Transcript

(upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) Please note that this meeting is being broadcast live on the council's website and on YouTube. It will remain available for a minimum of 12 months. I'd remind those in attendance to use your microphone when speaking and switch it off when you finished. Please switch any mobile devices to a silent setting for the duration of the meeting. If the fire alarm rings, please can everyone leave the room immediately and use the fire exit. Do not use the lift. Please go to the fire assembly point located at the bottom of the car park by the garages. Thank you. The benefit of those watching the meeting online. These would members introduce themselves during the meeting, if not already introduced by name. Can I just check everyone can hear okay. Okay. Item one is to approve the minutes of the meeting held on the 8th of March, 2024. Everyone happy? Thank you very much. Item two, decorations of interest. Anyone have interest to declare? Thank you, Chair. Councillor Young. I was contacted by a email in this month by one of the applicants in relation to this. When it became apparent in relation to a licensing matter, I ceased any communication. Obviously we didn't get in proper to have done so. Thank you very much. Steve. Yeah, in light of that declaration, a similar declaration I've been contacted by the site owner. But I made a comment. Thank you very much. Public participation. There are members of the public who are present and will be speaking on item four. We'll hear from them during the item. We come to the main item on the agenda. It's the application to amend the site license conditions at the Florida lease caravan park. I'll refer you to the recommendations on page three of the agenda pack. I'll hand over to Tanya Colter to explain the procedure, please. Thank you, Chairman. Just to run through the procedure for this licensing committee, because it's slightly different to the usual hearings procedure that you would use for licensing act applications and for taxi applications. So, first of all, we'll be hearing from those members of the public who have made representations and who wish to speak. And that'd be those speakers in support of the application and those who object to the application. Then the report author Ben Stockley, the council officer who's prepared the report will introduce it and go through that report. Members of the committee will then have an opportunity to ask questions, both of the officers and also any of the speakers who have spoken today. And then once those questions have been dealt with from members would move on to the debate members will debate the item. Before you following that before any decision is made, each speaker who's spoken earlier in the meeting will have the opportunity then to come back and speak for a minute. And then the committee will move to make the decision. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. We will begin with the people speaking in support of the application. First, we have Kirsty Apps, solicitor. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I ask the council to grant my client's application and to change the conditions of the site license to increase numbers by one to 12 for the following reasons. One, the site is planning for 12 mobile homes. Two, the sighting of the new caravan is six metres from number 14. Three, the six metres takes into account matters of privacy. Four, the extent of Miss Knight's pitch and the distance between her home and the start of pitch to pitch is not a site licensing consideration. Five, a car can park readily in the space for number 12, passing not less than two metres from number two. In any event, my clients have said that they are content to move their space at number 11. Number six, the car parking space for Miss Knight at pitch 14 and any car to be parked there does not breach condition to 4G. The space is off centre or staggered. It is not within the separation distance. My clients have assessed the risk of fire spread by getting an independent fire risk assessment on this issue, which I gather the members now will have, and have put measures in place to ameliorate any risk of fire spread. They have also said that the parking space for number 14 could be swapped with that of the space for number two. Point seven, there is no evidence of vehicles having any issues accessing and leaving the park. We saw today a Waitrose van make a delivery to number seven. Abilances have attended, a lottery to install concrete for the new base at number two has been to the park and left perfectly fine. And the fire risk assessor has said that there are no concerns from a fire safety perspective when it comes to access by fire appliances. I have photographs here which I can distribute to the members if you so wish. I also have a copy of an email from the fire risk assessor who has provided the report which you have. Point eight, I've covered the aspects concerns over specific conditions of the site license. It is worth adding that all of the conditions of the site license are based on model standard conditions which are also based on those considerations as set out in section 51 of the 1960 act. The council can only cut down the lawful planning use of the caravan site without compensation if there is a strong site licensing reason to do so. The lawful planning use is for the sighting of 12 mobile homes. Considerations about open space and outlook or review is not a site licensing consideration. The council or the local planning authority could have conditioned the planning permission to 11 mobile homes and it could have specified a specific site layout plan, but it didn't. Character of the land is a planning consideration and the character of the site is as a caravan site. In any event, it has not been the space we're concerned with has not been an open space for over 40 years. It had a toilet block on it and a fountain with a wall around it before it became the area that we see that we've seen on the site inspection this morning. And that area has been for vehicles to pass and re-pass and for pedestrian