Thank you, Chair. First housekeeping, in the event of the fire alarm sounding, please take instruction from staff and stewards. The assembly point is at Tudor Square. Please can I request everyone to switch mobile devices to silent mode so as not to disturb the conduct of the meeting. The meeting today will be webcast and the recording will also be available for people to view later through the Council's website. Thank you.
It is also possible that Sheffield Live TV will record and rebroadcast this meeting.
While the meeting is open to the public, photography, video and sound recording of the proceedings is permitted. However, the Chair has discretion to withdraw or suspend this permission. For example, if the recording is disrupting the conduct of the meeting or is being undertaken in a manner which could capture personal information or in the event that a member of the public participating in the meeting objects the meeting.
Shall I outline the changes to the agenda, Chair?
Yes, please.
So with regards to the agenda, on the printed papers and as published, item 7C, which is the planning application for land at the junction of Harry's Road, and 7D, which is planning application for Echisle Primary School, both of those have been withdrawn due to the rules regarding the pre-election period and they'll be rescheduled to another committee meeting after the general election. The other two planning applications we'll be hearing today. Thank you.
Thank you, Joe. I'd now like to ask the members to introduce themselves, please. I'm Alan Woodcock, Councillor for East Ecclesfield and today's Chair.
Laura Moynihan, Councillor for Manor Castle.
Good afternoon. I'm Mike Chaplin, Councillor for Southie Ward, also a joint Chair, but deferring to Alan today.
Good afternoon. Nicky Bellfield, Councillor for Firth Park Ward.
Tony Downing, Councillor for Mossborough Ward.
Nick Appishara, Councillor for Netherage and Sharrow Ward.
Good afternoon. Ibi Ulla, Councillor for Netherage and Sharrow, but today I'm acting as a substitute for Councillor Janet Riddler.
Henry Lottet, Councillor for Hillsborough Ward.
Marianne Elliott, Green Councillor for Glee this Valley.
Linus Chapman, Councillor for Mossborough Ward.
Good afternoon. Councillor Gala Weatherall for Shire Union, Brownside Ward.
Richard Williams, Member for Stannington Ward.
Thank you, John. Do we have any apologies?
We had apologies from Cliff Woodcraft and as previously mentioned, Councillor Ulla is here substituting for Janet Riddler.
Chair, just a bunch of order. I thought the make up of this board was 5431. It looks like it's overbalanced at the moment.
That is something that's been pointed out to me and I will take it up with no gratitude.
We'll have to take legal advice then, Chair, because if we pass things or refuse things today, how will we stand when members have done that if it's not the right people on the board?
Thank you, Chair. I wasn't previously aware of this.
I'd have to ask democratic services to advise whether the make up of the board is in accordance with what was agreed at full council.
Yes, Chair, I would recommend that we adjourn for ten minutes while we ask our democratic services colleagues to look into this. Thank you.
I'll adjourn for ten minutes. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I don't have anything to council on this council. I wouldn't want anything to go wrong when we're all sat around this board and agreeing things and somebody come back to us later on, we might have crossed all the T's and just had all the I's, Chair. Thank you.
Thanks very much. Excluded of press public, there is no reason to exclude. Declarations of interest.
Just on that, Chair, can I make a point where I did receive some e-mails from Forge Masters and being a shy green and bright side independent Councillor, I was sent information from them as well.
I've read the information, took it all on board. I just thought I'd tell you at this meeting, Chair. Thanks.
Forge Masters, Gary. >> Sorry? >> Did you say Forge Masters? >> Forge Masters, yes. >> We're not. We haven't got Forge Masters.
Chair, I believe that you did receive something from, was it Aldi or?
Aldi. >> That's where we're next coming, yes. So it's from Aldi as well. We've received all that, don't we?
But that's been removed from today's agenda. Thank you.
Can we do minutes of previous meeting, pages 11 to 14?
Are they a true record? Thank you.
Thank you for your site visits. They will be announced in due course, as is usual.
We have two applications today. Item 7A, application number 24, 00807, 26 old A, closed, Sheffield, 17. Chris.
Thank you, Chair. Sorry, this seems to have stopped moving the slides along.
Maybe I did some new batteries yesterday. Just give me one moment.
I'm just moving them along, please, to the -- so you can see there it's a front porch infill extension on old A, closed, which is a property in the door.
Highlighted there with the red line. The next slide is an aerial photograph of that, which just gives the context.
