Transcript

Transcript

[ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ]

Thank you very much for being here everybody to the first planning committee meeting of the new civic year. We've got two substantive items tonight and a couple of others along the way. So I'm going to start with apologies for absence. I've received apologies for absence from Councillor Martin and three other councillors are not able to join us this evening because they haven't attended the mandatory training which I hope will be addressed before the next meeting in July. Are there any other apologies for absence to note this evening? Thank you. That brings us to item two which is declarations of interest. Does anybody need to declare an interest on any of the items before us this evening? Councillor Leach. Thank you, Chair. I thought I ought to say it's not strictly an interest. You were talking about the planning training. I did attend it but the connections were dodgy and a couple of points and I want to go on the follow-up one so that I get fully trained but I can honestly say I attended it but there are a couple of bits I missed but I think that should go on the record just in case but I trust I'm allowed to stay though but unless you think differently. Thank you, Councillor Leach. I confirm that you are able to be here this evening and thank you for your diligence in wanting to follow up on the bit that you missed. Item three is the minutes. Does the committee approve the minutes of the planning committee held on the 16th of April and the very short administrative meeting on the 20th of May as published? Agreed. Thank you. And item four is urgent business. I don't have any urgent business to raise under section 100B of the local government act. Which brings us to matters for determination. Before we go for matters of determination, I want to make a brief statement about the practice of the chairman of this committee voting. Although the constitution does not require the chairman to abstain from voting, there has been a local convention in Woking Borough Council for some years for chairman not to do so. In an effort to modernise the committee, I intend to be considered as a voting member on all items before us for determination as I believe that is what residents would expect me to do. I have asked for this point to be minuted and I don't intend to repeat this statement in future planning committee meetings. Which brings us to item number five, planning and enforcement appeals. I go to Ms Kochar. Thank you, chair. There are a number of appeals before you in terms of new appeals that have been lodged and decisions made since the last committee decisions received from the planning inspectorate. I am asking the committee to note these. I had attempted this afternoon to look at those allowed so I could share the outcome of those with you. However, internal IT systems prohibited me from doing that. All those appeal decisions have been circulated. If you do have questions on any of them, I will happily take your email and talk you through. Thank you, chair. Thank you very much indeed. Which brings us to item 6A, the first application before us for determination. Which is 3J's nursery in Smart Heath Road. This application sits within Woking's designated green belt land and is recommended for refusal by the case officer. Paragraph 142 of the MPPF states the government attaches great importance to green belts. The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of green belts are their openness and their permanence. It goes on to detail at paragraph 152 that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The application was called into this committee for decision by former Councillor Steve Dorset as he considered that the proposal is appropriate development in the green belt and would result in no further erosion to the green belt. Councillor Dorset obviously isn't on the council anymore, but we owe it to him to consider the matter that he brought before the committee in the correct way. So I will refer to the officer to present this report, please. Thank you. Thank you, chair. By way of update on this application, it's noted that in reason for refusal 1, I've referred to proposed football pitches. Just to clarify, this application is for the change of use of the existing commercial unit to an indoor fitness club. And so it would not be for football pitches. This is a typo, and so if the committee were minded to go with officer's recommendation this evening, we'd ask for delegated authority just to reword that. So as I said, the application is for the proposed change of use of the existing commercial unit to an indoor fitness club and dojo. The application site is located on the east side of smart teeth road. Here you'll see the site plan which shows there is an access drive which takes you from the access to smart teeth road round to the existing hard standing and the existing building. So the proposed works would not make any changes externally to the building. There would be some works internally to provide the proposed dojo, storage, office space and changing facilities, but there would be nothing on the outside in terms of physical changes. This can be seen in the elevations, so the elevations as existing would remain. So then we go to the photos. On the left, you've got the access drive as viewed from inside the site. On the right, that's the access drive before entering onto it. That's the access drive again, and then far away on the right, you can see the existing building there, and then the access drive again. That's the existing building which wouldn't be altered externally, and the existing hard standing which would provide parking for the proposed change of use. That's the existing building again. So that is the part on the right is the part of the building which would, the unit which would be changed as a result of the application, and then that is the existing hard standing from the corner of the site, that provides 23 parking spaces. And then this is the wider site, which shows the rural location surrounding the site. So by way of assessment, the