use. It is not any sort of recreational or amenity space. Only three people have objected to the proposal. I'm just coming up now. Only three people have objected to the proposal. The additional mobile home will provide additional income for the business and for the continued operation of the site. To refuse the application would be unduly burdensome, meaning unreasonable or unnecessary in all the particular circumstances of the case. That's my submissions on the point. Thank you. Next, we have Kathleen Fitzgerald, the applicant. Good afternoon. You can sit. Right. A bit nervous in here. Me and my husband have worked very hard to put our savings into this small business. We have owned the park for 13 years and made it our home for 11 years. I have to say I feel very hurt and upset by the views and words used against me and my family by one of the residents partners. Name calling is very hurtful and one I have always been helpful and courteous to this individual. We have a good relationship with our residents on the park and always have had a good working relationship with the council. Mr Stockley included. Previous to the new unit, I had wrote to the new Forest National Park that was in 2022. I received a letter back from Ambrade, which I hope you have all seen. The letter explains itself. Then last year my youngest grandson was born quite poorly and premature. Thank God he is doing very well and the doctors are very happy with him and his progress as you can see him here today. We were very worried and tried as much as we could to support my son and daughter-in-law at this time. My son and daughter-in-law were living in the Ronald McDonald house for parents with the babies on the special care. We purchased the new home to support our family. We got excited just before they came home from hospital so they would have support with them. Being young parents, you will have read about this in my daughter-in-law's letter. I apologise, this was incorrect order, but we did have a letter saying that we didn't require planning for the 12 home and I was trying to help my family. I actually always believed planning came first and licensing followed. We cited the home to comply with the conditions and my grandson came home after 12 weeks and 3 serious surgeries. This little baby needed his time to convalesce with his mum and dad. We had a lot of support from the residents, letters of support as well as you have seen. I hope there are two residents on the park that have been unkind and untrue. One of these has the biggest plot on the park with a big back garden and a big garden enclosed at the side of her home. The other resident backs to beautiful fields with beautiful views. When Mr. Stock became to the park, he asked me if we were going to move the park home to 6 metres or remove our thoughts. This was one of the questions because it wasn't in the 6 metres separation distance. I explained that it was class 1 fire resistant, the new park home and it was adamant it should be moved to the 6 metres. Obviously this took a lot of time, organisation and money. We wrote to Mr Stockley and said we were going to move the home 6 metres to the 6 metres separation. The base needed to be extended, which you will see on the photos, the large concrete lorry on site. We needed to disconnect all the mains and my son and daughter-in-law and grandson had to move him with me for a week. The professional company came in and moved the home to the 4-6 metres and all the utilities had to be reconnected. Mr Stockley said he was coming back down to measure the separation distance. The unit was moved with the expectations that Mr Stockley was going to amend the site licence for 12 homes. Otherwise why would we have been moving and coming to the end? We have also since asked for steps to the home. Could we build them? Mr Stockley said no, hold on, not at the moment. And they have had all winter with the wind blowing on it because we couldn't brick it in either because he said no, not at the moment. I took Mr Stockley into the home to meet the family and he tackled the steps and found a struggle so he was full aware of the situation. I would like to say that the fountain, and it was removed about eight years ago, it was broken and the walls were falling down. It was also where all the residents put their rubbish. Sometimes there were 20 bags of rubbish in the middle of the park and the fox it would come in. It was not removed to ease vehicle movement. Over eight years the rubbish has been collected from the car park. We need to move on. It is three minutes limit and you're way over now. We made an application on Mr Stockley's invitation and because it was the right thing to do. We have responded to and addressed all Mr Stockley's queries and we have sought advice from a fire risk officer and we have put measures into place to address the fire safety matters. We have also put in representation from our local estate agent that the homes are not devalued by number two, which I hope you've all had a chance to look at. We have also had a good working relationship with the council. We are not road park owners and I am registered as the fit and proper person to run the park and I do this to the best of my ability. I asked the council to grant my application. Thank you. You did go way over there. Next we have Margaret Fitzgerald. If I can ask you to please keep the three minutes or less because the rules are the rules. Good afternoon I am Margaret Fitzgerald from number two flood delays. As you know I am married and me and my husband is only a young couple. You also know we have a small baby of eleven months. As I know you have all seen my previous letter to Mr Stockley writing about my son and how he was born. I am sure you could all try to understand how hard this was for me and my husband but most of all our son. For all my son's procedures and medical problems as you would expect it has left him more vulnerable. He is in the local doctors and the local health visitors which is vital for him. He is also near the Southampton General where he also has many checkups and it is so important as he is under the