Transcript

(gavel bangs)

• Okay, we'll make a start now, please. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the meeting of the Nassau District Council's Planning and Licensing Committee. My name is Councillor Ray Brassington. I am chair of this committee. Members, officers, members of the public in attendance are reminded that this meeting is being live streamed and recorded on the council's website. Please can members and officers turn their microphones on while speaking and turn them off so they may be seen and heard. I'd like to remind everyone present in the chamber today please turn off their mobile phones or put them on silent. I would also request that the public remain quiet during proceedings and avoid interactions with committee members if there is an adjournment to today's meeting. If you'd like to leave the meeting part way, please keep in mind that proceedings are still taking place and do so quietly. Toilets can be found to the left of the council chamber entrance. For those watching online, you can view the electronic voting record via the votes tab on the webcast page which is available on the council's website and will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Should anything go wrong with the electronic voting, we will resort to the old fashioned way of showing hands. We're not expecting the fire alarm, so if one goes, please leave the building the way you came in and outside. For procedure the committee uses is for our planning officers to provide a committee with any updates on the application along with a presentation. Any additional pages are published on the council's website. I will then call our registered speakers to address the committee. I'd like to remind those public speakers they're allowed up to three minutes to speak. Once the three minutes is complete, you will be instructed to cease your remarks. The ward member will then address the committee and they have up to five minutes. I'd now like to go to introductions, so we'll get members to introduce themselves. So, on my left.
• Good afternoon, I'm Councillor Patrick Coleman. I represent the Stratton Ward in Cirencester.
• Good afternoon, I'm Councillor David Fowles. I represent the Kong Valley which runs from Crossbridge to Lechlade.
• Good afternoon everybody, I'm Gary Selwyn. I'm the Councillor for Watermore Ward.
• Michael Van, Southwark North.
• Good afternoon, I'm Andrew McLean from the Rizzingtons.
• And I'm Mark Harris from Abbey Ward in Cirencester.
• Councillor Tom Stowe, Camden and Vale Ward.
• Thank you.
• Councillor Darragh Caw from Wilkney Marsh West in the north of the council.
• Councillor Ian Watson from Tebretown Ward.
• Thank you. Now go to the officers, Adrian.
• Good afternoon, my name's Adrian Harding. I'm the head of planning services. (buzzing)
• Good afternoon, I'm Helen Cooper. I'm a senior planning officer.
• And a privileged governance officer.
• Good afternoon, Caleb Harris, senior democratic services officer here, Council District Council.
• Good afternoon, I'm Malcolm Jones from the County Council Highways Department.
• Thank you very much.
• You're welcome.
• Move on to item one, apologies.
• We've received apologies from Councillor Julia Judd.
• Would you like to introduce yourself, please, Councillor Neill?
• I'm so sorry, I stopped to get a glass of water. I'm Councillor Neill and I represent Stowe and the world.
• Thank you, apologies.
• We've received apologies from Councillor Julia Judd.
• Thank you, substitute member.
• Councillor Tom Stowe is substituting for Councillor Judd.
• Well, to the planning committee. Declarations of interest. Nicole.
• Yeah, it's just that I lived in Longborough for a few years and I was a neighbour of the applicants and that's my interest. No peculiar interest whatsoever, though, but I wanted to make the other members aware of that.
• Thank you. Minutes of the last meeting. You all got an amended version of the minutes. Anybody got any questions on them? No, that's great. Can somebody propose them, please? Thank you, Councillor McLean. Seconded by Councillor Selwyn. We now have to vote on the minutes, please. (muffled speaking)
• It's nine four and two abstentions.
• Okay, thank you. So the minutes are confirmed. Chair's announcements, I've got two. The first one is a sad one, I'm afraid. Members who've been on the council quite some time, like Councillor Fowles and Councillor Mark Harris, may remember a former planning officer, Marcus Kitchen. Sadly, he died the other week. Marcus was a principal planner. He was with the council for about 20 years. He was much lied by the staff. And he was certainly a character and a great planner, and a decent bloke. Unfortunately, he's passed away, just aged 64. Just want to pay tribute to him. Second bit is training. We're constantly looking at training. We were looking at doing a short course on various things, such as planning conditions, what's a material planning consideration and what isn't. We're looking into that, and possibly do that in September. So that's the end of my announcements. Public questions, sorry, Councillor Fowles.
• Chairman, given the sad news about Marcus Kitchen, I certainly remembered him. I don't know if you remembered him. But are we allowed to say anything or not? (audience laughs) I first met Marcus Kitchen way before I became a Councillor. I was living in Kemble. And I applied to have an extension put on my house. And I went into battle with Marcus, which was pretty vigorous. And he said, I want Cotswold stone tiles on your extension. I said, But I can't find any Cotswold stone tiles. He said, How old are you? And I said, Well, what's that got to do with my tiles? I was, believe it or not, 36. So it was over 30 years ago. And he said, You've got young children? I said, Yeah. He said, How long do you think you'll stay in the house once you've conversed it? I said,Three, four years? I said,Probably. He said,Well, that house has been there 500 years. And I want Cotswold stone tiles on it. And I'm not gonna budge. And every time you drive past that house in years to come, you'll remember this conversation." And I have, for 30 years, driven past that house. It cost me a fortune. But I remember Marcus every single time. He was a thoroughly great bloke. And I remember I met him several times afterwards 'cause he was very interested in wine as well. So I'm really shocked. But what a fantastic guy with a great sense of humor. I just thought you'd like to share that anecdote, Cenk.