proposed use as a gym is a town centre use. The MPPF seeks to locate town centre uses in the town centre and states that the sequential test should apply to town centre uses that are not in the town centre. The sequential test guides main town centre uses towards town centre locations first, then to the edges of town centres, and if neither of these are available, then out of centre locations which are accessible and well connected to the town centre. The application site is located in an isolated rural location outside of any centre or urban area, and as such the sequential test would be required in this instance. No sequential test has been submitted in support of the application, and whilst the cover letter submitted does make reference to site searches being unsuccessful, there is not any detail to this effect provided. In any case, the site would not pass a sequential test given the isolated nature of it, and therefore the principle of development is unacceptable in this instance. In terms of the green belt, the proposal would reuse an existing building which is a permanent and substantial construction, and therefore falls to be assessed under exception 155D of the MPPF. This sets out that this type of development would not be inappropriate developments provided that it would preserve the openness of the green belt. When assessing openness, matters to be taken into account would include the visual impact, the duration of the development and its remediability, and the degree of activity likely to be generated. Taking this into account, the proposal would make no physical changes to the building, however the degree of activity likely to be generated is significant. Given the isolated location of this site, it would need to be accessed by private vehicle. The application details that the classes would run between 4 and 9 p.m. Monday to Friday, 9 and 2 p.m., 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on a Saturday, and 9 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. on a Sunday. It also details that class capacity would be 20 students maximum to one instructor, and there would be a total of five members of staff. Based on these numbers, there would be a maximum of 25 vehicles on the site for this use at any one time, however this doesn't take into account the turnaround time between classes or other uses at the site. This intensified use of the site and amount of parking required would result in a significant loss of openness. Additionally, the existing hard standing only provides parking for 23 vehicles and therefore would not be capable of accommodating the parking required for the proposed use and the other existing uses on the site, therefore vehicles would be likely to park along the access drive or on the adjacent grassed areas for parking and turning, resulting in an encroachment of the countryside from activities associated with the proposed development. Therefore the development would be inappropriate development, which is by definition harmful to the greenbelt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. No very special circumstances have been put forward in support of the application and none are considered to outweigh the harm. In terms of its visual impact, given the previously discussed impact on openness, the proposal would be out of character in this isolated rural location and therefore would be contrary to policy in this regard. In terms of highways and parking, given the isolated location, the use would bring more traffic to the area with no sustainable travel options, therefore it's considered the proposed development would not be acceptable on highway sustainability grounds and therefore would not comply with national and local policy. Further to this, as detailed earlier, the site would provide insufficient parking for the proposed use. The proposal does not include any increase to the hard standing and any increase to it would be inappropriate in any case, due to the greenbelt location. In terms of ecology, both Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England were statutory consultees for the application, given its proximity to smartsheath and prairiesheath SSSIs. No ecological information was submitted in support of the application and therefore it's not been possible to assess the potential impact. Whilst Natural England raised an objection subject to a construction environmental management plan, ecological information would be required at application stage to determine if a preliminary ecological appraisal is required. As this has not been submitted, the application is also unacceptable on ecological grounds. Whilst there is no objection in terms of the impact on neighbours, this would not outweigh the concerns of the other five topics raised. Therefore, it is recommended that the application is refused for the following reasons. So the principle of development is unacceptable, given it's a town centre development in an isolated rural location. Number two, the development would be inappropriate development in the greenbelt by reason of its impact on openness and no very special circumstances to outweigh this harm. Number three, the increase in activity would be out of character in this isolated rural location. Number four, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highways and parking due to the increased activity on the site. And number five, insufficient ecological information to assess any ecological impact of the development. It's noted that this recommendation is consistent with previous decisions at the application site, namely application plan 2016-1162, which was for a proposed yoga studio at the site. This was refused. Additional regard is had for an appeal decision at Blanchard's Hill Farm in Sutton Green, which was dismissed in December 2022. Whilst it's noted this is a different site, it is in the greenbelt and also in an isolated rural location and the application sought permission to change the use of a storage barn into a fitness studio and gym. In this instance, the inspector found that the proposal would not preserve the openness of the greenbelt and would