been ripped open in the night and their belongings thrown around. That is not a suitable and it seems that the garage blocks have been allowed to become disrepair. Some people have garages at the bottom of their gardens and they see that as a part of their exit for if there was a fire and that makes them feel safe. The new houses will overlook the houses. The end that they spoke about, maybe not as much, but further down I'm going to be overlooked by four houses. There will be no privacy whatsoever for us, especially if the land is on an incline. The drainage around here is appalling. Our gardens are flooded most winters and I cannot see a new housing development making that end better. The plan for 11 houses on this site, but there's also a plan around the corner on Shepherds Lane for another eight houses. That's 19 extra homes in a small place where there are currently parking issues on every street. Also, we do not have the amenity support this many more houses. You cannot get a doctor's appointment as it stands. You can't get an NHS dentist. Where are the school places coming from? You can't get it as it is. We're just cramming more and more people into small spaces with no regard for what the future, with more and more cars coming on the road, will have the effect on the people currently living here. And it's not fair. Thank you. Very well-timed. There's two seconds left. Well done. Does anybody have a question for the objector? Oh, fact. Just questions of fact. No? Councillor Barnard. Thank you very much and thank you for a very good presentation. In relation to parking for the existing flats, is there any time of day when there are empty spaces out to the back there? Because I'm concerned about the existing levels of parking that are there at the moment all the time. Sometimes you might have a couple of spaces in the day because obviously people go to work, but normally the flats have too many and that you will have a few parking on the side back of our fences when they run out, especially at weekends. But the main problem is if you come onto Merryhill Road at the top where it meets Horsnell Lane, you will have two cars parked on the left hand side and then the rest will park further down the road on the right hand side. And it is impossible sometimes to get through that small gap to come up and down the road. Sometimes you have to find alternative ways into the road because of the parking because obviously a lot of people in the flats don't want to park on Horsnell Lane because that's a part of the permits. So the pressure on Merryhill Road is very, very bad. And that goes on to all the roads that come off of it. Park close, where I live, you can't park there. There are certain times of day people don't move their cars because of it. Thank you. Councillor De Gino. Thank you, Chair. So my question is, you just said that state of those garages is that they are derelict and they are not usable and they've been left to rot. So if they are not being used for parking the cars, then what purpose do they serve to the community? Some of them do have cars parked in them, but not all of them. But I'm also talking about the garage block that we're being told to move to is in just as bad disrepair with doors missing, roofs half taken off. So you're saying that this is too poor for us to use, but then suggesting a site that's just as bad to move to. And you're saying to these people that own their garages that you can't have this site because it's too bad, but you can have a site over there. Every garage I've ever had from Bratton Forest has been robbed. I had some comfort at the fact that I could see my garage from my home and that didn't stop it getting robbed, but I knew about it quicker. Thank you. Just a supplementary. Somebody who owns similar garage or lives in a house with adjacent garage. These garages are very small for current sizes of cars which are being built. I myself find that I cannot use that garage for parking any cars inside unless I own a small mini or smart car. So many people are not using them for parking their cars inside. So somebody has to think of an alternative way to utilize these spaces. Thank you. I understand that. But if you own your garage, you own the right to do whatever you want with your garage. Thank you. Councilor, again, I just thought you referred to flooding and flooding. Could you just explained or give us a bit more kind of understanding of where that is and and the regularity of it? So whenever we have lots of rainfall, especially in the winter, you will get a lot of water in our gardens. So because I have a special needs child, I actually have to have AstroTurf put in my garden. Or my son couldn't use the outside space during the wetter months. And that was funded by the local authority because the water just sits on the it comes down. You can see it coming down the garage box, running down and it sits in the gardens. I think there's a couple of houses that have had flooding issues because of the rain falling off. I don't know whether it's poor drainage. I don't know if it's the grass, you know, the soil. I don't know. But we have it. And it's been like I've lived here twelve years and it's always been an issue. Thank you. I think that's everybody. Thank you very much. And now we'll have the speaking in response. Kelly Royston, would you like to come to the desk here? So same for you, three minutes and I'll give you a warning at 20 seconds. Would you like to start now? Yes. Great. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. The existing garages, the most in-house are in a state of disrepair. Concerns of a fly tipping and antisocial behavior have been raised by local residents. Silver Homes, a stock transfer, non for profit housing association, proposed to redevelop the site to provide eleven new homes for Bracknell residents. The redevelopment of this and to utilize Brownfield site to find new homes is supported by planning policy. Proposal in front of you today has been shaped by pre-application feedback from planning officers at Bracknell Forest Council. It is also the result of public engagement, including an information flyer, a consultation event and questionnaire. Local councilors and Bracknell town councilors were also contacted. The proposal has been designed to protect privacy and immunity of neighboring properties with generous separation distances maintained to properties along Shepherds Lane and Hawk Close. This limited daylight and sunlight report confirms that neighboring properties retain acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight with a proposal in place. The existing garages are dilapidated and in poor condition. The majority of the garages, 65 percent, are currently vacant, but only 19 garages currently in use. Indeed, since the application was submitted, Silver have purchased about eight garages. Garage owners and tenants will be offered an alternative garage nearby, including at Dukes Hill Road, a short walking distance from the site. Overnight parking beat surveys undertaken by a transport consultant, 14 existing parking spaces will be re-provided, reflecting the existing level of parking demand observed outside Maston House and with a garage forecourt. Parking for the new homes fully complies with the council's parking standards, providing two spaces per house in addition to visitor parking. Three wheelchair spaces are proposed and electric vehicle charging provision has also been made. Cycle parking is provided for each property in sheds within the gardens. A north side of pedestrian route through the site between Shepherds Lane and Maryhill Road is provided and the application is supported by the council's transportation team. I'm pleased to confirm to members that the proposal comprises four generally affordable homes for affordable rent, including two family size affordable homes, of which one is also wheelchair adaptable. The proposal provides high quality living standards. All homes on the internal space standards be dual or triple aspect and benefit from private gardens. Reposals two storey homes respect the scale of surrounding buildings. 20 seconds. And the house will have picture views constructed from high quality brick. Landscaping improvements are proposed, including an increase in permeable surface and new planting and proposal significantly exceeds the by doing that game target of 10 percent. We have members agree with the office's recommendation for approval and support this application for a much needed new housing environmental. Thank you very much. Are you OK to answer some questions? Yes, please. Thank you. Can I take Patrick Smith. Thank you. You mentioned 14 existing parking spaces being reallocated. I count in the area adjacent to Mostyn House 11 spaces. Where are the other three spaces? They are kind of high up in the site. So there's there's two separate areas for the parking. But there's yeah, there's a total of 11 and then further three. And those are separate to visit the spaces allocated for the new housing. Yes. So basically it's been parking survey surveys undertaken by the applicant with a specialist transport consultant. And they've assessed the existing levels of parking both from Mostyn House and in the garbage court. And they will be fully provided. On top of that, there's two spaces per house and then for the additional visitor parking as well. And also we disabled parking spaces amongst those spaces. That's great. Thank you. Councillor Barnard, please. Thank you. Can I confirm that you have access to the planning report and all the drawings and things that were submitted with it? Because, chair, if I look at page 30 on our agenda, I believe that we have a picture there of car parking outside Mostyn House, which is not consistent