It's the property on the right with the solid white garage door.
And the proposal is to replace that existing porch with one with a lean-to roof and infill the lightweight glazing panels with a render finish, which you will see there in the top right.
It's a minor extension, Chair, that has no significant impacts.
And the only reason it's here today is the applicant is an officer within our service.
Mike.
Chair, I propose that we move the recommendation on this. There really is nothing that we can take issue with.
It just happens to be one of Sheffield City Council employees.
I'd be more than happy to second that proposal. I now understand why this application has come to the committee. Thank you.
- Can we do a vote then? - Please.
- Approve the recommendation, Chair.
- For the recommendation, Chair.
- For the recommendation, Chair.
- For the recommendation, Chair.
- For the recommendation.
- For the recommendation, Chair.
- For the recommendation, Chair.
- For the recommendation, please.
- For the recommendation, Chair.
- For the recommendation.
- For the recommendation.
- Thank you, that's passed, thank you.
Item 7B, funding application number 24/00047/FUL87, Noel Lane, Sheffield, S11.
Again, you, Chris.
- It is, Chair, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So the application site is, again, marked red on the plan there.
The address is Noel Lane, which is the road running kind of from left to right along the top of the plan.
And it also has an access or a frontage onto Hall Lane at the bottom there.
The site slopes quite steeply from Noel Lane down the hill to Hall Lane, so down the page if you like.
And you can see from that image that it's an entirely residential location and housing area as defined in the unitary development plan.
As I said, there's an access and a frontage onto Noel Lane, which is the address of the property,
with an existing garage and vehicle access on the Hall Lane frontage, too, which you can see there in that first image.
So number 87, Noel Lane, which is the applicant's property, is the left-hand half of the semi-detached property,
as you can see on the left-hand image with the grey door and the window.
You can also see on that image, just to the left of the garage, a large mature oak tree,
which is outside the application site in the neighbouring garden,
but close enough to have been a factor in our consideration of the application chair.
The proposal is for a three-storey, three-bedroom dwelling, a detached three-storey, three-bedroom dwelling,
with two car parking spaces to be accessed from this point here, which will be a widened access on Hall Lane.
You'll see from the report there have been 24 objections to the application on the grounds of design,
neighbour impacts and amenity, highways matters, and also the principle of an additional dwelling in this location.
The principle of the development, a residential use in a housing area, is a preferred use in policy terms,
but there are obviously lots of other considerations that have gone into this as well.
These two images are of you looking down Hall Lane on the left,
and then the right-hand image is from the decked area of the host dwelling.
You can see the top half of the garage on the right-hand side of the right-hand drawing,
and the garden, part of which would be built upon with the dwelling.
The dwelling is broadly in line with, although slightly deeper than, the existing garage.
This is part of the garden on which the house would be built.
This is of you looking up Hall Lane from the point of the access on the right-hand side.
And the access is, roughly speaking, where the grid is on the left in that image,
and that's almost opposite the junction with Huber Road at that point.
So this is the site layout.
The access is widened from its existing width to approximately 6.5 metres,
with a low masonry wall along the frontage, and that's to ensure appropriate visibility at that point.
There is a car parking space underneath a proposed carport cum terrace,
and a parking space in front of the property.
The principle of housing is acceptable, Chair. It's a greenfield site,
and there are policies that restrict the amount of developments on greenfield sites,
but that has a 12% target through the planned period,
and our completions on that are roughly in the order of about 6% at the moment,
so we're comfortably within that target.
Members will be aware that Sheffield doesn't achieve its required four-year housing supply at the moment,
only having approximately three years,
so housing policies within the plan are out of date in that regard,
and the tilted balance within the MPPF is in play, which is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The density is in line with the core strategy requirements, policy CS26.
You can see from the right-hand image there that the red indicates the position of the house,
and you can see how that relates to others within the vicinity.
The design has been amended slightly through the process, with a portion of the original proposal being deleted
from the left-hand end of the top left-hand image,
and that was principally to do with the relationship to the tree,
and to ensure that the tree could stay without being threatened, and without threatening the house in the longer term.
There's a very mixed character of properties along Hoare Lane in particular, which is where this faces,
and so we feel that a contemporary design dwelling isn't out of character.
It's quite a varied character, and it's of appropriate scale. It uses brick with grey tiles and render for the projecting dormer.
In amenity terms, in terms of accommodation provided for the end users, we feel it presents good quality accommodation.