consultant there. This has been such a scary time for me and my husband as first-time parents. You know my mother-in-law is next door to help and support us with the baby Charlie is ready. Without this time me and my husband is going to be homeless. You know I am married. We are planning on the park for twelve homes and that the home does comply with the sites license and you can serve Mr Stockley as brought up has been answered. All the neighbours on the park are lovely and friendly to us as a family and we truly feel blessed. We understand this night is elderly and we try to respect that even though our behaviour can be challenging. We know it is not only as she has a problem with as she has a lot of issues with other park residents. I am disappointed with number 7's neighbour and how he treated me in the next door post office where he worked so they would not serve me so he is a colleague. I have been nothing but nice to all residents on the park so I find it hard why he would choose to have a personal issue with me. But as I said everyone as is so lovely and kind and me and my husband has been overwhelmed with all the welcome and support of letters. This home isn't her and anyone who are invading anybody's privacy. We have done everything we can to make Mr Stockley happy along with other council members. This is a mobile home on a mobile home park. There is nothing different about our home to anybody else is on the park. What are we going to do? Where are we going to go? I am not a right. I am not a public speaker. I am just writing from my heart. I hope you take this into consideration today. Thank you. Thank you for that. Now we come to objectives. First we have Miss Knight in Caravan of Doom. I have lived on the Fleur de Lee Park for 41 years. We strongly object to this 12th additional home that has already been cited with a prior permission from the council by Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald. In their amendment, the park owners seek in one. They use the exact words that the total number of caravans on the site shall not exceed at any time. As in the license, the park owners already have the total number of caravans on the site shall not exceed 11 at any time. So cannot exceed that figure on to 12 ever because they have just said so as they cannot exceed to 12 at any time. So therefore they cannot exceed to 11 at any time either. Not to exceed that 11 at any time is a huge safeguard for this small park to prevent misuse in overcrowding of caravans that has happened here now or in health and safety issues. They have already breached one not to exceed 11 at any time by already citing a 12th caravan in defiance of one. So it should be removed as per the compliance order of December 2023. Although they do have unlimited planning for caravans, but at the same time, the park is governed by site license conditions, which include the physical standards and layout amenities and other standards. They were distinctly told from the start, they shall not exceed 11 at any time, which means they cannot surpass it on to 12 ever. By already citing it in defiance of the license conditions to seek the council's permission first, they have breached that rule condition one. Everything is still the same as in 2015. So I cannot see the council has any justification to change the 2015 decision to refuse this already additional caravan be incited, and it should be removed as per December 2023 compliance order. Also, nine homes didn't write in any letters, except for this already cited 12 home to remain cited to the park owners, as they wanted the residents to do. We were solely thoroughly enraged and dismayed with horror at what we witnessed taking place, 7th and 11th of August 2023. There wasn't any consultation with the residents about a 12th caravan coming on to the park ever. They just went ahead and breach condition one that the number of caravans on the site shall not exceed 11 at any time. So cannot exceed stone surpass 11 at any time ever on to 12 homes. One, the residents asked for the application from the park owners Fitzgerald for an amendment license condition to one for 12 caravans on the site to be refused. Two, the residents object to an additional 12 caravan already cited to remain here in breach of condition one, not to exceed 11 homes at any time and ask for it to be removed. Three, the residents want this site license to stay at not to exceed 11 homes at any time on the floodily park, and not to exceed it in this. Can I ask you to sum up please for it in some way it's never again. Thank you. Thank you. When we have Council Dan Paul. Thank you chairman. First of all, I've got a statement from the parish council, which I've been given the mission to read in the slide that they have. Boulder parish council wish to see an equitable and sensitive resolution to the disputed situation of bloodily park. The last nine months have seen the development of a stressful and difficult time for many of the residents at the bark. Following the rejection of applications to expand the number of units at the park in recent years, the introduction of an extra home into the park in August against the advice of the authorities at the time and without a further application should not be accommodated. In our view, due procedures should be followed, including consultation and agreement with existing residents. If the regulatory authorities planning or licensing do not act to uphold the procedures in place, the inevitable outcome would be these rules or guidelines fall into disrepute. In effect, it would be a green light to those who wish to erode safeguards or to ride rock dot over existing regulation. It cannot be right for this to be allowed. Boulder parish council also take the view that the impact of the unauthorized additional unit onto the park has had unacceptable effects on some of the residents. The overbearing and intrusive location of the unit reducing recreational parking space has affected the welfare and well being of neighbours. Those who have chosen to make the park their home cannot have expected the increase in the density of the units within