• Yes, thank you very much. That sums him up very well. Move on to public questions. Do we have any questions from any members of the public?
• No, we've not received any.
• No? Members questions. Any questions from any members?
• Mr. Darrow, call--
• Councillor Cunningham.
• Cunningham.
• Will the training be open to all members?
• Yes, it'll be open to all members. No members questions? Right then, move on to item eight, appointments to licensing committee. And I think Annie, you're just gonna give a brief summary.
• So hopefully it's a very straightforward report. It just sets out the arrangements for appointing the two planning, sorry, the two licensing subcommittees appointed by this committee. We operate too because essentially there's two different sets of legislation that govern these. And members will be familiar with the arrangements because they're exactly the same as the ones that you approved last year.
• Thank you. Any questions on that? No? So we were happy. We don't have to vote on that, do we?
• Yes.
• Yes, we do, do we? All right. All right, so we're gonna vote on that then. Thank you.
• That's unanimous.
• Okay, thank you very much. (beeping) And now we move on to the next item, which is an update to the payment licensing regime. Kevin, over to you, please.
• Good afternoon. My name's Kevin. I'm the licensing officer for the Cotswold District Council. You have before you agenda item nine to consider the draft policy document for approval following the leveling up and regeneration act, making the payment licensing regime permanent. The payment license regime was introduced as part of the Business and Planning Act 2020 to allow businesses to apply to the council for a license for use outside space to extend the trading area available for the consumption of food and drink. The regime has now been made permanent. Cotswold District Council has a total of 12 licenses across the district. Amendments have been made to the draft policy Annex A to reflect the changes in legislation. These include increasing the minimum consultation period from 14 days to 28, expanding the license validation from 12 months to 24 months, increasing the capped fees for the new license from 100 pounds to 500 pounds, and introducing a renewal fee capped at 350 pounds. Enforcement powers to give notice to businesses without the required license to enable the council to remove and store furniture from the relevant highway and recover the costs from the business, and the ability to amend a license in certain circumstances with the license holder's consent. Licenses granted prior to the 30th of March 2024 will remain valid until their expiration date of the 30th of September 2024. License fees should be charged on a cost recovery basis, and therefore cost analysis exercise has been undertaken, and the proposals for the new costs are 185 pounds for a new license and 150 pounds for a renewal license. The recommendations are therefore that the Planning and Licensing Committee approve the draft policy at Annex A, subject to any further amendments, and B, that the Planning and Licensing Committee approves the new fees as detailed in paragraph 3.3 of the report. This concludes my report. Thank you. -Thank you, Kevin. Can you switch your microphone off, please? Do we have any questions? Councillor Neill. -Yes, I've got a couple of questions. One of the problems that we have in store is people putting A-boards outside their premises. Presumably, that doesn't require a pavement license. And if they do, are there any enforcement that can be made? Because they are often on the pavement and then, you know, obstructing people walking. -Thank you, Chair. It's just to explain A-boards are covered by the advertisement consent regulations under planning, and shops are usually allowed one outside. So, they're sort of allowed to do that. So, if you find a premises that has two or three, we can have a look at it under planning enforcement. -Does it matter where they put them? I mean, if they're clearly being a nuisance and people are having to avoid them? -No, there's no specifics other than they would need to be outside the shop they're relating to. -And then, the other question is, but there's something in the policy document about making sure that the premises are tidy after they've put away the furniture in the evenings. But I don't think there is a requirement for them to have a specific litter bin, is there? Because presumably, then, that would be making extra work for our public litter bins if no provision is made for any waste from the premises. -No, the license will cover furniture that is to be used, tables and chairs, et cetera. Facilities of requirements of a bin isn't something that's covered under the pavement licensing policy. Obviously, the business may themselves decide to put something out there if necessary, but generally, it would be a service where they remove any of the utilities that were out there and cleared up after one customer, making way for the next. But it's not a requirement of the pavement license. -Thank you. Any more questions? Councillor Selwyn. -Thank you, Chair. Just a minor one. I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. So, the national legislature's increased the fees, and we have reviewed our fees, and our fees are, I see, significantly lower than the potential capped fee because we've worked out the cost of itchy, those two things. Is that a fair summary of it? -Yes, absolutely. So, when it was introduced, partly because of COVID, they were capped at £100. We were at a slight loss at that point. Now, with the introduction of the permit regime, us administering the actual license and our processes will remain unchanged. It's actually going to be a two-year process now. So, the cost exercise has brought it out at a slightly higher figure than it was, but it's a cost-recovery service. And at this point, that's how it's been worked out. Going forward, if there was an increase of applications or enforcement required, like the talking of the removal of furniture, et cetera, then those fees would be reviewed on a yearly basis, and that would be reevaluated. -Thank you. Councillor Watson? -When we issue a license, is there a form or post that gets posted in the window of the premises so that we can control it? I think I believe you said there's 12 throughout the Cotswolds. I think there might be more than 12 in Tetbury. So, the question is, we can enforce through planning enforcement, but how do we see if they are licensed or not? -So, the reason I came in on this point was because it was relating to A boards, which are covered under planning legislation. The licensing isn't something covered by planning legislation. So, I'll need to hand to my colleague to answer your question. -So, yes, there is a 14-day consultation period for the application. There's a further 14 days for determination. During that time, there is a sign that is in the window, needs to be prominently displayed for consultation. So, open consultation, members of the public, and regular relevant authorities are also consulted with. -Yeah, I don't intend to be a vigilante, but it's good to know. -Councillor Cool. -I think my question has been answered. -Okay, thank you. Councillor McLean. -Just very quickly, does it count just for the pavement outside the shop, or does it count for other places