The report identifies a slight shortfall in terms of outlook from the third bedroom or a third bedroom,
which, because of proximity to the house at the back, the host dwelling, has been limited to obscure glazing,
or has a roof light, and as one bedroom out of the three, we feel that that's acceptable in this particular case.
There's a decent sized garden remaining for both properties, certainly achieving our guidelines.
The scale and the topography ensures it's not overbearing chair, and there's no privacy loss due to the facts I mentioned previously.
Essentially, most of the aspect faces towards Hoare Lane, and with views over the city.
In highways terms, use of an existing access, which has a 20 mile an hour limit on the road,
there's very limited intensification that comes from the development, and the visibility is good.
A number of objections raise concerns about the access and the junction of Hoare Lane and Noel Lane,
but given those factors, we feel this is acceptable.
A tree report was submitted in relation to the tree, which you saw on the image,
and you can just about see the radius of the canopy and identified or assumed root protection area on that plan.
The tree report compared to the tree is in good health and would survive for a good number of years in its current form,
and following the amendments and other confirmations on the method of construction which is set out within the report,
we're now satisfied that there's no threat to its retention.
There is a minor biodiversity net gain within the scheme through the use of hedgerows, additional tree planting,
and things like swift bricks and log piles and what have you that would form part of the development of the landscape scheme.
In response to climate change, it incorporates electric vehicle charging points, solar panels, air source heat pump,
and intended use of soak away and permeable surfaces for rainwater, and it's also largely south facing with good solar gain and light within the property.
So overall, Chair, with a tilted balance in mind, where planning permissions should be granted unless there are significant adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits,
as there are no significant adverse impacts, the recommendation is to approve, Chair.
Thank you, Chris.
Members, questions?
Marianne?
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris.
This is my first one of these, so forgive me if this is a novice question.
So CS26, have you referred to the fact that the density is in line with the requirements, and you touched a little bit on the character of the area.
I mean, looking at the design issues that people have raised, they are largely about the building being out of character.
And I just wondered, at page 33 it does say, you know, the properties on Hoare Lane are of mixed character, which they certainly are.
And you're saying that the contemporary style of the building isn't out of character.
I just wondered, because there aren't any other sort of contemporary style buildings there, what's the justification for that reasoning?
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not sure if it does show on here, but yes, the properties tend to be of a generally more traditional form, I would acknowledge that.
But there are elements of the properties, including the one opposite, which has had a number of additions.
You can't quite see on this image, it's sort of behind where that tree is, which are of a contemporary form.
But also the scale, first of all, is very much in character with the proportions of the building, the space around it, its relationship to the road, etc.
are all very much reflective of the character and the density of the area. The architectural treatment is slightly different, but it is different.
But that doesn't necessarily make it kind of out of character, given the mix that exists there.
And in general, this approach is a reasonable quality design, which there are a couple of other examples up and down the street that I would say are less successful,
that have attempted to be slightly more traditional, without being over-critical, and therefore we felt that this approach was a good one in this case.
Thank you, that's helpful. Mike?
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Chris, for the presentation.
I think I'm coming around, well, I'm broadly in favour of this application, but I'm concerned about the tree roots.
The house isn't being built over it, as I understand it, but given the extent of the canopy, it does suggest that the hard standing would be over the top of the tree roots.
Or have I misunderstood what was on that slide that showed the plan?
Chair, the issues around the construction methods and what's anticipated to be discovered during construction are set out on pages 36 and 37.
It's fairly lengthy, and without kind of going over all of that detail, just going back to the plans, what you see beyond on this plan here,
what you see beyond the car on the left hand side that is at right angles to the road, is a shaded area, and you can see, roughly speaking,
in red it identifies where the garage was previously, and that sits underneath the tree roots, and there's an expectation that the tree roots have been,
and the root protection has been formed with the presence of the garage in mind.
In other words, they're more likely to be elsewhere within the site where there's growing room for roots.
Beyond the parked vehicle is a hatched area, which is a terrace, a raised terrace, and hopefully one of these images will show it.
The tree branches will partly overhang that terrace, which was seen as not harmful to the use of the terrace,
and potentially provide some shading as well, which could be beneficial.
You can see from the top right hand image that the terrace is built on pile foundations, on stilts, if you like,
which is the method deemed likely to have the least impact on the tree.
The report also sets out that mid-way down page 37, the tree report notes that the development would encroach onto the root protection area,
but due to the presence of the existing garage and hard standing, the root extent is considered likely to have been limited.