the park. The current unauthorized situation is unfair on them and may have a damaging effect on their financial investment. We look forward to a resolution to this issue which protects long-term interest in the community, Boulder Parish Council. And then I will now move on to my own comments. Members, you've been briefed. You've read the report. You have been to the site for a visit. I will not go over all ground. I shall simply state the facts as they are with me. On the 8th of August last year I arrived home from work to a message for me to call Councillor Jack Davies urgently and I duly did so. He advised that several distressed elderly residents of Flirtelies Park have been desperately looking for help to stop unplanned works and they have reached in the mayor of the neighbouring town. I have had regular correspondence with residents ever since. In fact, I have had more correspondence over this case by far than any other matter within my ward. Residents regularly attend parish council meetings, hopeful for an update on their plight. I have had phone calls and emails advising of developments, including unpleasant interactions. To my mind, this case is actually very straightforward. The request for retrospective approval was not due to a mistake or misunderstanding. The Fitzgeralds knowingly cited this unit with full understanding that they were doing so in breach of their licence. They just hoped to get away with it. Further, I do not trust the validity of the letters of support from residents. Indeed, one of the residents emailed me in desperation to ask the support in stopping the works as soon as they began. There was confusion and stress. Residents clearly had not expected it. Yet just a day earlier, we are to believe a letter from the same lady in this report is in enthusiastic support. These dates and accounts are wildly inconsistent and you will be right to doubt them. Whatever the outcome of this meeting, there has been many hours of wasted officer time and many more still for upset and stress for residents, nearly all of whom are retired. They are not able to go off to work for eight or nine hours daily for respite from the physical imposition as well as the feeling of tension. This was all avoidable but can't be undone. This committee bound the site was not suitable for 12 units in 1999 and 2015. Nothing has changed. Members, please do the right thing and reject this retrospective application. The other option sets a dangerous precedent indicating that a contempt for the law pays off. Thank you. And I've been also, just quickly, the letter that was sent to residents advising of today's site visit clearly states, please note that during the site visit, Councillors will not be able to speak to individual residents or interested parties. And I've been informed that this did not happen today. Thank you. Thank you to all the speakers. I know it's a bit stressful if you're not used to the sort of things. So thank you all. Next I'll invite the report author Ben Stockley to introduce the reports to the meeting. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, so you'll have heard that an application has been received to amend the site license. The third lease park to increase the number of caravans from 11 to 12. You'll have also heard that the planning commission does not restrict the numbers of poems on the site. So the most planning commission for more than 11 caravans on the site, it becomes a licensing issue to consider. I can't hear you very well. I'm sorry. I'll move close to the microphone. Thank you. Apologies, Miss Knight. So yes, there are no planning reasons why there can't be more caravans on the site. So at this point, the considerations, can we just pause a moment? Well, sort of. Thanks. Can you hear all right now, Ben? No, Mr Stockley's moved closer to the, I'm hearing. Yes. Thank you. Shall I continue? Okay. Thank you. Do I turn that off? Oh. Sorry for the confusion. Sorry if you couldn't hear me. As I say, planning commission is doesn't restrict the numbers. So it becomes a site licensing matter, whether or not a new caravan can be on the site. You'll have read them from the report, the history of applications received to increase the numbers in the past from 11 to 12. And that reference, there was reference made to the decision of the committee in 2015. To this matter, it is worth pointing out that that application was a little bit different to the application before us. In so far as with that application, the distance between the new proposed unit and number 14 was going to be less at 5.25 metres. And also in addition to that, the new application, a small parcel of land belonging to number 12 has been used to site the caravan slightly further into the site. So there are differences. I was aware of the discussions that the applicant had with National Park planning authority last year. We did discuss it at the time. And I did at that time ask the applicant if there were going to be any significant changes should an application be made. And I was told that wasn't the case. However, the in terms of the matter before us, we need to look simply at whether the caravan as cited can comply with the site license conditions. And that was part of the purpose of the site visit this morning to actually look at those matters. If you turn to a section seven of the report, which for members is on page starts on page six, we've covered the those particular issues. So, so the first point was relating to the spacing between caravans. And I've already mentioned that was the caravan was originally placed at 5.25 metres. It was subsequently amended and that was alluded to by Mrs Fitzgerald that the caravan had since been adjusted to six metres. The next matter was the proximity of the caravan to the roadway. The condition requires roads not to pass within two metres of caravans. And you'll recall that we spent some time looking at the new caravan number two and the roadway and whether cars could could could maneuver in and out of the space, the parking space for belonging to number 12. And you will know that the applicant has offered to always as a