they might put furniture that's nearby? What sort of covenant is possible? -The legislation states it needs to be outside the front of the premises. If the area out front of the premises is their property, then a license isn't required. But if it's part of the public highway, then they must make an application for that. There could be maybe a pavement or their space, a pavement, and then some space in front again. Then they can apply for that space. They could maybe speak to the adjoining property, which aren't using a space and have permission. They could apply for that space, providing the permission to use it so they could work around that, but it would still be consulted on in the same process. -No matter what. -You mean the adjoining property? -You said it was somewhere on the other side of the thing. -Yes, so if it was a highway to consult it with. So if it's part of the highway. If it was in the vehicular highway. -Village Green? -Village Green. No, it wouldn't normally happen. Dump list in front of that property is what was expected. -Councillor Snowden. -Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I don't want to prolong this conversation. It's a very useful point because I was discussing this with the Sirens to Town Council about the A-boards, and there are occasions where A-boards block the width of a pavement, so you can't actually get a buggy or a wheelchair down it. And particularly in Sirens, there are an increasing number of businesses that use those signs as direction finders. We've bought an off-pitch site, but we're sticking a board over here that says we're 150 yards down there. There are lots, and I take that quite seriously. So it is this authority that I notify about those retailers or others that do not follow that, and we can take action on it? -Yes, it's something for the local planning authority, so it is for us. But we have to take each case on its merits. I can't promise action in every case. -Any more questions? If you're happy with it, can somebody propose it then, please? -Chair, can I just propose the officer's recommendations, and in doing so, just say very briefly, this is a rare case where everybody benefits. They get two years instead of one year for the fee, and we get our costs covered. But along with our colleagues, I'm sure there are more than 12 premises, and I'm sure some suitable survey can soon be taken. Thank you. -Can somebody second that proposal, please? Councillor Sullivan, thank you. -Just before we go to the vote, the committee's actually voting to recommend that full council approves this. -Yes. -Thank you. -Just wanted to make that clear. -Okay. Can we now vote, then, please? -That's unanimous. -Okay. That's carried. Thank you very much. We'll move on now to the planning application we've got. This is for the erection of a single-detached garage and the addition of two gable windows at Milderton, Old Rectory Gardens, Longborough. The applicant is Mr. Sagar, the agent of Peershaw Planning. Case officer is Helen Cooper. The board member is David Cunningham, and the recommendation is to permit. So I'm now going to ask the case officer to give her report, please. Thank you, Helen. -Thank you, Chair. Yes, this application has been brought before planning committee today, and so we're just going to put the presentation on. That's the window of the application. -Have you got the top extended? -Set up. It was working before we had it. -Well, we have this before. -Apologies for that. Yes, so this application is for the erection of a detached garage and the addition of two gable windows. It's been brought to planning committee by Councillor Cunningham on the highway safety grounds. So the property is a traditional two-storey stone cottage, which is orientated side onto the road. It has an existing driveway and parking at the front of the property, as you can see in the photograph. The application site is set in Longborough Conservation Area, and this is an image here of Longborough Conservation Area. And you can see just the dot there. I'll just try and get the pointer working. You can see there. That's the application site there. So it's just on the entrance into the conservation area, and this is the road coming through the village here. So it's in quite prominent location. And the site is also located within the Cotswold National Landscape, an area of outstanding natural beauty. So the application has come forward to address comments previously received following two recent applications at the site. I'll show you the drawings that we previously had. So this was for a flat roof kind of garage at the site. And following this, there was another detached garage that came forward, and we did provide comments on it. And this application's come forward to address the comments and the concerns previously raised. This image here shows the position of the garage. This is the application site outlined in red. The kind of the pink hash line there, that's the existing driveway. And then that's the proposed access there, and the outline in blue is the detached garage. And this is an image of what the detached garage would look like. Whilst it is set in a prominent location, the garage has a vernacular design that is considered in keeping with traditional outbuildings, and the conservation officer has advised that it is considered to be appropriate in terms of its scale, form, and siting. And then there's two proposed windows also on the kind of gable end of the property. And concerns have been raised in relation to impact upon the amenity of the adjacent neighbour and potential overlooking. And a condition has been recommended for these to be obscurely glazed and non-opening and unbalanced subject to conditions. It's felt that would satisfy kind of any amenity concerns and mitigate for that. So in terms of highways, the road that the garage would be accessed off has a 20-mile-per-hour speed limit, and a junction is also set opposite the road. So these photographs here, these show the junction opposite. Just go through. And this is the approach down to the property here. So we've discussed the application with highways, and we have considered alternative options at the site. And ideally, a car parking space would be set or would be provided in front of the garage. So that's normally what highways would require and what we would ideally want. But in this instance, due to site constraints, it's not possible to fit a full car parking space in front of the garage. So whilst highways would have preferred the garage to be accessed from the existing driveway, again, due to site constraints, it's not possible. So there is a new proposed access. But due to low traffic levels passing the site, on balance, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant impact on highway safety and the local highway authority have not recommended refusal in this instance. As such, and on balance and subject to planning conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with relevant policies of the local plan, and it's been recommended that planning permission is approved subject to conditions outlined at the back of the report. Okay, thank you, Chair.
• Thank you, Helen. Now I'd like to invite the public speakers to come forward, please. I've got Councillor House, Caroline Garnham, and Laura. Laura.
• Who's that?
• Apologies for having that back.