That's what I'm trying to say about the roots are unlikely to have headed in that direction.
There's also quite limited intervention there, so that is the reason why we feel that this scheme can work without impacting negatively on the tree.
Thank you for that, Chris. I'm just a bit concerned that with the word 'unlikely',
if they do find that there's a root that's gone into that area where they're developing,
whether they've got a mitigation plan that they could apply a workaround, if you like.
Yes, and the likelihood being low means that there'll be very limited roots within the area, and trees can stand some impact to a small proportion of the roots without it having long term health impacts.
Just the other question, Chair, if I may. Near the bottom of page 37, you refer to the provision of a swift brick,
and I was wondering why only one swift brick would be put into that development,
given that the way swifts tend to congregate and nest when they do have to land, they do sort of come in groups,
and so you would probably want maybe three or four bricks in a gable end.
Chair, I can't answer why only one was put forward by the applicant, but we found that to be an acceptable level of provision.
I'm not an expert on swifts and whether they nest communally or not, so I can't answer that,
but it's part of a package of ecological enhancement measures that we found to be acceptable in meeting our requirements, so we didn't request further.
Well, given what I understand from people who know about swifts, it would be better to have, I would suggest, three bricks in the building rather than one.
There are other birds as well, we do call them swift bricks, it's not only swifts, but also house martens and house sparrows that would also take advantage of that,
and all those species are endangered.
Are you asking that as a proposal, Mic 3?
I am, Chair. Yes.
Yes, I think, as I said previously, that is part of the proposal in response to our request of the applicant
to ensure the scheme complies with MPPF policy and in paragraph 180 where it seeks no net loss by diversity.
Bear in mind, this application was submitted before the new legislation which makes this mandatory for certain forms of development since February.
So our policy position was paragraph 180 of the MPPF which seeks to avoid a net loss and to secure net gain.
We felt that this level of provision, whether it includes a swift brick or alternative methods such as the log piles or the hedgerow planting or the additional tree planting,
was a proportionate response to that request and I'm not sure whether insisting on more would be proportionate, Chair.
Chair, thank you. Just to reiterate that point in terms of conditions, as those members that have been around for a while who have bored me telling you that planning conditions need to meet the six tests,
one of which is that the condition needs to be necessary and with that in mind it does need to be that you would refuse permission if this condition was not there.
So it isn't something just whether it's nice to have it, obviously the Planning Officer is outlining that the proposal as it stands is policy compliant, so do bear that in mind. Thank you.
Chair, I'm not putting it forward because it's nice, I'm putting it forward because we also have a biodiversity problem with endangered species.
Because of the way modern buildings are constructed you don't get those kinds of birds being able to nest in buildings.
Originally they nested deep in forests but mankind has cut down rather a lot of those so there isn't the scope for them.
So it's about mitigation, Chair, and so I'm going to stick with my proposal if anyone would like to second it.
Thank you, Chair. In terms of the proposal at the moment I'm not sure what's on the table because I don't know if the Planning Officer wants to outline how the current SWIFT book that's proposed is dealt with in the application.
Is there a planning condition or is it on the plans? Thank you, Chair.
Chair, it's currently part of the approved plans and elements of the biodiversity enhancements are covered within the landscape condition. There is no specific condition referring to SWIFT breaks but it is part of the approved plans.
Chair, I propose it be added as a condition for three breaks.
Thank you, Chair. I think it's probably worth noting that the advice from the Sheffield SWIFT network is that a medium sized house would have two to four so there is some additional information from what you could consider an expert in the field.
That's an appropriate number and I don't think it would be prejudicial to the development going forward in terms of expense and the owner is on the developer.
Thank you, Chair. I would be concerned myself that we're potentially here having a condition that the development needs to be built in accordance with the approved plans and the approved plans show one SWIFT break and then you have a contradictory condition asking for more.
So I do think we need to consider that. One option for members going forward is to put it into the directives or the informatives that the committee said that three breaks would be preferable.
Going forward you do ask officers in such applications to consider trying to deal with SWIFT breaks either by approved plans or by condition. Thank you, Chair.
I think we have asked that. We've raised the issue of SWIFT breaks now on two previous planning committees and it's not coming through as a condition so I would like it as a condition because I think it's really important.
Chair, do you mind if I come in here? I think everyone is aware of the benefits of SWIFT breaks but I remind officers that we're meant to make decisions in accordance with the development plan and we don't have any specific policies relating to SWIFT breaks as yet in the current plan.