with the plans we have on the screen. If I look at this right, if I'm looking into the site, the CGI picture there shows parking in front of the trees where it currently is, not re provided on this side of the car park. Because we noticed at the planning meeting that there were plans to re provide the housing. Is that the case? Is that not then accurate? Page 30 of our planning agenda, there is a CGI picture which I believe is off the site. I think it's taken with Mostyn House on the right hand side and the house is further down. I don't know if I've got this right or not. If I could interrupt, perhaps that would be a question for the highways office to explain that we have to revise the plans. I don't think we provided that picture, did we? That's my question. We have had an amended plan since then which I'm showing now since the committee report. Perhaps that caused the confusion. Just as a point of I believe accuracy, the plan that's on the picture there shows the car parking against Mostyn House, which is where we were told it was, whereas the CGI picture presumably provided by the applicant shows the parking on the other side where it currently is. It has changed. This is the current position, the amended plan. So this is not an accurate picture is what I'm trying to get to? At the time of preparing the report, the amended plan was received which is displayed here tonight and updated in the proposed condition. Just to understand. They were submitted a week ago, wasn't it? It would have been helpful if that had been highlighted as part of your presentation that this was no longer accurate. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Can you... Oh, sorry, Councillor. I just want to be mindful. If people who own and rent garages in the current site are being reallocated garages, is there going to be investment in the garages they move to and the garage area? That's correct. I'm just looking at the applicant now, yes, and silver homes, that's correct. Thank you. One from me. Would you mind switching? Thank you. Can I just confirm how many flats that parking area behind Mostyn House covers? In terms of the existing flats. Yes, the three blocks. There are currently three blocks, said as Mostyn House, Marsham and Mulby Houses. And there are currently 28 flats which are a combination of one beds and bed sits. Right, and how many spaces? There are currently eight spaces. Eight, and you're going to put it up to 11. Yes, that's correct. Eleven spaces for 28 flights. Okay. Sorry, Chair. I think to increase it to 14 rather than 11 isn't it? So there's 11 along there and then a further three within the site as well. So it's 14 in total. Oh, yes, okay. Thank you. Right. Where's my book? And currently 19 garages are being used for cars? Yes, I'll just confirm. So, yeah, they're currently 19 in use. And then just get the figures. Nineteen in use, of which nine of those remain in private ownership and the rest are tenanted. And that's out of 55 garages in total. So there's only 65 per cent vacancy at the moment. Right, yes. Councillor McKenzie Boyle, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Just to be absolutely clear, there should be 27 car parking spaces according to BFC parking standards. Are you providing those? We're not. You're not? Okay. That's fine. You're not going to provide the parking spaces that we would expect under ours? Thank you very much. And what about, therefore, the visitor spaces? There are visitor spaces proposed. In addition, so from the new homes there's two spaces per home and then additionally visitors parking spaces as well. Okay, so what we would expect is one space per five, five units. So we've got a set of discrepancy there. And what about disabled spaces? There are a total of three. Say that again, apologies. Can't hear. What's that say? Disabled spaces, what are you providing? Three. Three. Those are being agreed with the highways department. Okay. Right. Okay. Thank you very much indeed for that. Thank you. Councillor Smith. Thank you, Chair. I think actually Councillorie James was giving. Sorry, I'm just having a complete brain blank. Can you come back to me in a second? Councillor James, sorry. Yes. So the lady before you who spoke against the motion. She said that people don't want to sell their garages and some of those are privately owned. What is your proposal in regards to that? How are you going to persuade people who are adamant they are not going to sell their garages to you? So back in March 2023 Silver Homes his agent began the buyback negotiations with existing garage owners. And they shared at the time with the owners the Wix valuations obtained on each of the individual garages. And as part of that buyback option they would be given the process of purchasing had their garage been purchased by Silver Homes at the full Wix valuation. Or swapping their garage with one of the existing ones at Duke's Hole Road, which is obviously very close proximity to the existing site. Thank you. I'm sorry, that shouldn't have been a question because it's not a planning reason. Can I take Councillor Smith please? Thank you Chair. So you mentioned 19 of the garages are currently in use. You've discussed the existing parking surveys which have identified the need for forting spaces to serve the existing buildings. Do we know how many of those 19 that are in use are being used for parking versus other uses? We don't at the moment. I think what I can say is obviously the garages are dilapidated and based on current requirements for garages in terms of sizes. So if they were submitted today as a planning application they wouldn't meet Bracknell Forest's standards for a garage. They're too small and as we alluded to earlier wouldn't fit in probably the majority of modern cars which are obviously a lot bigger than how big they were back when they were built. So I imagine probably quite a large proportion are for storage but I don't actually have - we haven't got that figure to hand unfortunately. So if there was existing parking taking place in those garages that's not captured in the surveys and the identified need for those 14 spaces? It's not but as I say because there are options either to be provided with another garage nearby. Any parking should therefore be within another garage nearby as opposed to on the street because it's in close proximity to the garages that tenants have been offered. Can I just ask how nearby if I was a resident of Mostyn House how many minutes walk am I to the alternative offering? No it's very close I can answer that it's just across the road. So essentially there's a footpath between 60 and 62 Maryhill Road which basically links the Dukesville Road garages within Maryhill so very very close proximity. Thank you. Can I just say I'm sorry Kelly Hargreaves you're not allowed to come back at all you're just an observer now I'm sorry about that and so not able to speak. Okay Artina McKenzie Boyle, Councillor Mackenzie. Thank you. Once again thank you for your presentation. Again just to be clear the garages that are currently owned they will be compulsorily purchased by Silver Homes? Am I right? The process as I mentioned is the getting the full value of being offered an alternative garage within a short walking distance so that is that's the current process. Okay so if the process is that yes they will be purchased by Silver Homes because I'm not quite getting it. I'm sorry that it isn't part of the planning process. Right okay just I was hoping very much that you would provide another parking area for those people. Okay I think that's everybody. Thank you very much for your presentation and answering our questions. Oh she's even switched off that's marvelous. Questions for the officer please. Councillor Barnard. Thank you very much. So at the site visit on Saturday on two visits I've made to the site. The eight current spaces are predominantly always been full but there'd been an additional car parked at the edge on the corner and also five cars on the side of the road where the parking spaces are now shown. So my question is I know if I've got this right the relocation the parking is outside the current planning application. It's a separate issue but actually by changing the parking arrangements outside Mostyn House as shown here we're making the situation worse based on what we've seen because we're actually sort of putting the landscaping and things in. So I have significant concerns about making the situation worse rather than better and has that actually been the space behind Mostyn House thought out well in the context of this or is that a separate application altogether. Do you know what I meant to try to get at it sort of you know but I have to say you know in relation to the picture and the plans there this arrangement as we were shown at the site visit on Saturday seemed to take parking away because we're putting those spaces where there were about six or seven cars parked at all times. Thank you. It's a long question chair but I think that's the general. Would you like to switch off the microphone? Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Through you chair. Yes. The parking from Mostyn House is within the red line just because it falls within the access road and the site so it is a matter of fact geographically within the site. But the proposal is for the houses and their parking as a matter of fact the applicants have determined that because at the moment there were eight formal spaces for most in houses and the other apartments that they do have the opportunity to change the layout of that parking so that there were instead of eight spaces here on the other side 11 can be fitting there and also three can be provided within the site there. So actually the number of spaces is 14 there may be more cars to be parked in there because there's also a turning head within that area so cars will park there but the number of spaces is eight and obviously this scheme does not have to make provision for existing residential units outside the site because the units are but as a matter of fact it is providing additional spaces. So sorry chair three years it does the realignment of the parking form part of this application is that a separate application that bring forward it is within this application because it's within the red line. So the suggestion is that the provision of 11 spaces outside and three inside the site will compensate for the eight at the moment we're actually what we're counting is on average six to seven cars parked where the parking spaces are plus the eight on the other side. So I'm not seeing where the practical pragmatic benefit is and I'm really surprised that you know traffic consultants and others haven't picked up the fact that actually the more cars parked there. In 2014 does that makes sense it's did you know given it was such a big issue chair for local residents it's just trying to understand where this is coming from because it doesn't to three year chair Andy Wells from highways. The applicant has undertaken surveys, including overnight of the parking on the site. And that has informed the number of spaces that have been proposed. Undertaken my own parking surveys on occasion through the time that this has been through playing system which is quite a long time now. And I have noted a similar number of vehicles on the site, as was surveyed by the applicants I was consultant. So, I do agree that the number of spaces that they're providing is appropriate for the number of vehicles that should be provided for. But also note that in to a core with our parking standards, they need to provide for the parking for the dwellings, which they're proposing which they have done so, including the visitor parking, and they have increased the parking for the existing units, which are outside of the application so those existing blocks of flats, would have been built back in 50s to 70s and therefore provided parking that was relevant at that point. They are actually improving the situation relevant to those units. Further questions for the officers. Thanks, Jeff, a few actually. Can I just ask first of all the objector talked about flooding, has the suds office done a survey of flooding and my good, would you agree that. Did we see evidence of that? And is it a problem as a question. Thank you, so your chair. And yes, the suds officer has been involved in the application and she's noted that the sites in low risk of flooding is for someone, she was satisfied that actually the improvements by, including a sub scheme, which isn't now. And also removing some of the hard standing to allow allowing permeable paving along the road and parking areas and the landscaping will be satisfactory she did not identify to me from her site was it that the air was flooding as she indicated low risk of flooding but the sub scheme would improve the situation. Okay, thank you. Could I then ask. In the report, it's brought the attention to the biodiversity gain 200 and something 206 percent. I'm lost. How do we get to 226. Thank you. So you chair, and basically because there's very little on the site to start with so when you start from almost nothing, which I think you are, then the landscaping in the planting there and hedging will increase it and it does sound as if it's either nothing or 100% but I'm assured by my diversity colleagues who've looked at the metrics that she's a correct figure and that we're starting from a point of nothing. Can I just have a supplementary to for the residents. Have they got space out there to sit in the sunshine and enjoy life, or is it. Are they really hemmed in because there wasn't a lot of space around there that when we weren't the site meeting on Saturday seemed very congested to be honest, and every house will be provided with a garden, and there's some additional landscaping areas so there's enough space. Yes, I'm happy with that as each property does have its own private garden that they do have space to sit Titan and privacy yes. Last question. Because this is so close to the buildings during construction. It worries me there's no, maybe this is the take advice from your chair because I could do this later but I didn't see any times of construction that worries me so much with people living in buildings that it's very noisy and usually we sometimes put a restriction on the hours of construction, wonder if you could help on that. There is a condition seeking a construction management statement and sent to be submitted. And that will include construction hours and we would expect to consult our environmental health colleagues because as you said, it is within a built up area so we would expect that reasonable construction and demolition hours will be maintained so we haven't proposed them now, but that's not because we don't intend to, just we will seek discussion and consultation with environmental health colleagues. Could I have a supplement, not that I doubt for one moment the officers will do the right thing, but could we have a condition on it on pinning those hours down, and can that be an additional condition at the end please chair. I mean I can make this point in the summing up. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else. And can I ask about the washing lines, please because actually they're very important that I know they don't get used very often, but there's things you can try in the tumble dryer and I bet there's quite a lot of those residents who don't own a tumble dryer. So it's much better to put this stuff outside and with the situation this is proposed, no washing lines are put. As you say, there are washing lines available at the moment for people in the flats obviously don't have balconies don't have space and don't expect that people should be reliant on tumble dryers or using laund Lyft, the washing lines will be provided the applicants have said there is a grassed area behind the parking space and it will be available and the applicant says and landlords we'd expect to have discussions with their tenants on the best position for that. I think there were some trees on there was it is that space for washing lines as well are we going to have birds flying over the nice clean washing and putting deposits. I have been advised that will be placed obviously it's not a matter of condition on this planning application but it is something I have raised with the applicants and they've pushed that on to the silver homes that it is obviously a matter of concern for residents. Thank you. Councillor Barnard. There is an understanding that they'll be provided but at this point in time we're not clear where that is because you can't mix them with trees. You know, washing lines, trees and birds generally as has been said by the chair don't mix particularly well particularly if it's dark fruit. So, that's a puzzlement because this is perfectly satisfactory set up at the moment we just need to provide some additional parking spaces but the trees on the landscaping. Do you chair. There were also additional areas of grass there is close to the building a must in house here, which I believe is not true, so it is something I said it's not something I felt able to condition as part of the application for different properties but it is something I have raised with the agents. Thank you. Councillor. One question more please join. We did find I think that it. I don't mean to be rude here but the condition of the houses needs a good old painter around there and it needs to improve. Could these properties look a little bit brighter and use materials that make us feel that you know life isn't too bad after all. Thank you, your chair. We will expect materials to be submitted. We are expecting them to be breaking tile hanging and obviously TV panels on the roof so I would hope that the acceptable to us and it's something that we will be discussing. We'd expect samples to be submitted before approval. Thank you, this is a momentary and it just be good if there's been a color there. The only color I saw on site were three bushes. It's just that sometimes you see on these sites. You know some color and everyone feels a little bit brought up because it's very dense buildings that that's the thing that worries me. Bear that in mind when we have the condition see also the applicants do want to be built. They don't want to have cladding on it so they also want the quality materials and environmental issues, but I will bear that in mind if materials are submitted. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Section 106 agreement will secure the SPA contributions in line with a set formula so I don't have the figures because I generally don't because the figures themselves are not for debate. We do have a set formula and again, still liable properties. It is a set formula based on floor space. Thank you. The council for your chair, so I, the case that doesn't directly submit a figure is just if something is payable out of the sale contribution that have been made, then it's the funding that is then made towards things that are still liable. So the council doesn't contribute. The payment developers pay and still contributions are paid into the council and then they replied by us to appropriate schemes. So, no, it's it's it is developer contributions towards SPA saying still and any other infrastructure requirements. Anyone else. I don't know if I can make a question out of this but I'm concerned about the, the drainage, because the camera of the, of the whole site is down towards the houses in hot close. And there's been some horrendous flooding down there. Is there more drains along the site. And will they keep them clear when will they are managed no silver will be the management committee went in section 106 will secure contributions towards so it's an under management scheme. And that at the moment you say, it's hard standing site surface water does for down was developed with a sub scheme and permeable payments and grassed areas, hopefully that would be reduced. But the sub scheme will be subject to first approval bio and offices, and then the contributions and the management of that will be, I set out in the one or six agreement. So hopefully that would make improvements to the area that sounds better. So no more questions. Now, for the new members. Bear in mind that you can only speak once. And when we get to the debate. So, before we get to the debate for the purposes of the case. I propose that to accept the recommendation on page 35. Oh, plus the recommendation from counselor Virgo and, yes, the additional or the additional time of construction and work on the site. Yeah, restriction. Yes, and as amended by the supplementary report. And do I have a seconder for that, please. I think you just can't. Yes, second. I just want to say that I'm not sure that we have a lot of discussion about the application. And I was actually quite concerned from our site visit on Saturday. Is it that my observation was there was a, although there were eight mark spaces from Austin house there was a lot of parking actually around that on the road as well which increased that number. And I think it's quite, this evening by the applicant with regards to the, it's not just those 11 spaces but also the additional three which obviously matches the surveys that were complete and also my own observations on Saturday as well in terms of the number of vehicles parked there. So the situation, certainly is no worse. I would love to see an application that was bettering the situation but I think we have to acknowledge that's not within the purview of the decision. What I would say is actually there is an argument that it is a betterment in that we're getting the same number of vehicles in but actually they are in proper spaces as opposed to just sort of parked in a crammed manner so I very much acknowledge that's a significant point. You know I think there's there's certainly a reason for it to be a matter of looking at that. There's a very specific basis for existing residents. But I think within the purview of decisions we can make as a council, I'm satisfied at this point that actually it has been adequately dealt with. The other matter, I didn't want to touch on, which is not specifically a planning consideration but I hope I'll be given liberty just to touch on it more broadly as a Councillor at this point is I do have concerns about the social housing stock which is a concern. Particularly this was land that obviously originally would have been Bracknell Forest's land, the borough's land prior to the outsourcing of our social housing stock to silver. I obviously appreciate if the profits from that are reinvested then there's a good argument from that but I do also note the acquisition of silver by Abbry. I don't know if there's anything we can do to ensure that the finances and revenue raised through that sale will be reinvested here in Bracknell Forest and not reallocated elsewhere but I very much hope that's the case. Thank you. Thank you very much. Obviously not a planning market. Thanks very much. Just before I raised the issue, just want to reflect on what Councillor Smith has said. I was a Councillor at the time when that transfer took place and Bracknell Forest Homes before they were renamed silver made it very very clear. I think it was Linda Wells at the time who was you know someone that moved there, that the opportunity around the housing blocks to provide affordable housing for rent was going to be front and foremost and I would share concerns that it's very sad that's not happening now. The other thing of course is you're absolutely right we can't guarantee that any surplus funds generated from the development of a complex site will stay here. I beg the indulgence on that Chair, that's not a planning issue but it's a statement of fact that goes back through history. I'd also like to really I think reflect and understand and in doing so understand the concerns residents made about parking, however I think it's really important that local residents have had their voice heard tonight and their concerns. I think it's a management rather than a planning issue but I think there are going to be issues around the interface between, you know, parking just inside and outside the site. I know to recognise the three allocated spaces are well into the site. I think that should be looked at because you know if you're going to walk past other parking spaces what that's going to mean it's very hard in practice to manage those. I do wonder if there is time not withstanding anything just on the back of concerns raised tonight maybe just to take a more holistic view of the whole of the space behind Mostin House. We did see on Saturday that there are large bin stores that might or might not be appropriate to the range of bin and cycling things that we've got now. And even at this 11th hour if it is possible outside the scope of this application just for a more pragmatic approach because I think I'm absolutely no highways experts and we have one here tonight. But I think you could do a lot more with that space, you know, washing lines, trees, landscaping and maybe significantly more car parking spaces there if they were minded to because you made a good observation, chair, that you know when these houses were built. You know there were very, very few smaller cars. Well actually that's the case for all the other houses in the area as well so you know this pressure builds up, up and up over again. But within the context of the scheme all I think the planning issues have been addressed in the application. But I would really urge the applicant, Silver homes to, Silver Abri could actually work further with the site and see if it is possible to provide more spaces because it's plainly the case isn't it that you know, there is a need for more parking spaces there. And I think there is scope to actually do that and do that satisfactorily and colleagues keep our washing lines. Thank you. Kansari Jas, please. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Council McNair and Council Smith. I want to add my voice to that concern that Silver home does have a habit of utilizing previous year on council land and properties. Once they demolish them, they never come back to social housing which is my main concern. Affordable housing we all know is not very affordable in Bracknell it is very pricey, even affordable rents are not affordable in Bracknell and we have to take that concern quite seriously. With very long waiting list, people waiting with their families, year on year for reasonable, cost effective housing. My other main concern is that as I have myself said that these garages are not suitable for the current vehicle that are being produced and the garages that are being offered as an alternative are no better than that. I would like to see reasonable investment made for the residents, parking concerns and the garages which are being offered, they should be modernized and brought to a very good standard so that they are fit for the purpose. Other than that I do understand that we have to bring in derelict land into better use and this is a good use provided that all our concerns are taken into account. Thank you, chair. Thank you very much. I'm conflicted, yes we do need affordable homes and I've heard what my colleagues have said but I do know that patch very well. That used to be my ward and I have great affection for Priestwood and Garth and I remember the horrors that some of the residents went through trying to park outside their own homes. Unless we adhere to our own policies our residents will be having trouble for many years so as much as I would like very much to have affordable housing until we get the parking standards correct and sadly I cannot support this application. Chair, I don't want to repeat what the other Councillors have said eloquently but you know we saw this on site. I know we need a lot of housing, we all understand that but we don't want a situation where we're forcing people who have less money into a very tight spot it's just not right. We've got to do, we've got to use it but we've got to use it in a way that it gives people hope you know just to stuff in houses and I did think it was too dense to be honest. There's nothing much I can do about it, it's too late but we've got to learn from this really and think about all these things. The other thing is going back, I know this isn't a planning thing but I've got to say it. If we have an agreement with Sylvia Homes about this then we should make sure that agreement is delivered. If it's not delivered then it should come back to full Council and we'll do something about it because that contract will then be terminated and we'll have to think of another contract because it's just not right and people don't have enough money. We've got to look at that as we did in Council Houses Chair so I just feel that Councillors have made this point but we've got to do something about it and not to just talk. Thank you very much Councillor. I go to Councillor Fruer please. Thank you. I have issues about this as well. Can I just talk about the state of the garages. I myself rent three silver garages around town. Every block that I have a garage in, the garages are in a poor condition but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not