• That's all right. No problem. Our first speaker will be Councillor Timothy House. You have three minutes.
• Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Longborough Parish Council takes its role as a consultee in the planning process very seriously and considers each application that it's asked to comment on in a fair and unbiased way, taking into account comments by both residents and applicants alike. Longborough Parish Council objects to this planning application in its current form for the following highway safety reasons, which we've outlined in our formal response lodged with the planning officer. And they are that the proposed location for the garage, and specifically its entrance, is at the bottom of a steep single track entrance to Longborough, which itself is a blind bend. GCC highways have previously stated that from a safety perspective, there are better options for the entrance than the one proposed. They also stated that the location of the entrance to the proposed garage could lead to confusion for other drivers as a result of having two entrances into the same property in close proximity to each other. Highways also stated that the current proposal does not allow sufficient space for a car to be parked off the carriageway whilst garage doors may be being opened. There is therefore the potential for a vehicle to be stopped in the carriageway whilst waiting for doors to be opened. It should be noted that Longborough community speed watch data of the last 12 months actually indicate that at busy times of the day, there is an average of 30 vehicles an hour using this entrance to the village, and they will therefore pass by the new proposed entrance. And finally, the fact that highways, although having some safety concerns, quote, Anticipated that this planning authority would not support an objection on the grounds of safety, and therefore recommended approval of the application. It is, in our view, a weak approach for highways to take. All highway safety issues should be considered and quantified before any decision is taken. Therefore, to summarise, the issue for LPC, the parish council, is not the addition of a new garage. It is that we are not satisfied that all the highway safety issues associated with the garage have been adequately considered, and we request that they are before any decision is taken. Thank you very much.
• Thank you. The next speaker is Caroline Garnham.
• Hello, my name is Caroline Garnham. I live at the Corner House Old Rectory Gardens, Longborough, Mornin Marsh. I am supporting the application made by Mr. Manan Sagar for the erection of a single detached garage at Milverton Old Rectory Gardens. I appreciate that I only have three minutes to speak. I confirm that I am independent of the applicant and have no direct or indirect interest in the application. My name was registered with the Cotswold District Council on Sunday, June the 9th, well within the deadline of June 10th, 2024. My view is in support of the applicant. Under local plan policy EN10, EN11, EN2, and Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, development proposals should sustain and enhance the character, appearance, and significance of designated heritage assets. Mr. Sagar and his wife currently park their vehicles on the elevated drive leading to Milverton. The first thing a visitor to Longborough sees approaching Longborough High Street from the southwest are the Sagar's cars. Milverton can also be seen by walkers on the Heart of England Way and Monarch's Way. Parking one vehicle in a garage on the lower elevation in a suitably constructed garage would be more in keeping with the beauty of the village. The statutory consultees' confusion about where another vehicle is going to turn could be addressed by a notice on the garage door stipulating that no vehicle should park, stop, or turn at the entrance to the proposed garage. It is clear from what the statutory consultee has said in his letter of the 4th April 2024 that it has no objection on highway safety grounds. This, in my opinion, must be correct. The drive to the proposed garage is sandwiched between the entrance to the parking space of Fiddler's Cottage and the existing driveway to Milverton. It would be very odd to say that the entrance to the proposed garage would be a highway safety risk when no accidents would appear to have occurred to date from either the existing entrance to Milverton or the parking space for Mr Denny at Fiddler's Cottage. It is clear from the plans for the proposed garage that the doors will be opened remotely from a distance of approximately 50 metres from the garage. Mr and Mrs Sagar are keen to ensure that at no time their car will be idling as an obstacle to the safety of pedestrians or motorists while the garage doors open. By the time the car arrives at the entrance to the proposed garage, the doors will be fully open and the car can be driven into the garage without having to stop. With regard to the preservation of Purple Contonis Cogiero, sorry, the tree officer said that reasonable care should be taken in carrying out any works to the overhanging trees. I'm confident that Mr and Mrs Sagar will do what they can to preserve this shop.
• Thank you. - Thank you.
• Thank you very much. - Thank you.
• Laura. - Yeah. My husband Manon and I come from diverse multicultural... Is it working? Should I start again? Sorry. My husband Manon and I come from diverse multicultural backgrounds which has allowed us to develop the sensitivity, empathy and ability to respect differences and have made sincere efforts to integrate, support and give back to our community. Three years ago, we chose Longbread to become our permanent home and where we intend to spend the rest of our lives. Since then, we have done everything possible to integrate and support the community. My husband is part of the village cricket team. I taught complimentary yoga classes in the village hall and we support the village shop with donations and our business. Our application is supported by more than 10 families in the village. We deeply care about the community of Longbread, its safety, its well-being and its growth. When we first moved into the village, we inherited the front garden with massive nine feet by 11 feet wide overgrown bush that blocked the road visibility of a car coming down the steep bend down the village. This overgrown hedge had been standing there for over two decades. We cut this hazardous bush out and replaced it with small shrubs, creating a space that is safe, practical and enhances the entrance of our beautiful village. The garage we would like to build is identical to the garage of our neighbors across the street, the well house. The proposed garage and its doors, when fully open, fit well into the boundaries of our property. Currently, we have a gate at the entrance of our property and both me and my husband have Alexa software in our cars and in advance of driving towards our house, we ask Alexa to open the gates so that when we arrive in front of our house, we're able to enter immediately without stalling or waiting and do not in any way inconvenience any other road users. The garage doors would be much further into our property, but we would still use Alexa to open the doors promptly and there will be no waiting associated with doors opening. Further, we believe that having a traditional Cotswold stone garage would be much more visually pleasing to the eyes, to the village entrance than our exposed vehicles looking like a parking lot in our current driveway. I am a designer by profession and creating beauty and preserving charm is how I make my living. I would never create anything that would not enhance the beauty of the village. Lastly, our request to add two small windows to our bedroom would significantly improve the quality of my life. I suffer from seasonal affective disorder and having life is essential to my mental wellbeing. Our neighbours' privacy would not be impacted in any way. Due to the elevated position of our home, I'm currently able to see straight into their garden and bedroom windows and I have never chosen to respect and intrude that privacy. Thank you.