But the policy requirement of officers is to seek, in this case, no net loss of biodiversity and that's been achieved through other means, not specifically SWIFT breaks.
As Vicki suggested, we have to always bear in mind the six tests when we're considering adding any conditions so you have to ask yourself whether this application will be refused if we didn't have three SWIFT breaks.
I agree that it's certainly the way forward and we can advise officers to bear in mind that if SWIFT breaks are being proposed that they consider more than one but my recommendation would be for a directive as opposed to a condition.
Vicki? Thank you, Chair. I would agree with the planning officer in that respect because at the moment, as I say, the proposal on the table is to putting a new condition that would contradict with another condition about developing in accordance with the approved plan.
So we'd be sort of telling them to do one thing with the approved plan condition and another thing with a different condition. So in that respect, Chair, I do think directive in this instance would be a suitable way forward to try and meet this issue.
As Diana just said, you do need to be making decisions in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. So as I say, it is policy compliant so what the officers are advising you there is that it would be in accordance with the development plan to approve this application. Thank you, Chair.
Vicki? I hear what you're saying about this plan. How do - and obviously I'm new to this so I don't know if this is a really obvious question - but how do we make sure going forward that it's not just to be remembered that this should be part of - this should be a future requirement. How do we make sure it is definitely part of that? That's the bit that I don't get.
Vicki? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I totally appreciate the question. Of course it is possible that members could ask to defer the matter and ask planning officers to go away and liaise with the applicant and deal with this.
But I think what planning officers and myself are advising members is that we do feel that would probably be disproportionate in this case. Say in terms of those six test conditions, it does need to be necessary such that you would be inclined to refuse the application because it doesn't provide enough swift bricks.
Obviously, as we were saying at the moment, the development plan doesn't deal with this issue. The development plan does have some biodiversity net gain and it is policy compliant. But what members may be considering is that they feel this is something they'd be prepared to consider refusing this application for.
But there are other alternatives to doing that and I would recommend that either the directive or a potential deferral to look into this issue. But I do feel that would be disproportionate because I think there's a real question about whether it would meet those six tests. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Not speaking, just going back to what I was saying, not about this issue, but how do you make sure in future plans, so you mentioned the development plan, how would we amend it to make sure it's a mandatory part of that going forward?
Thank you, Chair. We do currently have an emerging plan coming forward. The examinations are starting later this month. What we do have that is different going forward, as I think the planning officer has mentioned, is that there is mandatory biodiversity net gain coming forward.
But that's only for applications that received either a date in February or a date in April, depending on the size of the site. I understand that this application came forward before then, so we don't have mandatory biodiversity net gain. But it is still something that we strive for in the development plan.
So going forward, there is going to be a much bigger concentration on biodiversity net gain plans, conditions and Section 106 agreements going forward. So this will be something that you'll see a lot more of and a lot more detail on applications going forward.
So I don't have any concerns that it's something that will be forgotten, certainly. It is something that is coming more to the forefront now. But certainly, Diana is the service manager of planning and can pass this on to the officers.
Where we have swift bricks, it would be easier if they were possibly dealt with by condition, because it would mean that we would avoid this issue of potentially here trying to amend the condition, but also developing an account of the proof plans.
Thank you for explaining that, and I think it is really important in terms of the decline of species and obviously expert advice that you do need to fall.
Just in terms of a directive, what does that mean procedurally? Can you just explain that so that we understand what effect that has if it's not a condition, if it's a directive? Thank you.
A directive is just informing the applicant of other issues that they need to be aware of. So a directive may tell them that they need to liaise with the Gazetteer if there's a new address, if they need to liaise with highways if there's going to be a highways issue.
So it is just for information purposes, just to make them aware, so it wouldn't actually be binding upon them as such, as a condition would. But obviously in terms of this, what I haven't mentioned in the previous discussions, obviously we've got the tilt of balance in play here.
So that means that the policies are out of date. So the NPPF national planning policy framework does tell us here that we should be approving applications such as this unless there are significant or demonstrably adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits.
So with the tilt of balance in play, it does make this discussion about swift bricks more disproportionate than it would do if it were not in play. Thank you.
Chair, it would be a lot less disproportionate if we hadn't gone into extended discussion over this. I think it's a reasonable ask. We're talking about maybe what, 30 pound maximum per brick. We're only asking for two more than is in the document.