not contribute to the achievement of sustainable development as it would encourage the use of private cars due to the isolated location. So with that in mind, I have recommended refusal. Thank you. Thank you very much. There is no public speaker to speak in objection of this application, but we do have Mr. Vince Skilcorn who is going to speak in support of the application. So I'd invite you to come forward, please. Once you start, you will have three minutes. When there's 30 seconds remaining, the orange light will go, and when your time is up, the red light will go. So over to you. Good evening, chair and members of the committee. My name is Vince Skilcorn, the applicant. Along with my wife, Samantha Skilcorn, we founded Fighting Fitness Judo in 2015. The club provides judo classes for children, teenagers and adults in Waken and Guildford. The application proposal will allow us to keep the Woken Club going and create a world-class judo facility for the Woken community. We are surprised our proposal would generate such concern. I would like to confirm some of the misunderstandings. The project involves a change of use of 147 square meter building and does not include any works related to football pitches. No expansion of the hard-standing area for parking is proposed or needed. The existing parking provisions is more than adequate for our needs. Our classes have limited numbers and some members carpool, further reducing traffic. We believe our proposed use would potentially generate less traffic than the current 24-hour distribution use permitted on the site. The report suggests the need for alternative sites. Since 2021, we have searched extensively for suitable locations, including industrial units and town center spaces. Although industrial units meet our needs in terms of big open space, there is a lack of adequate parking and landlords refuse our type of use due to the nature of the club. Town center locations are unsuitable due to our additional costs and member safety concerns. We teach the majority of our classes in the evenings. Children and women would have to navigate areas near pubs and busy nightlife to attend our classes. From speaking to our members, we know this would be a huge concern. Our proposal involves only internal changes to the building with no lighting or habitat removal required. Our club is not just about teaching judo, it's about building confidence, self-esteem and community spirit. This was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic when we kept nearly 200 Wacom residents active online. For our efforts, I was awarded the Trotman Trophy from Wacom Borough Council and UK Coaching Hero Award from Her Royal Highness Princess Anne. Without a suitable venue, we face the potential closure of our Wacom facility, which would be a significant loss to the community. This application is crucial for us to continue providing employment, supporting local charities and offering life-changing classes. We hope you will consider our proposal positively. We are grateful for the support expressed in the submitted representations and are committed to enhancing the wellbeing of the Wacom community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. I now open the matter up to debate from members of the committee. If nobody wishes to speak on this item, shall we go to a vote on it? There is a proposal before us to refuse planning permission. Could I have votes in favour of that refusal, please? Oh, I beg your pardon, sorry, Councillor Leach. No, I thought we were voting, I beg your pardon. Councillor Mukherjee, did you indicate? Sorry. Yes. I just wanted to clarify one thing. This is not involving any external work. That unit is already in use as a commercial unit, so it has got cars coming and going. And so how is that additionally infringing on the green belt? That's what I want to make myself clear because, you know, in the recommendation, I completely get your point. And in the recommendation, it says the proposed change of use of this isolated rural site to maintain town centre leisure uses, and it's not clear to me what town centre leisure uses means, because if it's a fitness studio or if it's a dojo for martial arts, it's not a town centre leisure uses, it's removed from that. So I am really sympathetic to detrimental effect on a green belt, but it's not clear to me in this particular scenario where there is no external work involved and there is, it's already in use as a commercial unit and there is no, you know, potentially there might be some overflow car park, but there is car park, there is no extension of the hard standing. How does it additionally infringe on the green belt? So whilst, whilst there would be no physical changes to the external envelope of the building, the proposed use would intensify the site because the, just because the existing use has 24 hour access doesn't mean that there's potentially an excess of 45 cars at any one time which this proposal could potentially lead to based on the figures provided. So the figures provided were the, the maximum class size would be 20 students per one instructor. There's five members of staff, so based on a maximum of 25 cars. And then at change over times, that could be an additional 20 cars. So we're looking at 45 cars and that's just for this one use, not for the existing uses on the site as well. This parking provision only provides provision for 23 cars. So just for one class alone, if all five members of staff were there and, and all had a car and there was, and the class was at capacity, there's already insufficient parking, which could lead to people parking along the, the access drive, which is quite narrow. So it would involve parking on the, the grass instead, which is erosion of the greenbelt. So it is the intensification of the site and that many cars between the hours of, so four and nine, Monday to Friday, nine and two on a Saturday and nine and 1130 on a Sunday. So whilst there is a 24 hour access at the moment, it's a lot more likely given that use class that the vehicle movements are a lot less intense and this would be a lot more intense.