occupied. I've personally seen garages that are in a very poor state with somebody getting their car out so it doesn't necessarily mean because the garage is in the bad condition that it's not occupied. I want to take the issue about the size of the garages as well. I might be wrong on this perhaps somebody could tell me but somebody told me that all the original garages in the town were the same size, were universal size. My garage I could get my old Range Rover in there and a BMW 5 series so I don't think it's an issue with the space. The problem that we have as Councillors, all of us, that we have from the residents is parking, parking and parking. That's some of the big issues that we have and I just think this is going to cause, especially in the area of Priestwood, Priestwood was the original new town estate that was built. Obviously there wasn't as many cars in those days as there is now and I just think this is just going to cause more problems with the parking. Anyone else to speak? I just like to say that I think we are all in agreement that the parking is a concern. But unfortunately I do believe this application meets the parking policy, our parking SPD for the actual main development and does provide additional spaces. Therefore if this were to go to appeal I think we would lose because the planning inspector would see that we have met our requirements. I think we need to get into these applications sooner than when they come to committee and change them, influence them at that point and I think, I hate to say this but I think we're too late for this one. Thank you. My, if I can put my points, I feel really cross about this. Cross is not the word I really want to use. The parking in Priestwood is horrendous and we have parking standards. There are old parking standards and unfortunately this application adheres to all the standards. So we can't, as far as I can see, I don't think we can reject it on those grounds as much as we would like to. I think it's really time that we got to grips with our lovely new local plan and any parking SPDs and stuff to make sure that we fix it somehow via that route so it doesn't happen again. The other thing that really bothers me about this is that I think the garages have been left in disrepair. Horrendously there's so much fly tipping, there's so much dilapidation because there's no maintenance, drains are blocked because they're all overgrown with weeds and I think Silver Homes has really got to pull their finger out with the maintenance of the garages that we've got left and it's no good offering dilapidated garages even close by to people who've got a decent garage. They need to make sure that the garages that they offer are in decent condition and the blocks are kept and maintained. Otherwise we are going to see people avoiding using the garages, even if they could. And there are many lovely new cars that are smaller and would go in the garages. We don't all have to have a great big car to show off, you know. So I think there's there's a great deal of work to be done to make things better. Sorry. There are a great deal of things that we can do and Silver Homes must do to make our parking standards and our parking places a whole lot better. But I don't think we have grounds to refuse at the moment, unfortunately. So I don't think I need to say more. I think we've covered all of that. We need to take a vote, please. With the recommendation plus the addition of Councillor Virgo's concern and what's on the supplementary. So a point of order on page 35. Page 35 is the main recommendation. Chairman, may I make a point of order? Yeah. Could we be specific about the time so we don't just, you know, and I was thinking, I mean, from my old experience, it was weekdays 8 o'clock to, unless someone told me differently to eighteen hundred and then Saturdays was nine thirty to thirteen hundred to one o'clock. Right. So you could be specific. Through you, Chairman. Yes, that's absolutely fine. That's our fairly standard condition. And we can we can certainly impose that. Thank you very much. That's very good. So. Yes, the recommendation, page 35 as amended on page three of the supplementary report. All those in favour, please. Thank you. And those against. Any abstentions? Thank you. Thank you very much for that. And if you've come for the garages bit, I'm afraid that's it. And we're now moving on to page. Sorry, 45 of the agenda. I get that in the moment for. Forty five and including page five of the supplementary papers. One, the brackens. Thank you for your attendance. Thank you. Thanks. Am I ready to start? Yes, please. Okay, great. Thank you. I hope you can see my screen. Yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. This is a application for prior approval under the general permitted of Alan order to correct a two storey extension above a commercial building. You can see on the plan here where the application site is out hatched in pink. It's on the Eastern Road roundabout. By talking through the plans and some photographs and then the assessment of the application. This is the basement plan. This shows parking spaces. Sixty eight to ninety one. Apologies, I should have started with this plan, which is the location plan and block plan. Which we see the first sixty seven parking spaces outside the building. With the access from New Road. This is the Eastern Road roundabout here. They drive and then on to New Road here. And then turning to the basement floor plan. There are the remaining spaces. Sixty eight to ninety one, including the secure storage underneath. For context of this application, the first three storeys of this building have been granted prior approval for conversion from commercial to residential. Although this has not yet been implemented. And therefore the parking spaces on this plan and the block plan show the cumulative requirement for the whole building. So that's ninety one spaces total. Turning to the floor plans. So this would constitute the fourth and fifth floor. The first three floors being the existing building. We can see here the flat that are proposed on the fourth floor. And then here the fifth floor, you can see that the fifth floor is stepped in from the fourth floor and then here the flat roof with the PV panels. Turning to elevations. This is the existing elevations of the building. So you can see the first three floors and the pitched roof. This is the front elevation you can see. And then underneath there's the rear elevation. And here we have the both side elevations of the existing building. This is the elevations to be proposed, so it will be a flat storey building with materials similar to those in the existing building and the top floor will be stepped in from the fourth floor. And here the side elevations again so you can see the step in and the proposed height. This is a marked up plan showing in red the outline of the existing building with the proposed building shown behind. You can see the total height increase is 2.6 metres, although the bulk of the building will be increased as the existing building has a sloped roof and this would have a flat roof. And here we have the side elevations again with the red outline showing the existing building. Turning to photographs. This is the view from the Easton Road roundabout. The application site is on the right. We can see the orange brick with the pitched roof. To the left you can see a building known as To the Breckins. For context, the application site was originally part of a pair of buildings known as the Breckins, which were commercial buildings. The current application is at 1 the Breckins. To the Breckins, on the left, has been granted prior approval in 2018 to be converted to residential flats with two storeys imposed on the top and you can see that has been implemented there with the top two storeys in white. This proposal seeks to mirror both the use and the design, adding an additional two storeys with the same flat roof and stepped back design. This is a view of the application site with the entrance to Bay Drive in between the application site and Davie Place, which is a block of flats to the right. This is the view coming down Bay Drive, going towards the Easton Road roundabout. Turning to the right would be New Road and you can see behind this tree it's blocked partially from view, but the application site, the proposed works of the building are behind this tree. And then again, here's another view on New Road, and then you can see the rear elevations of number of buildings on Barn Close and their rear gardens separated by New Road. I'll come back to the block plan to discuss the scheme. So as I explained previously, you can see that the Breckins was originally a pair of buildings, number two has been extended already, and this is number one. As this application is a prior approval, that the council is limited in the matters it can consider. The list of matters that can be considered are set out on page 48 of the report, and I will go through these matters now. In terms of highway consideration, there is sufficient parking spaces for the whole building, taking into account the conversion of the ground floor. That meets our parking standards in terms of resident parking, visitor parking and secure cycle storage. In terms of the character of the area, the proposal seeks to mirror the development found at number two, the Breckins. The application site is set back from the road and is surrounded by large properties around the Eastern Road roundabout. In addition, there is vegetation partially screening the site. Given its location and the surrounding buildings and the proposed design, it is considered in this case there would not be a significant, adverse impact on the character of the area. In terms of the impact on residential amenity, a daylight and sunlight survey has been provided, which demonstrates that every flat proposed would be provided with sufficient daylight and sunlight. In addition, the surrounding residential properties have been assessed and it has been demonstrated that there would not be a significant loss of light to any of these properties. In terms of overlooking, the side elevation of the proposal, which directly faces on to the Breckins, would have all its windows restricted to avoid adverse overlooking. The separation distance of the remaining windows complies with our design guidelines in terms of separation to residential buildings, and as such, it is not considered that proposal would result in an adverse loss of privacy to these buildings. The site is suitably located to avoid concerns of air traffic and defence, contamination, flood risk and protected views. And as such, it is recommended that prior approval is granted for the scheme. I would like to advise that the recommendation on page 58 is amended. There has been a typing error listing on condition 9 that the items are listed A to N but they are in fact listed A to O, so that minor amendment should be taken into account when the decision is issued. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Any questions for the Case Officer, please. Council Member Burgo. Thanks, chap. Thanks very much for the explanation. Could I ask Olivia a couple of things? How do we now work out with fire regulations to all this? Is that covered? It certainly is. There are requirements if the building is either more than seven storeys or more than 18 metres and more than 18 metres, it requires a fire safety report, but it's set out in the report. The building is lower than the requirements, so there has not been the necessity. As part of this prior approval, there's no requirement to go any further on that. Could I ask that perhaps we should ask the fire authority? I mean it's up to them. If they say no, that's fine, but at least we've asked and so if there's any problem, Bracknell Forest is covered. For this application, we have to determine the application by tomorrow because of the regulations, we have a very limited time in terms of determining the application, but I can notify the fire department and they can contact tomorrow and they can contact the applicant. I'm not totally happy with that, but I'll move on to the next question. Councillor Vango, hold on one moment. Sorry, through you, Chair, just as an additional point, so Liv is quite right in that there's no requirement to have a fire safety certificate for this, however obviously it would be covered by building regulations. Okay, sum up what I think. Could I also talk about the sewage discharge? I know previously I think on an application that the applicant had to receive a Thames Water consent about discharge. Have we similar? Is it the same with this application? That's absolutely the same, yes. It can't be required as part of this prior approval application, but I have included an informative on the recommendation advising that they need to get that consent from Thames Water, yes. Smashing, and that's a condition, Olivia, is it? It's an informative. It's an informative. Can we make it a condition? We can't because waste is not a matter to be considered as part of a prior approval, so it wouldn't be reasonable to put it as a condition. Okay, second question. Why can't we as an authority change that and make it a condition? This is not an application for planning commission. Planning commission is granted by the General Permitted Development Order, subject to the local authority giving consent on a number of limited points. And those points are listed, as I said, on page 48, and those are the only things that we can make decisions on and conditions on, and that's why as wastewater is not one of those matters. This is not saying that we can condition. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy Boyle. Hello, thanks, Olivia, thank you very much indeed for the presentation. I know that we're sort of hamstrung about the conditions that we have for prior approvals. It's highways contamination, certainly not the rags that we should be having, should be seeing. It's what I used to say. We didn't button down the requirements, and we should have done. Anyway, let's get back to my little problem. Provision of 26 flats, the building as a whole will contain 76 flats, but the parking requirements is only 91. Now that's a heck of a lot less than 218 if each of those flats was three beds. What we're getting now is provision of flats, not two bed flats, not one bed flat, but just this two flats. Can we have rather more information so that we can debate on and we can reflect on and make sure our highways are safe, because we don't want any more parking on street around that area? So could we make sure that that happens? And number two, are they three bedroom flats, two bedroom flats or one? And will they be within that 91 car parking spaces? Sorry, I rambled, but I'm sure you've got what I mean. The schedule of flat sizes has been set out, and they are all one bedrooms. May I ask the assistant director planning whether we could amend the description of development to include that it's all one bedroom flats, or whether she believes that will be unreasonable? Through you, chair, I don't think at this stage we can amend the description of development, but as Olivia says, the plans that are going to be conditioned to be approved show the size of the units and do meet the council's parking standards. So I don't think that there's an issue in this instance. Thank you. Councillor Barnard, please. Thank you, chair. Do you have another question? No, no, I'm good. Thanks very much, Councillor Barnard. One thing I observed when we were at the site visit is that with the existing block there and with the new flats here, we did see a number of children around there. I'm concerned about, you know, amenity space for children because I noticed that given its conversion, you know, from conversion to housing, do we know where the nearest sort of play area and other things are that can be safely accessed from that site? Because, of course, if you go one way, you're on to the dual carriageway and the road on the call is difficult. It just struck me that there, you know, there was some landscaping, but they didn't see too much amenity space on the site. Now, I don't think that's a function of prior approval, but is it a function of a planning commission to actually ensure that there is something appropriate and suitable for children? Because I certainly didn't see where that was or on these plans. I'm not talking about the prior approval. I'm talking about the additional flats that are on top. I would have thought there should have been some amenity there. We have raised the chair in these meetings before. I'm just interested. The additional flats are also prior approval. It's a separate prior approval application, but it's also a prior approval application. And unfortunately, amenity space is not a consideration of a prior approval. So that can't be something that we can make a decision on. I'm afraid I don't know how close the nearest play area is. I would say that the one bedroom flat is unlikely to be children. Well, we saw we saw children in the one bedroom flats that are in building two when we were out on the site on Saturday. So it's just interesting to know if there's anything we can do, because I'm concerned about, you know, the co-location and things like that. Would you like to see you check? Whilst it's not a highways matter specifically, the closest player is the Deepfield Road Park play area, which is between Barn Close and Deepfield Road, and the access to Barn Close is directly opposite the Brackens. So you walk up Barn Close, you walk in the corner parts of the flats and you are in Deepfield Park player. It's about one hundred and fifteen hundred twenty metres. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot for that. That's helpful. Thank you very much. Councillor Sahour. Through you, Chair. In page number 50, there's a table with criteria and assessment. So there's a point A which is second from the top, which says the criteria says above ground level. The building is less than three storeys in height and opposite to it, opposite to the assessment says the existing building is three storeys. Does it mean it's not meeting the criteria? What it's saying is it it is meeting the criteria. It is confirming that the building does meet the requirements. Sorry, it says less than three. Yes, but I take one moment to look at the regulations. Apologies. Sorry, I remembered. There is an asterisk next to the A and the C. This is because those elements have been removed from the updated general permitted development order. It's no longer a requirement. Apologies. That is an error in the report. That should have been flagged. Shall we put a correction in for the amended? Yeah, there was a vote to say thanks. I think, as Olivia says, it's an error with the report and the committee has noted that and I don't think it impacts on the decision that's being made as per the recommendation. Thank you. That's very good. Anybody else, please? Councilor, because I asked for a condition also on the hours of this because I'm always concerned that when building on top of people, it's it's really tough. There is a condition condition number three one there, actually, is that sorry? That's condition number three of the recommendation does restrict working hours. I'm sorry. I withdraw because there's no one there. Then there's absolutely no point. I'll wake up in a second. There are neighbors. So, so that's the usual. Sorry. Yes. Excuse me. Anybody else? No, no further questions. OK, so it brought me to make the recommendation. Page fifty six. Thank you. And with the amended amendment, page six of the supplemental supplementary report, is it six, not one? Six. Thank you. Oh, page four, the supplementary. Yes. Thank you very much. So, oh, oh, Caroline had a question. Shall we take Caroline's question? Go ahead. Thank you. Through you, Chair. I just wanted to ask the question. You've got consideration for obviously the way Wonder Brackens is set out to protect the neighbors to the Brackens. Is that the same consideration for Davy House? It certainly is. All the all surrounding residential buildings have been taken into account. And the daylight assessment has considered those as well. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. OK. So now we turn to the recommendation, as stated before. Can I have a seconder, please? I'll take Councillor Collins this time. I second that. Thank you. Thank you very much. So the debate, one one go each. OK. Who would like to begin? Councilor Barnard. It's prior approval. I think we've given it a good shake out. We had a look on the site. And I believe that you know that which we can influence, we have influenced. And you just thank you. Just just for just for highlighting the accessibility of a play space, because I know, chair, that we don't necessarily like seeing only some young children in one bed flats, but it's a reality of living. And I just feel that when you're converting a commercial building, you know, to residential, anything and everything we can do just to improve the immunity of the areas, is that in this case, we're constrained by, you know, prior approval. I think the report's been very thorough. I also think there's something else, which is we will be balancing up the two buildings again. Now, whether that's a positive or not, I don't know. But it is a fact that we will be balancing up the two buildings. There is a significant amount of parking there and access. And I hope that the soft landscaping that borders the joining road is maintained and wherever enhanced. I think when we're out at the site, you know, if there's scope to put a few more trees in just to sort of further break it up, it would be great. But I think within the context of what we can do, officers have done a great job in putting this together. It's a fact of prior approval that there's not really much more we can do to further influence that. Thank you. Councillor Mackenzie Boyle, please. Thank you very much, Chair. I'm at a loss, actually, because I need all information when I look at the application to make a decision. And if we don't have full information on beds, what are provided in these flats, therefore, we can't actually make a specific decision about parking spaces because we don't know. So I find it difficult. I think so. If we can make that clear in future, we need all information to make a good result on this. Good. Thank you. Good recommendation. Anyway, I thought my thank you. I thought that we did have that information in there because I'm sure I read it somewhere and it was opinion. Anyway. Yes. Noted. It it will be. Anyone else to speak? Councilor Virgo chair. I know we've gone through this, but it does concern me if we're building flats. Twenty six or something. And as as my lady here said, we're not sure how many flats and two bedroom, one bedroom, whatever. But it does. It seems really bad, frankly, that we don't have fire regulations. I mean, I sound that's a debt illusion of this country, if that's the case. And we should do something about it as an as a as an authority, because I really feel quite concerned about this because we are sitting and agreeing this. And we're saying that the fire authority doesn't have to come in and inspect it. It's part of building ranks. Yeah, but we've got to be sure it happens, chair. We can't just pass it on a condition and nothing happens. Yes, through you, chair. Yes, I mean, just to reiterate the point, building regs would be required, and there are enforcement procedures to make sure that that happens in this instance. So just because a fire safety report isn't required because the height of the building doesn't mean that fire safety standards won't be applied. Just go on the debate, if I may. I'd just like to see this on the report. You know, I'd like to see a report that someone's going to do something about it. And it's carried through because I don't want to learn later that there's a fire there and somehow we didn't quite check it. The other thing is, I know, I know Livia explained this about the the water, but I really do think by now we've learned by this. And do we trust Thames Water? Well, we don't, actually. I have to say that, and I'm quite proud of saying it. And so therefore, I would like to see that carried through as a condition. Now I made this point. I know we can't do any more, but I want to go public on this. That's what we should be doing. Thank you, Chuck. That's good, Roy. You redeemed yourself. That's brownie for me. I only love all that. Thank you. Other points, please. Gosh, give me a real frog. I think that's everybody. So those in favour. Thank you very much. Excuse me. And now I lost. Application is for 32 copy screen and. It's found at page 61 of the report and the supplementary page. Six pages. There is on page six of the supplementary and we have. Are you on line for. I'm on a line. Sure. Hopefully you can hear me. Yep. Thank you. I'll attempt to share my presentation now. Thank you. We can see you. It rather. I think that's the wrong one. Can I just. Okay. Redo that. This one will do. I can't bring up the other one. Okay, I'll make a start on this. So this is full application for planning permission for the erection of two bedroom dwelling adjoining 32 copper screen with associated parking landscaping following the demolition of the existing side extension. The application has been reported to the planning committee as received more than five objections. The site is located within the settlement boundary where there is a presumption in favor of development principle that called to the council's local plan. The proposal has been subject to numerous amendments during the course of the application to address concerns, Ray Ray is primarily around drainage and parking matters. All consultees have confirmed there are supportive of the proposal, and this includes Tim Wold Thames water summarized in section seven of the report, and they're either subject to conditions or informative. So the application site comprises a two story semi detached dwelling house with a single story flat roofed extension to the side and detached garage within the block of three to the rear of the site. The dwelling itself is located at the end of a road known as copper screen with access to the garage off Jocks Lane, which is to the rear. The dwelling comprise and then terrace benefits from a relatively large garden area, extending northwards towards Jocks Lane with a hedge that remains in situ fronting copper screen, which you can just see that. Potestering access is also achievable from both copper screen and Jocks Lane, as is vehicular access or a number of large trees to the rear of the property, but these are located on the adjacent land approximately 15 meters from the proposed development. The site also abuts a water course located along the southern side of Jocks Lane. The scale of development is considered in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The proposed design of the new house and proposed materials are considered in keeping with the neighboring properties, including that of the existing property number 32. And as such, it's not considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. The front and rear building lines are consistent with the other properties in the street. Furthermore, there are numerous similar examples of two story extensions, as well as the creation of new dwellings within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, this proposal is not considered dissimilar and provides sufficient space in which to create a new dwelling with adequate on-site car, cycle parking and bin storage. It is therefore considered to adhere to the Council's design SBT that requires that plots should be large enough to accommodate the proposed built development and the requirements associated within such as amenity space, parking, servicing, waste and recycling collection in an arrangement that is practical and attractive. A new pedestrian path of one metre wide is shown within the site to enable both the dwellings to easily access the parking area that allocates two parking spaces for each dwelling off Jocks Lane is considered that level access can also be achieved to comply with our accessibility policy LP38 and therefore can be secured by condition. The existing hedging closed in the front garden, as I've said, remains in situ and copies green and this is secured by condition 15. A number of mature trees on the adjacent side to the rear were observed and upon discussing these with the Council's tree officers concluded these are located at sufficient distance from the proposed development so as not to give rise to any adverse impacts regarding these trees. The proposal is considered to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with a sufficient amenity space for both the existing and the new dwelling proposed. There are no biodiversity concerns as set out in the Officer report and the requirements to provide bat and bird boxes on site. The existing property previously only had one parking space that comprised a single garage to the rear accessed off Jocks Lane. The single storey garage has since been demolished and part of the side garden is now turned