Given what's been said about the decline in bird species and other animal and plant life, I still believe this is a reasonable ask and I believe it should be put to a vote. Thank you.
From what I understand, if we go to a vote, we've got to say that if this doesn't happen, we're going to refuse.
The national planning policy framework says that conditions need to meet six tests, one of which is that it's necessary. So that means when you're making that decision whether the application is in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, what members would be suggesting is that unless there's a swift brick, when they're considering that decision, that they're saying that they would refuse it because there are not sufficient swift bricks in this case.
Obviously you've got one and members are inclined to go for three. So that is what the national planning policy framework tells us is that it needs to meet those six tests.
So whilst in the room obviously you can put forward a motion and vote on any condition you wish, it is worth bearing in mind that obviously it's then open to the applicant to appeal that decision and say that those six tests haven't been met.
But in terms of whether members are inclined to take this forward, I would just ask that if you take it forward and a condition does get added, that you let the wording be agreed between the officers and the co-chairs in the future.
So we will need to consider this position where, as I say, the approved plans show one brick but then the conditions are saying something different, so we will just need to perhaps think about the wording that will be dealt with and say if a new condition is proposed, seconded and voted on in that way. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair. Just looking for a way out of this, is there no way of being able to defer this and talk to, like, putting some of this aside and like human beings talk to human beings and say, would you mind putting a few more swift bricks in?
And it looks like, you know, that would mean it would go through and that would be the end of it.
Thank you, Chair. Another thing I've said, it is optional, obviously, for members to say we really want to see more swift bricks in this development, we'd like to defer an after-planning officer to liaise with the applicant on that basis. That's certainly an option for members going forward.
So it's just something really for members to bear in mind that, you know, we've got to make decisions in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
At the moment, with this application for housing with a total balance in play, you've got that additional hurdle to overcome as well.
So it's just sort of, obviously today we've only got two applications, we've already done one, so it sort of feels like we've got a lot of time to discuss this and I think that's possibly, you know, why we are going through these lengthy discussions.
But it is just to bear in mind that yes, you can defer and ask planning officers to look into something that you're considering refusing the application for or going against the officer recommendation.
But whether it's reasonable to do so in terms of this, because you do have the presumption in favour of sustainable development, obviously the applicant has got, all matters have got timescales to meet, etc.
So we may need to agree an extension of time with the applicant, otherwise they could appeal for non-determination, etc. We may have to refund the planning fees. So it's just bearing all that in mind.
You know, there's obviously something we can put in the directive, we could put a planning condition in or you could defer.
You know, the whole options are on the table in terms of what members want to put forward and second and vote on. Thank you.
Gary.
Yeah, thanks Jay. It's every member's right to ask questions around this table, so I don't think we're wasting time, ever.
But I think we've had some really good advice from officers on this particular BRIC or BRICS.
The six tests on planning have been here a long time, you know, we've got to take, you know, we've got to listen to our officers, especially when they're talking about the six things in the test.
And it's got to be in the plan, it's all about policy. So we've got to go back to our groups and push these things forward to make sure they are in policy and they are in the plan.
And that's the only way we're going to do it. If we do stick this in and it does come back, the client says no, I don't want that, I'm going to take you to court.
How much does that cost us, Vicki?
Thank you, Chair. I might just go a little bit off-piece of this response, because the only way in terms of a financial penalty in respect to the decision for the council, it would be, the potential way that would play out, I think, would be if members were inclined to refuse because of the lack of swift BRICS and it went to planning appeal and they made a cost application alongside that appeal, that would be where there would be an issue potentially.
But obviously, the cost of a potential planning appeal isn't something to take into account.
What you would need to take into account is whether you've got robust evidence to support that reason for refusal.
Obviously, in this instance, we say it's compliant with the development plan. It's whether this would be a material consideration, which you think indicates otherwise, when particularly in this instance, it really should be something that is dealt with in the development plan going forward.
And obviously, we have got a monetary gain coming in as well, so it is certainly something that's on the table and moving as an issue.
But yeah, in terms of cost, it would be that cost of a planning appeal, should the matter be refused, I think would be most likely to be a financial impact of making this decision.
But as I say, that is not a material consideration. Thank you.
I just wanted to mention, I've been listening to everything.
My biggest concerns at the beginning were the impact on neighbouring properties and highways issues and stuff, which seems like it was all addressed and it's policy compliant.