• You said that that if the dojo is built, I'm saying hypothetically, will it still carry on with its existing function as a commercial unit?
• So the proposal is only for one part, one unit of the commercial buildings, so it's not for all of them. So the existing uses at the other units would remain.
• Thank you.
• The main problem, sorry, sorry, I have quite a clarity because, you know, sorry. So basically the decision is based on at the turnaround times of classes, there might be a few cars which can park on the green belt because if there are 20 or 25 cars at one time and then one class is finishing and another one is coming, another one is starting, so there will be 20 people picking up and 20 people. So for 10 minutes, there will be more cars, more car parking, is the main decision based on that?
• No, so there's five reasons for refusal as I went through in a presentation, the impacts on the green belt does form one of them and I would say that sort of 20 to 45 cars is more than a few. It would more than likely result in the erosion of the green belt through parking on the existing green space and as well as that, it's the traffic to the site, it's not just being on the site, and it's that intensification, Smart Teeth Road, it's a classified B road, sorry county council highways have deemed it not an appropriate site for the proposed use. So all in all, it is recommended for refusal on a number of reasons, not just on parking, it's the impacts on the greater area as a result of the intensification of the site.
• Thank you, so it's not the structure that is deemed to be the harmful development but the change of use that would arise as a result. Remember that with green belt, we have to consider whether there are very special circumstances to allow development and that's the overriding principle that we should be considering on this. Ms. Kuchar I think wants to say something on this also.
• Just to add to what the chair has just said, the National Planning Policy Framework is very, very clear on what is appropriate development or appropriate uses within the green belt and it covers it very, very specifically. Anything that doesn't fall within that criteria is deemed inappropriate and it is very specific that what is not inappropriate, it's funny wording, but what is not inappropriate is outdoor sport and leisure, indoor sport and leisure is inappropriate development in principle within the green belt as set out in National Planning Policy. You asked a question about town centre uses versus green belt uses, the national policy defines what those appropriate uses is, therefore this is not an appropriate use in principle in the green belt unless as the officer has suggested, very special circumstances have been put forward, which they haven't in this case, thank you.
• Thank you. Do any other members of the committee have any questions or comments? In which case, we will go to the vote. The proposal before us is to refuse planning permission, could I have votes in favour of refusal please?
• So we have Corsenham, Lyons, Gervade, Sullivan, Leach and Merkigee.
• Thank you, so this application is refused. The next item before us this evening is item 6B, Robin Hood Road in St. John's. This application is before us this evening, as a number of dwellings proposed falls outside the scheme of delegation. It's recommended for approval by the case officer, subject to conditions and the agreement of a section 106 agreement. There is some planning history on this site with an application in 2016 being refused and an appeal decision in 2021 that upheld the case officer's recommendation to refuse planning permission. This application has significant modifications and seeks to address the reason for refusal in the earlier application. The other thing to note is that the building proposed to be demolished is locally listed. The status doesn't specifically protect it, but it does require the local planning authority to consider whether any potential benefit outweighs the loss of the building. So I will pass over to the case officer to introduce this item, please.