• Thank you very much. Now I ask the board member, Councillor Conningham, you have five minutes.
• Thank you, Chair. Members of the committee, thank you for reviewing this application and for carrying out the site inspection, which I think is probably very helpful. To be clear, the issue at hand is not the construction of the proposed garage in itself, nor the addition of the gable windows. The planning officer in conjunction with the conservation officer have, I understand, had conversations with the applicant and have reached a consensus in terms of the architectural designs, such that the final iteration is deemed to be acceptable both in the context of the Longborough Conservation Area, as well as the Cotswold National Landscape. These negotiations have led to a specific placement of the proposed garage in relation to the main dwelling and very importantly, the adjacent highway. In its positioning of the garage, and specifically its entrance, the potential impact of its ongoing use on the road safety in the immediate area is the focus of this review. The high base officer in his original assessment highlighted the fact that the proposed parking space in front of the garage doors appears too small to accommodate a car. It goes on to state that if it is their proposal, it is only fair to point out that we, highways, would consider the change to represent a reduction in highway safety and is likely to result in an objection. The report includes a request to provide a dimension drawing. Detailed plans may have been provided, but do not appear to be available on the website. However, in their reply to the highway's concerns, the agent confirms that the doors will not encroach on the road, but that there is not room to park a vehicle off the highway while the doors are being opened. This is obvious from the site inspection where members noted that on entry and/or exit, a vehicle could be stationary across the width of the carriageway while the garage doors are being operated. Following this clarification from the agent, highways have submitted a second report, again setting out the issues with the proposed site, including potential for confusion over multiple access points and insufficient space for a vehicle to park while the garage doors are being opened and closed. From the tone of the original report, it is fair to say that these highlighted issues continue to infer a potential reduction in safety. The highways officer concludes that on balance, it is anticipated that the planning authority would not support an objection on highways safety grounds due to the low level of traffic. As we have heard from the data compiled by the PC, at certain times this site can see a vehicle passing every two minutes. It's not the M5, but it's not exactly low level. The question for members is whether they believe that in light of clearly stated concerns by highways, an on balance approval that can include such an ambiguous conclusion is a solid enough base to make a decision. I understand that some members may feel that decisions on highways matters are the remit of the lead authority, GCC. However, under the Road Traffic Act of 1988, section 39, paragraph two, part eight, and yes, I need to get a hobby, local authorities of which CDC is one are tasked with carrying out programmes of measures designated to promote road safety. Such measures are evident in our own local plan, policy INF4, paragraph B, which states that development will be permitted that creates safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic, cyclists or pedestrians. From a planning regulation perspective, this is backed up by the MPPF, section nine, paragraph 114, part B, which directs planners to consider developments where safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Given that this site is approximately 400 yards from a primary school, but a single track road without pavement or street lighting and is close to a sharp bend, are the committees satisfied that these policies are being correctly adhered to? And in relation to the MPPF requirement under paragraph 115, what is, for this committee, an acceptable impact on highway safety? Unless GCC highways can confirm in more certain terms that they have no objections and why, then it would seem prudent to defer this decision until further information can be brought forward or alternative solutions can be presented. Thank you. Thank you. If the speaker would now like to return to their seats, please. Now, we did have a panel site inspection visit, so I'd like to ask those members who went on the panel to give their views. Councillor Selwyn, I think you were there, weren't you? Yes, thank you, Chair. Yes, it's a beautiful village and I note the comments about it's a single track road going down. We had an opportunity of seeing the way that the garage would fit into the roof lines of the house. We were able to inspect how much the space was outside the house where you might pull up a car. So, although I'm not necessarily a fan of site visits, I can understand why this one was suggested and I thought it was a very helpful visit. So, I thank the board members for bringing that to our attention. Thank you. Councillor Harris, you were there? I was. I was slightly late, so my apologies. But yeah, as Councillor Selwyn said, it's a peaceful, quiet village and that's already been said as well. When we were discussing afterwards the application, we were standing in the middle of the road in a circle. So, that gives you maybe an idea of quite how busy it is. And I suspect a vehicle have come, which it did at one stage, we sort of moved across. So, as has been said, it's not the M5, it's not the A4, 1-7 either, or the Fosse Way. It's a quiet village. Because I was late, I parked somewhere else. So, I actually walked down to the site and I walked in the middle of the road with a woman who was walking her dog. So, again, I hope that gives you an impression of certainly how I felt safe walking down the middle of the road. We, yeah, I mean, that's about it really. It seemed on the face of it to be pretty uncontentious. Thank you. Do you have an answer to the deal? Yes, I no longer very well. I used to live two doors away from this property. The main thing is the proximity of the garage to the road. And I think that's the thing that would be most worrying. That's been addressed in the officer's report and that's going to be the subject of our debate, I'm sure. The design of it seemed appropriate. And as the officer said, there's a very similar design just across the road of a garage. Yeah, so it's really the highway safety thing that's going to concern us most, I think. While we were there, we were there for about half an hour, I think there were about 10 cars came along. So, yeah. Councillor Caul. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Obviously, I no longer very, very well, having lived about three doors away from the applicant's property. I also know that that road very well and calling it low traffic levels, there are low traffic levels at certain parts of the times of the day. School drop-off time, those traffic levels increase. And also during other times of the day. It is in a 20 mile an hour speed limit. Cars don't stick to 20 miles an hour around there very often. In fact, they don't often stick to 30, if actually it's quite higher than that. Hence, there have been some incidents on that corner. It is at the bottom of Blind Bend. And it is a very sharp bend there. I thought the design of the garage is obviously in keeping with Longborough Village. Obviously, mirroring a neighbour's garage that's already been constructed there. I thought the aesthetic of it, the scale of it, it's sunken a little bit low into the, into that, into that, the hill that Middleton's actually sitting on. So I didn't have a problem at all as Councillor Neill said with the aesthetic. It's just, it's that, it's that blind bend. And having the thought of a car, having to sit in the middle of their row, waiting for those gates to open. If those gates do take that long to open, that could be an obstruction with a car exceeding the speed limit coming down. I mean, obviously we can discuss that, but in the car, the car could sit back a little bit. So it's, I'm just, it's just concerned over the safety aspect of a car waiting for those garage doors to open for it to leave the highways.