And I think every question raised is important by everyone, but I think for yourselves to make, assuring us that this is okay to go ahead as it is.
And obviously, the policies that came afterwards, where other things are included.
But if something is identified like this with BRICS, I'll be honest, I haven't got much knowledge around this.
But listening here, if something has been identified, and I think just making sure that it's actually logged and addressed, whether it's a directive, you just explained the difference between that.
Just making sure that emphasising the importance of that.
But I think if it's, from what I'm understanding, if it's policy compliant and everything else is looking good, and also it's been addressed, I feel it's a reasonable ask.
But I think in terms of something being identified, because I don't know what, I'm just going to ask this question, if it goes ahead with this one, the SWIFT BRICS, is there a huge impact, negative impact?
Just out of interest, but other than that I'm fine with that.
I'm not sure I grasped the question there. I think the question was, is only having one SWIFT BRICS a negative impact?
My view on that is no, it's an enhancement of what we have there at present, and that enhancement, as we've said, meets the policy requirements set out in the MPPF.
And it's part of the package of other measures which are also enhancing biodiversity.
Can I make a suggestion that the committee would go for a directive that would then resolve this issue?
It seems to have been determined that I do not put the proposal, which I do find very frustrating in circumstances.
I don't think anyone here was seriously saying that they were going to turn down the application if the number of SWIFT BRICS were not increased.
But it would be a very desirable enhancement in view of the crisis we face with wildlife.
So that's a yes then, that's brilliant.
Can I just ask if we put that recommendation in, I can't remember what it was called, but if we do that at the directive, and then a very similar one came through next month in planning committee,
and by that stage, what am I trying to say, can we avoid that we're not going to be in this situation again?
That's what I'm trying to say, so that next time there are three, not one.
Chair, could I just pop in there first, thank you.
I think one of the problems that we've got as officers is people can propose a whole range of biodiversity enhancements,
and some people might have a preference for hedgehogs and the enhancements for those, and there might be other preferences.
And the requirement on us as officers is to achieve an overall increase, not necessarily to be specific about where that should be sought or achieved.
So it would be very difficult for us to say if someone proposed one swift brick, and they're proposing a whole lot of other measures as well,
that provided the 10% that will now be becoming mandatory, for us to say that's not acceptable.
But what we can do going forward, and I can do this with all officers, is say if swift bricks are being proposed, one is generally not a good idea,
and we can sort of advise officers that if you are going to secure them, try to secure more than one, because it's much more beneficial.
That's great, thank you.
So can we go for a directive, please?
Chair, that would just need to be proposed, seconded and voted on to add a directive, thank you.
Proposed, Chair?
Thank you. Can we do a vote, please? All those in favour of the directive?
That will be drawn up with the co-chairs and the planning officer.
And will we get a report back on whether they do put three?
No, you'll just find out that we now have a directive that says whatever the directive says.
You'll get to know what the directive says, yes, of course.
I have Richard, would you have a different matter?
Thank you, Chair. Yeah, a couple of questions, really.
Firstly, I know, Chris, you covered it, but just for my own, so I'm completely clear on it.
Access is not an issue on this occasion, because it already exists from the garage, the existing garage,
and so we're not, because I know there's a lot of local concern with that you're adding another access point,
in perceived another access point, that is quite close to what I believe is quite an accident prone junction.
So, but could you confirm that that isn't actually an issue?
I can chair from my point of view, and if Helen wants to add in it any more, feel free, Helen.
So, yes, it's an existing access, anecdotally slightly underused, but it's capable of being used.
It's also capable of being widened without the need for planning permission, because it's not on so classified road.
So, it could be utilised by the existing property, should they decide to no longer park their vehicles on the null name frontage,
for a couple of vehicles, quite comfortably, to serve that dwelling, which I presume is what historically has happened there.
So, that's, if you like, the current situation, and the proposal is for a house, which has two vehicles or two parking spaces,
for a three bedroom dwelling. So, there's an argument that the impact is actually no different.
Obviously, it is being physically widened, but as I say, with certain criteria, that could be done without the need for a planning application.
In terms of, and through the processes, the visibility is acceptable, and that there's no significant concerns about the network at that point,
but if Helen wants to add any more than that.
Thanks, I don't think there is a lot to add, but other than to say, actually, the widening makes the access safer,
because at the minute, it is quite narrow, the widening will actually ease manoeuvring there.
I think that the junction that was mentioned was Hawkeland and Hoover Road.