• Thank you, Chairman. Item 6B relates to number one, Robin Hood Road, and the proposal is for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a building of up to three stories comprising seven flats and a commercial unit at ground floor level. Slide 15 shows the site outlined in red. As you can see, the existing building sits roughly centrally within the existing plot and faces the roundabout to the frontage, and further to the southeast is the Basingstoke Canal and the bridge over the canal. It has two road frontages, Barrick Path to the south and Robin Hood Road to the east, and it fronts onto the mini roundabout, which leads to Hermitage Road. Slide 16 shows the existing elevations of the existing building, shows a double fronted Victorian building, which has had extensions and alterations to the rear, and slide 17 just shows the existing layout of the building. The building was formerly used as a vet, but is currently vacant. Slide 18 shows the proposed site plan, showing the proposed building and the parking to the rear, and the red dotted outline shows the footprint of the existing building to be demolished. Slide 19 shows the proposed ground floor plan. This shows the bin and cycle storage to the left, the commercial unit, which would have frontages on both road frontages, and one of the flats at ground floor level. Slide 20 shows the first floor plan. Slide 21 shows the second floor plan, and slide 22 shows the proposed roof plan. The building adopts three gable features which face each road frontage, and slide 23 shows the elevation which would face the roundabout, which is viewed from the southeast, showing one of the contemporary gable features with inset balconies. Slide 24 shows the proposed elevation, which would front onto Barrack Path, where it steps down to two storeys, as you can see, and slide 25 shows the proposed elevation, which would face Robin Hood Road. Because of the unusual footprint of the site, these are the elevations which would be to the rear, which would be less prominent, but these are largely blank, with windows which serve non-habitable spaces, so these windows are generally required to be obscurely glazed with restricted opening. Slide 27 shows an illustrative view of the proposed building, which has been provided by the applicant. You can see roughly in the center here is where the proposed building is, and this slide shows a more zoomed-in version of that, so you can see it adjoins two storey dwellings to the sides, but it addresses the corner plot quite successfully by having active frontages on each frontage. Slide 29 shows the existing building on the right-hand side of the image, and on the left-hand side of the image is a building which is currently under construction on the other side of the road, on Barrack Path, which is two storeys with accommodation in the roof space. Slide 30 shows some more photographs of the building. The top right image shows the two-storey flat roof extension, which has been erected to the rear, and the bottom two images show the relationship with the adjoining neighbors, the bottom left and the bottom right, which are two-storey dwellings, and slide 31 shows more views of the relationship with the surrounding neighbors, and it shows the existing site, which is largely hard-standing and used for parking. The top two images on slide 32 show a view from Barrack Path, looking towards the site. The bottom left image is a view from the other side of the canal bridge, looking towards the site, and the bottom right image is a view looking out towards Robin Hood Road. There are -- the plans were amended during the course of the application, and this is -- just for your information, this is the -- one of the superseded plans, which showed a larger building, which extended up to the neighbor on Barrack Path, and that element has been reduced in size and brought away from the boundary, and the parking layout has been amended, and that's the same view but showing the ground floor plan, and that's the view of the superseded proposed elevations, and it's the two-storey element on the left of the image, which has been reduced in size, and this is just a view of the proposed site plan again. There is one update for committee. An additional representation has been received. There's a further objection, but it raises issues already summarized in the report, and it just simply reiterates existing objections. For the reasons set out in the report, the proposal is recommended for approval. The proposal is considered to provide public benefits in terms of providing seven additional residential units in a sustainable location within a local center. It makes efficient use of land and re-provides a commercial unit within the local center, which helps to preserve the vitality and viability of the local center. It would result in the demolition of a locally listed building, however, the public benefits are considered to outweigh this harm, as discussed in the report, so the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a legal agreement. Thank you.
• Thank you very much. We have two public speakers. The first is Mr. Graham Cundey, who is speaking to object to these proposals. So Mr. Cundey, if you'd like to come forward, I know you're very familiar with how this works, but in the interest of consistency, I'll remind you that you've got three minutes, and when there's 30 seconds remaining, the orange light will go, and when your time is up, the red light will go, so in your own time.