• Thank you. It's the safety aspect which was concerned of myself because the road leading down there is quite steep and you do approach a blind bend. So we'll be interested to hear the debate on the safety aspects of it. So we'll now move on to members' questions, please. Councillor Fowls.
• Thank you, chairman. I'm trying to get my head round. I mean, I gather it's the terms of the design, the aesthetics, et cetera. Everyone seems happy with that. So it's all about the safety. So the balance of the argument that's defined in on page 54, 10.32.3, where there seems to be an alternative solution, which highways looking at this, maybe I've interpreted it wrongly, would prefer and arguably the parish council and the ward member would, but the conservation office is concerned. So it seems there's a balance between the look and the safety, or at least that's how I'm interpreting it. And to me, the safety is more important. And although I was going to make it under comments, whether it's one car or lots of cars going down the road, it only takes one car to have an accident. So could someone just, as the case officer, could you try and articulate for me this whole balance of the two arguments really, aesthetics versus safety?
• Yes, of course. In terms of the alternative option that we did look at with the applicant during the application process, we looked at the possibility of putting an attached garage on the side of the dwelling instead as an alternative option. The key concern with that really was the impact upon residential amenity due to the land levels with Fiddler's cottage, which is slightly set down from the property. So that was, it was more of an amenity concern. Conservation said it may be possible, but we didn't have any detailed design at that stage. But I think between myself and the conservation officer, it was more amenity concerns, the impact upon the neighbouring property. So ultimately this was probably decided to be the best position for the garage on site where it would appear subservient. But there are highways, it is a balance really, but I would just raise that there are the amenity issues upon impact on the neighbour was more the key concern in why it wasn't considered to be acceptable in the other position.
• Just extend the question, Chairman. It appeared from what the parish council was saying that there was an alternative solution. Is that the alternative solution? Has that been discussed with the parish council?
• No, we haven't, I haven't discussed an alternative.
• The impression I got from the speakers was that in principle is not a problem with the garage. It's just the particular location that's sticking out in the road. So do you feel as the case officer all other options have been exhausted?
• Yes, we have considered the option to the side of the property is an alternative.
• The decision today is this application.
• Is this acceptable or is it harmful?
• So we're not here to say go away and come up with an alternative.
• Yeah, 'cause I think the alternative of putting it adjacent to the house was too gonna harm the neighbouring property to too much of an extent where it wouldn't then be supported by planning officers.
• But the idea of deferring it is not really an option. It's either support it or refuse it.
• I didn't go on the site visit and I'm not a highways expert, but it seems highways have changed their mind and I don't quite understand why. And it seems that there is a real concern about highway safety, which we can articulate, I'm sure later.
• I would just draw your attention really in terms of highway safety. I think in the report, if you go to paragraph 10.33, it's really, we'd go back to paragraph 115 of the NPPS.
• And that would be if there's an unacceptable impact on highway safety. So where there are some concerns that the impact is not considered to be so significant, you know, it's not such a significant highway safety concern so we haven't got a recommendation of refusal from the local highway authority 'cause it's not considered to be so harmful. But I don't know if I should defer to our local highway authority officer in this.
• Can we bring highways in at this point, Chairman? Is that allowed?
• No, we've all got highways questions.
• Okay, so we'll ask highways later. Thank you, Chairman, thank you.
• Thank you, Chair. Well, I've just had some new information from the presentations at the front there, which is the automatic opening doors before the car has got there. My question will be, which will be another highway's question is did highways actually understand those facts before they wrote the report? Suggest to me they didn't because the whole point, and I absolutely agreed with the points that highways made in 7.3.3 on page 48, where it said the garage would normally be required to be sufficiently far from the carriageway to enable a car to be parked off the carriageway when the garage doors are being opened. The current process does not allow sufficient space for that to happen. I absolutely supported that comment but it raised the key issue from my point of view. But that isn't, of course, now the issue because the garage doors will be open well before the car gets there, negating the fact, as I read it, that any car would have to be parked or stationary at all to open the garage doors. Seems to me that that's absolutely fundamental on this. Either they open automatically and the car doesn't stop to park or the car does stop in the road and you get out and open the doors. So, my query is at what point did we know that the garage doors would open automatically because I don't see it appearing in this report or in the highway's response?