means of alleviating the problem to relocate their parking space such that there isn't problems for cars parking at number 12 to get in and out and to still maintain that two metres spacing. Moving on to talk about the parking space for number 14 from this night, you'll know that the proposal is to relocate that parking space from its current location to a location closer to the entrance to the site. And you've heard from the solicitor actually on behalf of the applicant that they've had a new fire risk assessment undertaken, which sets out various steps which have been taken, which they consider would comply that condition and allow that parking space to be where it is proposed. Moving on to footpaths. Again, the site license conditions require that footpaths are provided linking each home with the edge of their pitch or the roadway. The proposed or the plan means that miss night at number 14 would would no longer be able to access the park in the way she's been familiar with doing so. So it is proposed by the applicant that a new paved path would be placed to from number 14 to the entrance to the sites of the west of the home near to the entrance. So there, there the main matters in terms of the site license conditions, which is what we're primarily talking about. It's probably worth just clarifying the consultation, which we received and I know Councillor Paul's already references into I said in the report that four, four residents were in favour and three were against. I did receive an email, I've subsequent to this report on the 20th from one of the residents saying that whilst they had said they were in favour, they're in fact not in favour. So that changes it from four in favour three against two, four against three in favour. That's my summary, thank you. Thank you Ben. Right, so I'll now invite members to ask questions to the speaker to the clerk. To Ben please. The applicant has stated that they have planning mission for 12. You've stated that there is a planning consent on the site. Now, whilst I appreciate that planning, consent and licensing are two separate issues. I think it's actually important to clarify exactly what is the planning consent because that could materially affect where we stand. So is it a planning consent for the site in the caravans with an unspecified number, or is it a specific planning consent for the site in the 12 caravans? My understanding is that it's a former, it is classed as a caravan site. I believe the reference to 12 comes from the advice provided by National Park Planning who mentioned in answer to the question, could the 12 caravans be the answer was yes, that's my understanding. Okay, so there is an indication that a planning authority has indicated 12 caravans would be appropriate for that site. And then it would just come down in terms of the compliance of the site to the model regulations as I'm reading the documents. That's my understanding. I think the email letter that the applicant received from National Park Planning specified that planning was not an issue. And then it went on to say, however, you would need to apply to amend the license always to that effect. Point of making, Chairman, we haven't seen the documentation that says that 12 would be appropriate. And as I say, I have purposely tried to separate out the license issue from the planning issue, but I think it is a material consideration that we've been told that they have got a planning consent for 12. Whereas, yes, there is a material thing and then it could become a matter of the actual license in model standards. Sure, in the report, I think I simplified matters by just specifying that planning wasn't an issue or that's essentially what I said and that is the case. I know that the solicitors, as pointed out, she's got a copy of the correspondence from National Park. I don't have it on me right now, but I could get it if you require to read what it says. Looking at the applicant solicitor, and there is that consent there. So I think it's one, the Chairman, whether with our legal advice, whether it's possible for us to see that letter. Yes, that can be passed over to you if you want to see that just for confirmation, Chairman. And just for confirmation as well, a copy of the letter was submitted with the application to vary the conditions of the site license back in December, but I'll pass it a big copy of this letter on to them. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, Chairman. It's always interesting for members to know whether there are objections or support for a particular scheme. But I'd like to ask the officer whether it makes [BLANK_AUDIO] To our decision, because it's my understanding that if all of the conditions are being complied with, we cannot take the fact that there are objections or indeed any support as overriding any of that. Is that so? Can I ask legal to come in on that, please? Thank you, Chairman. I think you can give such weight as you wish to your objections and to the letters in support in so far as they touch on the relevant points, as I think is set out in the report. The main issue, the key issues for you today are those, the compliance with the current conditions that were in place, but then there's an overriding statutory sort of, I suppose, objective for you to consider, which is you've got a power to attach conditions to site licenses. Such that you think it necessary or desirable to impose on the October of the land in the interest of the people living on the site and others. So at the moment you have a condition on the license that sets out there are that limits the number of caravans to 11. Now the application to vary that is before you today. So, yes, you've got to look at the compliance with the current conditions and then look at are there any other licensing reasons, so sort of impact on the living conditions, the health, the safety, the welfare of the occupants of the site, for example, that would mean either you could grant it with further conditions to be attached or that were significant enough for you to decide to refuse. So, you have to have reasons for doing that and those reasons