• Thank you. One Robin Hood road was designated the status of Townscape Merit because it was a good example of the Victorian character of the village, and made a positive contribution to the street scene. It is adjacent to the conservation areas, and is a viewpoint coming over the canal bridge. Policy says that consideration must be given to its conservation status, and any harm should have clear and convincing justification. Everyone needs to balance the loss of the heritage asset. The current building retains all of the original Victorian character, and could easily be sympathetically adapted. It's only unfortunate the photographs did not show a frontal, full-on view, which would have given it the best aspect. The proposed building, by way of its mass bulk height, is totally out of scale, with the three-story elements, plus a full height roof. Capstan's Wharf has two and a half stories, and the new development on the corner of Barrick Path has a third-story element in the roof, to reduce the height. The parking is inadequate, with no parking for the commercial element, and nearby public parking is already oversubscribed. The access via Barrick Path, a narrow road, is poor, and inadequate for commercial deliveries. No consideration of the existing parking problems in Barrick Path has been given. Not enough consideration has been given to the character and nature of the area, and the building does not relate to the village. The proposal should be refused on this basis, and by way of its mass, bulk, height and scale, an overbearing nature. Inadequate parking and poor commercial delivery access. The proposal does not exhibit high-quality design, which is a requirement in replacing a locally listed building. The application should be refused. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much, and speaking in support of the application, we have Mr Patrick Graham of OSP Architecture Ltd, so I invite you to come forward. You have three minutes, and there are 30 seconds remaining. The yellow light will go on, and when your three minutes is up, the red light will go on. Over to you. Thank you, Speaker. This application was submitted in January 2023, and it was following a positive pre-application meeting with Woking Borough Council, so during all that time, we've been working with officers to try and find the best solution for this difficult corner site. So a little background on the site's current situation. The property is on a long-term lease, and however, the tenants have ceased their on-site operations and vacated the premises around three years ago. They have no intention of reinstarting operations. The site has been made secure by the tenant, with security screens across all ground floor windows and doors, which, while safe, is not a positive contribution to the area. Our client is not a developer and is committed to creating a building of value that enhances the local community, as opposed to the existing building, which in its current vacated state represents a bit of an eyesore. Given the length of time invested and the adaptions already made during this planning process, we feel this is an excellent scheme to help revitalize this part of St. John's. This is an urban area and prominent corner within the local centre. We've designed a scheme to mark the corner with a triple-gabled form so that the building presents its best form to all vantage points without any one view appearing as large or bulky. We have studied the forms of the buildings in the conservation area and used materials and traditional forms so that it pays respect to the nearby conservation area. The scheme is mixed-use, with commercial units on the ground floor offering some real life to the street on both sides, and seven starter homes above of one- and two-bedroom flats. The notion of a mixed-use building bringing vitality back to the high street is actively encouraged in Working's local plan policy, and as noted in the Officer Report. So to reiterate, we have worked with the Council to create a property of value to the local community, with new homes and a retail offering on a prominent corner site. The alternative is leaving a vacant, boarded-up asset standing until the late 2030s. We encourage members to back the Officer's recommendation and assist in revitalizing this part of the high street. Thank you very much indeed. I now open it up to members of the Committee for any comments or questions that they might have, starting with Councillor Leach. Thank you, Chair. I do share at least some of the reservations expressed by the former Councillor Cundey in his talk. In particular, I would have a concern about the parking provision, and I would seek guidance on this. It would seem to me that the retail unit will, if it's going to be a café or something like that, will probably attract traffic, and there's no allocated parking for it on the plan. And I absolutely accept the fact that the local car parks do get congested, and I have quite a lot of personal experience of that. Another question I'd have is about the height. I would ask if the height is out of kilter with the building that's going to be completed on the opposite side of Barrack Path. It seems to me that it's substantively taller than that, and I'm wondering if that would create an imbalance there as you approach that junction. Barrack Path is a very narrow road, and it's a very popular route, because Winston Churchill School is at the top, and so you get a lot of pedestrians coming down from Barrack Path onto that roundabout. And I'm sure Surrey County Council are the people who should advise on this, but it does seem to me that having that development so close to the mini roundabout on a narrow road with the access point into Barrack Path for the traffic could be a risk. And I welcome retail units in the village. I think that would be a good thing, but I am also mindful of the fact that there are a couple of vacant retail spots in the village already, and I guess I need reassurance that we need a retail unit here. Having said all that, I don't find the existing structure very attractive, I have to say that. I wouldn't be objecting in principle to replacing that building, provided its replacement is of similar presentation, if you like, in terms of its bricks and its appearance. So sorry for rambling on, I hope I've got that clear, and thank you very much.
• Thank you, Councillor Leach, there is a parking maximum for commercial spaces, but not a parking minimum. Can I just confirm with the case officer that the parking element of it is policy compliant?