• Thank you, Chair. I think there's a couple of things to pick up. The case officers just confirmed that that wasn't before us when we wrote the report and potentially has only been made at this meeting. I think it's probably just worth highlighting and I think members in considering this application should consider it's effectively a remote control mechanism that opens the gates or garage doors in this instance. And how reliable do you consider things to be? Because if we're saying it will be fine, it will always open, that means it's going to work 100% of the time. I don't know about your experience with technology, but I don't have 100% success rate with it. I have enough trouble getting the television remote control to work. And that's what I'm pointing at. So I think we just need to bear in mind that there will be occasions when I suspect that mechanism of asking in this case Alexa nicely to open the garage doors that on occasions it won't work. Therefore, I don't think we can wholly rely on that. What we then come back to is the acceptability of a car halfway across the carriageway potentially, whilst the garage doors open. What we have a recommendation before us is that in the opinion of the highways authority is that whilst there could be some harm, it's not sufficiently unacceptable to warrant refusing the application. Now, the bit that I'd sort of like to add there is, what you do as a committee, you have to consider what would happen if the application was refused and we went to appeal, because at that point, the decision's taken out of the committee's hands and it would be for a planning inspector to make the judgment on the scheme. So just to be clear, if the committee refused it, the applicant has the right of appeal against that refusal. And it's then the planning inspector who would make a decision on the application, or which at that time is an appeal, the inspector would look at the local highway's comments and make a decision for themselves. But in my experience, local authorities don't always have a particularly high success rate on highway safety. As a committee, you are free to reach your own decision, but I just thought it was perhaps helpful to bring that to your attention.
• Yes, thank you. Councilor McLean.
• Thank you. My understanding has always been that you need a full car between the garage door and the road. And I've seen that everybody has been doing that. So for example, in the new development in Upper Risington, on a cul-de-sac with just three houses in, they've done that and they put the gardens right into the back garden, which I think is appalling for the people 'cause they're so small, but that's what everyone has done. And that's on a cul-de-sac with just three houses on it. So my question is, what makes this different to that sort of situation? Or if we're gonna revise this, are we gonna revise that advice for anywhere? Now, obviously we can't take remote control doors into account 'cause after 500 years, when you drive past it, are they still gonna be working? And that garage will be there or stick and it won't necessarily always have them. So what's gonna happen? 'Cause this has implications everywhere because everybody has been putting their garages more than one car length away. And you're telling us that this one's all right. So what makes this different from a three house cul-de-sac in Upper Risington? That's what I'd like to know.
• Thank you. I mean, I would just highlight there really that is each case is assessed on its own merits.
• Oh, come on, come on, come on. You're talking about this is a group home. And I'm not--
• Do the highways officer want to comment, please?
• In that situation, it's quite likely that they're meeting the parking standards. So the garage is set back a distance. So you've got a parked car in front of it because there's a parking standard that they have to meet on the development. That's why it's set up like that on new housing developments.
• Not legislation, standard?
• Yeah, I mean, there's guidance that says for X type of house, you will have Y number of parking spaces. Frequently, the garage isn't included. Certainly in Gloucester, we don't count the garage because it's frequently not used. For a parking car, it's full of stuff or converted if it's attached. So we're looking for car parking spaces generally on a driveway, which is why they're pushed back on that sort of development.
• So you can always allow garages right on the road?
• Depends very much on the situation. I mean, again, as we said in the response, it's very much on balance. What we've got to determine in this sort of situation is whether there is an unacceptable reduction in highway safety. Now, in that, you're looking at, firstly, what can they do without requiring permission? What's the situation in the village? Is it in, like in this case, a village on a 20 mile an hour speed limit where drivers are expecting people to be moving, where there's no restriction on where you can park outside the house in any event? So what is this development creating in terms of a reduction in highway safety? And is that reduction unacceptable? And that's the process of thinking. Are there problems with it? Yeah, it's close to other accesses. So yes, it could result in confusion. If you're following a car down the road, they stick the indicator on. Do you know which one they're going into? How does that affect your driving following them? Do you think, oh, they're going in the third one, so you don't slow down quick enough, they stop 'cause they're going in the first one? Yeah, that's an issue. Okay, is the fact that somebody waiting for the garage doors to be open will result in a car parked on the road for however long it takes to open a garage door, right? Yes, it's an issue. Is it a significant issue? Is it an unacceptable issue? Are there other places in the village where there are gates across the driveway where people have to stop to get out to open their gates to drive in? Yes, there are. Is that a problem? It's on balance, which is what we said in the response which was picked up. Are there problems with this? Yes, there are. On balance, is it sufficient to warrant a refusal? My view is, no, it probably isn't. -Thank you very much. -Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Councillor Harris. -Thank you very much. A few questions for highways. And I think you touched on a few, but I'd just like to sort of tease them out, if that's all right. One of the -- is it true that, quite often, confusion can actually lead to a reduction in speed because people aren't sure what's happening ahead, so they go, All right, I'll slow down? Your answer suggested maybe not always. -It's a theory. And in serious guidance, Manufa Streets, then, yeah, they talk about reducing forward visibility to reduce people slowing down. We've already heard that people drive down this road at speeds occasionally that you shouldn't drive down and that if you were actually making your own personal assessment of risk, you may choose not to. So does reducing standards result in safety? Maybe. Depends on