have to fall within the licensing rather than the planning remit. And some of those representations and objections and application, the letters and support may well contain evidence or information that you may want to use to support your decision. So you can give such weight as you think is fit within that within those parameters. Okay, Chairman, and just to check, should the matter go to appeal and appeals inspector would also give weight to objections and support and understand perhaps why we would have gone one way or the other. It would depend on the reasons given and the weight given so any the tribunal would consider it and would consider the law as it stands and any submissions or or otherwise made. I think what's important is not the number, particularly, as in planning it's about the nature of that representation either in support or objecting to, and the issues that raises, rather than the number. Thank you. During the site visit this morning, we had a look at the spacing of the caravans, and okay it might meet fire regulations within tolerance, but the spacing between the caravans for a person to be able to. Alan, are you asking a question of anyone. I am. Well, we're addressing your questions because we're not in debate at the moment, but this is the opportunity to ask questions. Yeah, what I'm saying is, can we take into account the personal well being of the people on the site, because it is rather crammed. Okay, so that could be a legal thing. I think you would have to look at that objectively and say, you know, does the additional caravan impact upon, you know, objectively that the health and welfare of other residents on the site, because of where it sits, such that, you know, that would justify refusal. And I think you would have to then explain and give reasons why you felt that were to be the case to rather than an individual that might have specific needs objectively looking at, you know, general occupants of the site who may want to move in there or live there. Does that site and its layout. Enable 12 caravans to be situated on it, or should it be limited to 11. Alan, thank you, Mr chairman may ask the applicant please about parking for number two and number 12. The applicant has said that they're going to put two meters delineation around number two. How are they going to ensure that that is not reached when the people turn a parking to number 12 and will they be able to get in there without having to drive over the, the land of number two. So if you look at the layout plan showing, which is in the, is it a appendix for. Is that the one that you have. It's 31 I think. So you can see that the parking space for number two is at the right hand corner of number two. And the parking space for number 12 is currently to the right of the home on number 12 is to be sorted a. Mr chairman does that line around a number two to the south of number two is that two meter away from the car. The car parking space there doesn't need to be two meters there's no separation distance there between the unit at number two and the unit at number eight. So the separation distance is six meters. There's a much greater distance than six meters. The car parking space is able to accommodate a car there in terms of the maneuvering around there for that car parking space towards number 12. There's still adequate room for a car to be parked at number 12, but even if the there are concerns about doing that and whether it encroaches on the two meter distance between number two and the road. Mrs Fitzgerald has said that she will move her existing car parking space. So that moved further over so that the car parking space for number 12 is a bit further over so that there is that swing therefore into number 12. So it shouldn't be a problem. The two meter distance from two to the edge of the road. There's no reason why that that can't be that can't be maintained. Thank you. I like the phrase. It shouldn't be. Well, I think it all depends on on the circumstances doesn't it and how vehicles come in and and respect the layout. Okay, I think we're all done with questioning so I'll throw this open to debate to members. Anyone has anything. Steve. I think we're in a situation here which is always going to be difficult because I think most of them haven't visited the site. We can see we have issues on both sides. And to my mind that we've been explained to us the legalities of the model regulations are there to give us the guidelines and to give us a compliance sort of. Guideline again, but if if we're satisfied that the model regulations are being complied with and we've we've seen that there is a suggestion from the National Park that 12 caravans could be accommodated and they are accommodated within the guidelines. I find we're in a situation where we have to follow the regulations and those guidelines are more than we might want to follow our heart and the heart could lie in two different ways on something like this and that's the problem. I think no one's going to be entirely happy with it with an outcome of hearing like this. But we have guidelines for a reason. I'm there for remember the view that we've probably got to follow those guidelines. However, I would like to, if we were to approve, I would like some slight amendments to the conditions, which I think are easily complied with. And the first of all, it follows on the point that Councillor Reed made in that I think the delineation, the two meter delineation on the new caravan for the parking spaces at number 12 and 11. I think that needs to be a hard delineation so that the two meters is clear and if anybody's crossing that that's that two meter line. It's they're going to actually meet some resistance from their tires if you like. So I'm probably suggesting that Kerbin there to show that delineation. And I think that also means that the actual parking space that is currently access, which I think is set forward to need to be pushed back to allow the maneuvering around that part of the of the site. I think that's that's all achievable. On the other side of the new home with the parking space, which doesn't leave the two