into a parking area. Each property now benefits from two parking spaces, each, which results in the betterment and is in accordance with the Council's parking standards. Thames Water confirmed they have no objections to the proposal, subject to advising the applicant via an informative that is a legal requirement to obtain groundwater risk management permit from Thames Water for discharging any groundwater into the public sewer. If you could see informative four of the report. The Council SUD officers also reviewed the proposal and raised no objections, subject to the applicant securing the details of the flood resilient measures in accordance with their flood risk assessment and those are covered by conditions 12 to 14. A supporting drawing, titled proposed site levels and surfaces, which I'll show you in a moment, shows all the proposed hard standing that includes the parking and pedestrian areas will comprise permeable surfacing. It is considered in terms of the objections received, the provision of onsite waste recycle bins, as well as improved parking and cycle storage has addressed the concerns raised by the Bracknell town council, and it's also considered the other objections received have also been addressed when the officers report. The proposal results in one new dwelling, and therefore is considered to be sole liable, and it also falls within five kilometers of the Thames Basin Seats SBA and is therefore liable to a financial contribution that would need to be secured via legal agreement, before any permission could be issued. So I'll just go through some of the photos now. I've just outlined, as an illustration in red, of the proposed new dwelling that will be attached at number 32. That's without my illustration on it. That's a view looking in from Jocks Lane into Coppids Green itself. That's another view from the footpath going into Coppids Green from Jocks Lane. Again, this is a view of the garage block I'd mentioned, so that's looking on to the site. There was a block of three garages, one has already been demolished, so you can see there's a relatively good amount of parking space there. However, you have to imagine there'll be a dwelling there, and those spaces being much nearer aligned with Jocks Lane, so up near the greenery there. This is another one just showing similar examples of two storey extensions. This is within Coppids Green itself, literally just across the way. This is an illustration of examples of other two storey extensions, so this wouldn't be too dissimilar to those number of extensions within Coppids Green and the road behind. Again, it's just an illustration of the relationship, so you see the two storey in relation to the site. Again, similar examples. Another example in Coppids Green, so the before and after. There's some more there. So that's the site. That's a plan. Hopefully everyone can see that. See the parking spaces there. There's some elevations. Some more elevations. These are the floor plans, so it's the proposed ground floor plan. And that's the first floor plan. So in conclusion, it's considered that the proposed dwelling is acceptable in principle and can be accommodated on the site without any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. On highway safety, on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, surface water, flood risk, adjacent trees and biodiversity, it is therefore considered that the proposed development complies with the Bratton Forest Local Plan, as well as the Bratton Town neighbourhood plan and relevant SPDs and MPPF. Therefore, there's no material considerations that exist that indicate this proposal would be a departure from the development plan, and accordingly, the application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to a number of conditions set out in the report and any amendments set out in the supplementary report, as well as the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the necessary financial SBA contributions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Questions for the officer. Councillor Barnard. Thank you. Thank you very much. Great presentation. My question relates to the Thames Water advice. Just by way of context. So what generally seems to happen is when we have, you know, the sort of increasing heavy rainstorms we have at the moment, there's a large of groundwater, so off roofs and things like that, into the sewers, which would appear to be calling a significant increase in flow that then leads to sewage outfalls. Please can you help me understand what a groundwater risk management permit means? Does that mean Thames Water are going to say, Yeah, it's okay to basically, with our agreement, to plumb your groundwater into the main sewer? Or should we, as a point of principle going forward, make sure that we don't put any additional groundwater, because groundwater and, you know, sewage are very, very different. You know, every single dwelling adds issues to that amount. So my question is what does that actually mean in practice, because should we be actually thinking that this dwelling should actually pretty well cope with most of its own groundwater on its own site going forward in the context that, you know, we want to do anything and everything possible to stop putting water that can be treated in a different way into the sewers? Sorry, that's a bit long winded, but hopefully that made a bit of sense. I'm not sure I can answer for Thames Water on that particular point. All I can say is that our SUDS officer has reviewed this and has got quite detailed conditions attached to the consent, including the management maintenance plan and the proposed drainage system and how that would be maintained over the lifetime of the development. I don't know if that answers your question. Completely within the remit that we have, and thanks for that. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions. Gosh, none. Wow. Have I got any? We've covered SBA SPA and avoidance and mitigation merit yet. Anything now. So it forced me to make the recommendation page 69 as amended, and only supplementary to page six. Thank you. Your second. Yeah, I'll second. Thank you. So anybody want to speak, please? Councillor Smith. Thank you, chair. We're obviously hearing this application due to the threshold of objections being met and colleagues on the committee. Certainly those who've been in the committee over the last year will know that I'm not usually a fan of residential infill and albeit, I've previously begrudgingly voted to approve where they're in line with our policies, as is the obligation on members of the committee. But actually, I see very little to object to here. And it's it's quite a modest development. It makes very efficient use of the land. It's sensitive to and in keeping with existing properties. There's no issues of overlooking. It's quite well sort of shielded from other nearby properties. And also note that the proposed landscaping and works to the parking area, I feel will enhance access to Jocks Lane, including obviously, the much prized amenity facilities there. So I think being on this committee can often be a bit of a thankless task, having to kind of stick to the rule of what the policies say against our individual judgments sometimes. So it's actually quite nice to be reviewing an application that I feels quite a positive enhancement to the local area. So I will be supporting. Thank you very much. Councillor Barnard. Yeah, thank. Thank you. That's a very, very good report again, and thanks to that. And I can see that there's been an evolution through this. And again, you know, I think we should acknowledge the dialogue that's been with the applicant. I totally agree with what Councillor Smith says. I think this will actually improve the amenity of the area. You know, it's it's not massively you know, for what is actually a gateway to a much loved recreation area. One couldn't argue it's of the highest quality at the moment. And I think this, you know, will actually improve things there. I do have concerns about how we treat, you know, groundwater, things like that going forward, because, you know, anything extra that we put into the sewers, I hope that's not going to happen. But if it does, we just need to note the cumulative effect is there. I'd also say something else about this. In terms of parking and in terms of traffic movements, I note it will be off Jocks Lane and therefore won't actually impact on the amenity of those in the cul de sac there. And I appreciate the condition that's been put in place to maintain the hedging there. But but note that there is actually just for a highways issue, there's quite a lot of overgrowing with sort of brambles and things on the little footpath through there. So hopefully somebody who takes responsibility will chop that back a bit. So I think it's overall a good proposal. It's in keeping the materials, the conditions, make that work there. And, yeah, I don't see any grounds for refusal and nor is the work that's been done to come up with an acceptable proposal. Thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak? I'd just quickly add to what everybody else has said. We saw in close proximity of a dwelling that had been extended in a very similar manner. And it was good to see marked on the map that there were several others in the area which we didn't see. So I think the precedent has been set for for that extension, whether it be an extension or a new property. And I will be supporting to thank you, everyone. I can't hear any awful noises against all concerns. So I think we'll put put it to the vote, please. All those in favour. That is unanimous, Chair. Thank you very much indeed. And that's the end of our meeting this evening. Can we just stay quiet while the.