• Yes, that's correct. So our parking standards set minimum parking standards for residential uses, and that's set out in the report. I think the requirement is 4.5 spaces for the residential, and this is providing five spaces. The SPD sets maximum standards for commercial uses, which are halved again in local centres, which is where this is. So there's no minimum requirement for dedicated parking, and the commercial unit wouldn't have dedicated parking, however, that I don't think is an unusual scenario in St. John's where you have individual commercial units, and visitors to those units would make use of parking on street bays and the car park at St. John's Ly. I don't doubt that there's pressure for those spaces, but considering the SPD doesn't set a requirement for that, and considering the County Highway Authority are content with the proposals, I don't think the absence of parking would warrant refusal in this case. There's a couple of other comments about the height. So this is three storeys. Most developments in the area are two storeys, and sometimes with a third storey in the roof space or there is one three storey building on the other side of the canal on the corner. So buildings are two to three storeys, and corner plots like this are the place for taller buildings generally in the urban design terms. So in my view, this corner plot warrants a greater bulk and massing so it can address the corner confidently, and the stepping up in height seems logical, and especially in a local center as well. And there may be a variation in height between the neighbors, but a variation in height isn't necessarily harmful, and it's not uncommon in street scenes to have stepping up and stepping down of heights, bulk and massing. And in this case, officers are content that the height, bulk and the massing is appropriate for this, this prominent corner plot in a local center. In terms of access, Barrick Path, it is a narrow road with narrow footpaths, but there's an existing building on the site and existing access, and the County Highway Authority are content with the proposals. That was a point of discussion during the application, which is why there was some amendments, but they're content with the latest proposals. In terms of whether the unit might be vacant, that is a possibility, however there's a policy presumption in re-providing a commercial unit on the site, because it's within a local center. We can't obviously guarantee that that will be occupied, but officers are content that the size of the unit provided and its location and its layout gives it a good chance of being viable, but the market will obviously decide if it is occupied. But there's a policy presumption in favor of retaining commercial uses at ground floor level. Thank you very much. Vice-chairman. Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure these are objections, but I'm going to put them forward, mention them anyway. First of all, there's PV panels on the roof, which is great for its green credentials. However, there's no place in the building that I can see where the PV exchange unit will be placed. Secondly, following on from that, I then began to think a bit more about it all and realized that there's no heating element here either, either communal or individual. And there are no radiators in the rooms. There's no visible vents for a hot air system that might be there. These may not be planning issues, but they are usability issues of the building. Are they planning issues is the first question. If they're not, then I shall remain silent again. Thank you. Can I jump in on that? Please do. They are covered by the building regulations, so they're not for planning, but they will be picked up during the assessment of the full structural drawings at the building regulation stage, either by the council or by an approved inspector. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Councillor Sullivan. Thank you, Chair. I've got a couple of observations. One, I'm also concerned about parking, in that the retail unit won't have any space at all. And this begs the question about delivering. I think one of the emails in objection enclosed a photo of a large vehicle parked on the pavement whilst making delivery. And as this retail unit is going to be almost on the roundabout, this could present a few problems because he's certainly not going to park in the lie and trundle his goods back to the unit. The second one is about business hours, which at the moment are going to be restricted from 8 o'clock till 6.30 in the evening. Now, is there any provision in law where once it's all been built and occupied, that application can be made to alter the business hours? Because what I'm envisioning is if it becomes a bar or a restaurant, they could apply for a late licence. But if it doesn't go down too well, I wouldn't have thought. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, if this was permitted, that condition would stand, but it would be open to the applicant to apply to vary the opening hours if they wished. But such an application would be assessed on its own merits, so we would have to decide whether that would be acceptable or not, and there'd have to be a good reason to allow a change to the opening hours, and we would consult with environmental health colleagues probably in that situation. So it's possible they could apply for a change to the opening hours, but it doesn't necessarily mean that that would be granted. It would just be assessed like any other application. In terms of deliveries, it is a sort of constrained site with limited opportunities to provide a dedicated place for delivery vehicles, so deliveries are likely to take place via Barrett Path or Robin Hood Road, but considering, you know, we're talking about one commercial unit, and considering the highway authority are content with the proposals, we haven't, we don't think that would warrant refusal, but deliveries would take place via the road most likely. Thank you. Are there any other comments, queries from members of the committee? Okay, we have a proposal before us to approve planning permission. Could I have votes in favour of approval, please? We have Kosnahan, Lyons, Gervade, Sullivan, and Merkigy. And could I have votes against, please? And in the usual practice, members present but not voting will be recorded. Thank you. So with five votes for and none against, planning permission is granted. And that brings us to the close of this evening's meeting. Thank you all very much indeed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.