meters because it comes under slightly different rules. All I saw there today was one post, which said reverse parking only. I'd also like to see that a post can easily disappear. And if there's going to be a an amenity space behind that, I'd like to see something more protective if you like, because the states get happened. I see a fairly strong barrier boundary across that part so that you can't go back into the the amenity area without some significant realization that you're doing it. And I think that's that's the important thing for me as to the actual site layout. I think this is a site that whichever way with it's got 11 or 12. It's it's not the most uncluttered site I've seen. It is a site that is is using every available piece of space, but it still seems to be compliant. As long as it's compliant, I feel that I have to go with the regulations. Thank you Steve. Thank you. I can see the point on regulations and it just about gets away with them. But what I did notice this morning is I personally wouldn't want to live on that site because it is so crowded. We had a license for 11 for a reason, not to overcrowd it. I think I can see no reason whatsoever to change that license. We've heard very sad stories, but there are places to live. This I think is going to make it unpleasant, even more unpleasant for people who are living on it, getting it more overcrowded, more cars coming and going. Just more noise in general. I can see no reason to vary the existing license. Thank you, David. Thank you, Chairman. I'll start by saying I found it hugely beneficial visiting the site. It's a reminder as with many planning applications that having your feet on the ground and actually geographically being present, it's the really the best way that members can get a feel for exactly how things are set out, how cluttered or not cluttered things might be, and also some of the specific issues about traffic movements and those sort of things. I wanted to address this allegation that we had that there were discussions taking place with members on site. There weren't. All that happened is that there was a greeting on the part of the applicants and owners of the site, and there was some explanation given as to some of the questions about the layout and that sort of thing. There was no discussion at all, and I hope other members will agree. There was no discussion at all about matters relevant to the application. We did exercise the necessary discipline in that respect. Moving on to our job today, I think that we, as often happens on this committee, we have to confine ourselves to the issues at hand. We've been guided by the report and we've been guided by the offices to make sure we do just that. In some of the representations, as often happens, the public come along and they tell us all manner of things about their babies and about their living circumstances. They're not relevant, and we have to dismiss those. There is one relevance that we have to have regard to, and it is the impact of those residents that are already there. How this new extra unit has any prejudice to their life, whether it's visual noise or whatever it might be, and that's one of those things we have to make a judgment about. I understand why some people would perhaps not be happy with the addition of one additional unit, but I start from the premise that all of the conditions have been met that the applicant is required to do. I think that it's obviously important to take into account objections that we are able to take into account, such as the impact on their lives as residents. In that regard, I fall down on the side that it isn't too owners for them. It isn't too prejudicial, and for that reason, I'm going to support the recommendations. And I think Councillor Clark has made some sensible suggestions about a couple of extra conditions that would sort of make the whole thing watertight. So, if Councillor Clark would like to make his a proposal, I will second it. Sure, we've recorded what I said in terms of the delineation being hard to ideation in both sides of the caravan, so I do make that proposal. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think like all of us on this table, I'm conflicted. I read things from residents say that since August, our mental health and quality of life are diminished. But that to me is quite a powerful statement. And when I went to site this morning, I saw how cramped it is and sort of contrived by putting another unit on there, we saw that the parking for number five was extremely difficult. They would be doing three five point turn to get out of their parking space. I'm still not convinced that with the delineation that Councillor Clark suggests for around number two, that the parking for 12 would be adequate. It makes a site crumpling now. It doesn't make it into an enjoyable living area. I feel, you know, and that's a feeling. I unfortunately, I can think of no legal reason to object, but I still don't object. I don't like this. I think it's wrong. I think it's retrospective. I think they've done it in the wrong way. And just for being retrospective, it's not a good idea to to float the law and just we're going to do it anyway, you know, we haven't got permission. Well, not in itself is a reason to object. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Councillor. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I see it's a very motive from subject. We've got lots of presentations from both sides. I think it hasn't been done in the best of ways that you can. The letter from National Park clearly states that, yes, you can put one there under planning rules, but you should really could comply with the site license administered by New Forest District Council, which hasn't been done up to now. I don't often agree with Councillor Clark, however, although my heart's telling me one thing, we're a certain planning before licensing is totally separate. And if it's compliant, then I can't see that I could oppose it. Any other members? David, can we just close off Councillor Reed's statement? I think he said, and I hope I haven't misunderstood you, but you appear to be saying, because the application is retrospective. That is a reason, a valid reason, why you are going to object. I don't think that a tribunal would accept that as a valid reason. And I'd like legal advice on it, please. I think we know what the advice is, but Alvin, if you'd like to clarify your statement? Yeah, I think what I'm saying is, thank you for asking for clarification. I think what I'm saying is that the pile on top of everything else that I've seen, that this is just another nail in the coffee. It is a retrospective application, it's not that it's a reason itself, it's just another sign of things not being done in what I would consider to be a fit and go up the way what I would consider to be fit and go up the way. I think it's very fair, you're just making a personal judgement legally, I don't think we're supposed to take into account. So anyone else want to say anything? I found myself very confused. I think as well, I think it would make it an unpleasant place to live because of the overcrowding. And when you listen to Councillor Coogan, I think the objections from around the area, which is quite a pleasant area, would be listened to to an extent, because it's degrading the car, the caravan park, and I think degrading the lives of the people on the caravan. And I believe that to be a very significant reason, without it needs the law, it's spoiling people's lives. Okay, I have a few words myself, I've been very conflicted over this as well, but I think Steve Clark started right by saying, we have to separate planning and licensing, and those of us who served on planning and licensing committees often mix things up and it's hard to separate. The rules for licensing are pretty clear, and I think Steve's idea about the extra cutler conditions delineating to meter separation, protecting parking space, good ideas, and I would go along with that myself. So, I don't normally sort of like to say anything in the chair, I like to sit back and look at it, but it's looking quite balanced here, so I have my little say, and I do fall on the side with Steve and others and think that we should let it go. Jim, and I'm happy to put a proposal that we find the grant from this application except subject to the conditions contained within the report and the suggested additions to those conditions that we put forward and seconded by Councillor Harrison, which is us working in unison. I look for a seconder for that. Okay, so that's, we do need some proper words to go in there. Is that a bit more we vote? So we might just stop for a couple of minutes if we can. Thank you members, so I can't just see whether this reflects your move. The proposal to grant would be subject to, so I understand the condition set out in the report recommendations on the front of the report. And they're bullet pointed, but if I run through as the first bullet point being one, if you look to bullet point three. It could read following your moves, a new caravan number two, shall be a minimum of two metres from the roadway, including to the south, and the two metres to be delineated by way of curbing or other similar method, or by other similar method. And then the other proposed amendments to the suggested conditions would be a condition five, bullet point five, a parking space for caravan 14 is to be provided on the site, which complies with the site conditions, and the requirements of the fire risk assessment, and we'll put that date in, and the installation of an appropriate signage, appropriate permanent signage setting out any parking requirements. Does that fit with what you're proposing? Thank you, Chairman. Steve, we're talking about some physical barriers going back to the path. So, an appropriate barrier setting out the parking space. [silence] Okay, I'm going to debate those speaking support can have one minute if they wish to say something. Wait, wait. There's people in support, nothing to say. So, I was asking the supporters first of all, then I'll come to you. Okay. Yes, I've heard that. Very happy with those suggestions, and thank the Councillor for his proposal, and I'm happy to work out that the wording sounds fine. I'm happy to work obviously with your team to finalise those. Thank you. Thank you. That's an enormous night. The one person that you haven't come to in all this is me in number 14. Since August, I've been very, very used to 41 years there of an open land. I'm now since August, all shut in a cupboard with no means of escape, because all I have now is that unit number two. I don't want it there. My house has deteriorated terribly because of it. I have celiacs disease, and I have other problems to eat mental and physical problems to deal with this as well. I've now got this unit in front of me for the rest of my life, and I solely object to your remarks. You have no idea about a stump between me and number two. That should not even be there, and that was only put there about three weeks ago. They are still in the 2015 determination that stump had got no right to be their Councillor pulled up. That parking space, the parking space that you saw for me has been there for 33 years. Why should it now have to be moved? Ms Knight, I appreciate that, but you've had your minutes. I'm very, very angry at what I've been hearing about this. Ms Knight, I've had a parking space there for 33 years. Please stop. This is not a place for a debate. From what I've heard at the moment, I don't know what you call it. I don't call it a debate. Turn the microphone off, please. Don, you've got any say? Just simply to say, my position hasn't changed. The facts still stand. I urge members to refuse this on grounds of health and wellbeing of the resident's example you've just seen to my right. Thank you, everybody. We'll now call a vote on whether we approve the application with the recommendations as put out with the amendments as proposed by Councillor Clark. All those in favour? One, two, three, four. Those against? It's one, two, three, four. German, it's your casting boat. Well, I've already voted four, so I'll cast vote four against. Okay. The meeting closed. Thank you. [music]