At the end of the day, we're talking about potentially six to eight additional vehicle movements,
which, as Chris said, really could already be being generated by that site, anyway.
So, there isn't any concern about the use of that existing access. Thanks, Chair.
My next point is regarding, actually, the size of the gardens.
I'm concerned that the garden that's left for the existing property looks remarkably small.
The nature of this, the whole land is the knoll lane and hall lane.
It's kind of, they arrow head towards the junction, the land gets smaller,
and, in fact, what's happening is that the bit of garden left for the existing building is quite small,
and I suspect that, actually, the new building is creeping closer and closer to the road.
I mean, back in the day, it was what I'd call street scene. Is that getting out of proportion?
And I've just liked, is it within the policies that the gardens are the right size or adequate?
And, yeah, that's basically my points.
Thank you, Chair. The minimum requirement for gardens is 50 square metres or 60.
There are two different guidelines and two different documents.
But, yes, you would also take account of the character of the area.
The report sets out on page 35 that the new dwelling would have a rear garden of 70 square metres,
plus a terrace which is in the order of 13, 14 square metres.
So you've got approaching 85 square metres there, which is comfortably above the guidelines.
And the host property would retain a garden of 100 square metres and 10 metres in depth,
which is comfortably above the guideline.
Actually, the property that has the smallest garden is the new one in the balance of this.
And, yes, they are smaller than probably the majority of gardens that you can see on that image.
I mean, some of them are huge.
And in comparison, these look very small, but they're comfortable to meet our guidelines and exceed them.
And if you look just to the left, next to the one, if you like, to the left, there's a subdivision that's quite similar.
Yes, it is coming to the point of the triangle as you go towards the east.
But it's still, in our view, sufficient and not sufficiently harmful to character for us to say that that was a problem.
Just finally a more simple question. On the slide where you had the footprint in green, that one,
you've got hedging on both the left border and the right border, then there's gaps in the hedging.
What's happening there?
On the left-hand side, that's where the edge of the terrace meets the boundary of the site and where there's a level change and the tree is positioned.
And on the right, that is also adjacent to the boundary and there's a need for some form of access down the side.
That's the reason for the gaps. And there will be some form of fence in that location.
Or a form of boundary treatment in lieu of the hedge.
Thank you. Henry. Thank you, Chair. I've got a few questions but I'll try and keep them targeted and concise.
The road safety refers to the fact that there's a 20 mile an hour limit on that.
Have we got any supporting data from a VAS or something like that that says that that 20 is being adhered to at the minute?
No, we haven't.
Second one, the NPPF says the residential gardens are greenfield. Does that imply that there's a requirement for the developer to try and identify an equivalent brownfield site before going ahead with development on this?
Not on development to this scale, Chair, or yet. That's an emerging policy, I believe.
It's an emerging policy, right. And last one, I'm aware that biodiversity net gain requirement isn't coming into this one because of the date of the application.
But going forward, is there any reason why officers shouldn't be leaning into all available mitigations with the 10% being a minimum and not a maximum?
Chair, going forward with mandatory requirement, 10% is regarded as a minimum.
And on many schemes where through negotiation and where the applicant has provided the appropriate metric to do all the calculations, we've had several cases where mitigation has far exceeded the 10%.
So yes, going forward, that's definitely a possibility and is the case that it's a minimum.
Currently on schemes like this, legacy applications, if you like, that are before the mandatory date, it's down to officer negotiation to be satisfied there is a net gain, which is the minimum without specifying a percentage figure that the policy establishes.
Any more questions? Any more comments?
Yeah, thank you. I really can't see any real good reasons to refuse this. I think it's a decent application.
And in view of the total balance, I'm inclined to go for the officer recommendation, Chair. Thank you.
Once I share some of the concerns raised in the objections, I believe this application is MPPF compliant. And given that total balance is in play, I see no grounds to refuse this application. I will be supporting this application. Thank you.
Any more comments?
No. Can we go for a vote then, please? Well read. For the application with the addition of the directive.
For the application, Chair. For the application, Chair.
For the application, Chair. For the officer's recommendation.
Thank you, Chair. For the application, Chair. For the application, Chair.
Do we have any appeals? I have nothing to add to the report that's provided for members, Chair.
Right, so thank you all. The next meeting will be held June 21st at 2pm.
I wanted to thank the officers because it's good to see so many of the appeals dismissed.
Our officers are very good. Track record. All with this. So I wanted to thank you.
[ Silence ]