the driver, is what it comes down to, in my view. -I've got three or four questions on this. The second one -- do we have a picture of the existing pull-in where I think it's looking up? There was a picture looking down the hill, and there's a picture looking up. Do we not have the photograph, if there was a photograph? -Sorry. I'm just trying to get the presentation back up. Sorry. I think it's this way. -I've got it on. -So here are the photographs. -Yes, that's the one. -Is it of the existing this one? Yeah, so -- -So, if you were coming down there to park in the new garage, when you park in the new garage, I presume you'd stop just slightly after the current drive going in? Would that be right? -It would be up to the driver if it was me. I'd park across my driveway before I was out of the way. -But that's not blind. So anybody coming down will see whatever stop they're waiting for it to come in. But this -- so coming down, we're told, is the problem because people are going fast, whereas the other way, it's less of a problem because they're coming from the fridge. Is there anywhere down there where you're not allowed to park where there's a parking restriction? -From memory, no. Definitely there's any parking restrictions in the village. -At the moment, so the extent position is the resident -- correct me if I'm wrong -- can park anywhere along there at the moment? -Sorry, Stone, because it's unsafe. -That's not asking you. I was asking you. -Yes, theoretically, they can. Obviously, there is a requirement for it to be safe, which is a police issue. But broadly speaking, in terms of double yellow lines, now there's nothing that stops them. -No current restriction. And if they're to pull into the existing gate there, where the car is at the moment -- I mean, presumably, if there's a -- I don't know -- that's not their driveway. Okay, so that's not where -- that's not where they're going. Okay, thanks. So that's the double yellow that we've got in. And then the existing's pulling. And do we have a look coming the other way, the blind at all? -Yes, this is coming up the other way. -So I just wondered if we should -- -That's kind of going up the hill. -Right, yeah, so, but we don't have -- -So that's down. -Yeah, we haven't seen the -- we haven't seen the -- Okay, all right, thanks very much. Yeah, I appreciate it. Cool. -Thank you. I just had a couple questions. In the applicant, am I correct? Just a question for the plaintiffs, whether the applicant said that the garage was to be built to house a classic car, was it, or a convertible, was that -- is that right? -I haven't considered what time -- -You haven't? Okay, that was a conversation in that case on the site visit. Okay, thank you. And just regarding the electric -- the gates. Just regarding the gates, is there anything in there about them having to be electric opening? -No, there's nothing that I've seen about the actual gates to the garage, the garage doors being electric. -So the applicant talking there to us today, it could just be a desire to have them electrified? -Yes, I believe so. -So is there anything stopping us putting some kind of condition in the application that they have to be electrified? Is there any precedent for that being done in the past? -I think that would be difficult to enforce moving forward. Again, you know, with future occupants, I think it might not be reasonable to attach a condition insisting that they were. And also if there are problems with the gates, with technology, and they didn't work, I'm not sure it would be reasonable to attach a condition that enforced that. -Okay, thank you. -Thank you, Chair. I thought I might ask a question based on my experience as a cyclist on a narrow lane observing a fantastic place, having fantastic improvements, a place called Ewan Manor, a very interesting owner, a son I call Kuduri, I believe is still alive. Now, he has a wonderful collection of cars, which isn't entirely relevant. The point is, when he gets to his gates, he's on a narrow lane, and he doesn't want to get out of his car and open the gates because his car could be at risk, and it's precious. This is how I'm imagining it. I've never met the guy. The principle is, and the question is, probably the highway person, in a situation like that, I'm sure we didn't demand it, but the obvious logical thing was to condition transponders placed in advance on either side of the property to ensure that the gates open when he gets there with his classic cars that he doesn't want to have smashed into from the back. May not be the cheapest option, and if you look carefully, you can see where the transponders are. They're slightly camouflaged on pre-trans. Now, that may not be the option here, but the principle of my question is, would it be reasonable, and has our highway officer ever known it, for transponders to be a requirement to aid road safety in a situation like this? He's got to open the garage doors, obviously. In this case, not gates. He's got to open the garage doors before he gets there. -Yeah. No, I've not known it done primarily because when we spoke to planning officers, they said it's not reasonable because it's... But, you know, is it practical? Yeah, you can do it, but, you know, is it reasonable to tie in every future owner to maintain them when they -- to replace them? You know, that's -- I mean, we -- I've made the assessment on this application of them not being conditioned. -I guess it's like roof tiles. Sorry, Jed. It's not a question, but is it like -- Is it perhaps like Cotswolds stone tiles? The building's going to be there 500 years, and whoever lives in it is going to have to do the stone tiles. Perhaps they'll have to do the transponders, as well. -Okay, then. -Thank you. -Councillor Watson. -Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our Highways Officer. I think that the explanation of the question of balance was very helpful to me. And we are obviously aesthetic. Everybody's fine with that. It's this question of a car being potentially stopped on the road outside of the house while it goes in. But that question also extends to things like when the post van is outside, when the ice-cream van is outside, or the bread man -- I don't know -- or you're dropping off your auntie. There is always going to be people stopping outside housing. I think from the pictures there, there was a number of -- -Have you got a question, Councillor Watson? -Well, the question is on the balance, is that exactly that point. Is this any worse than a post van being stopped on that road outside? -So, I don't know if, Helen, you're just able to -- There's probably that one there. I don't know if this helps you, Councillor Watson. In the case of this property, what we'd have to take into account with the point you've just made is that the property already has an access that's there. And most of the things you've just described, we would normally expect them to pull into their existing driveway to do. So, the argument that I think you were putting forward in relation to at this property, you'd have, you know, the milkman, the baker, a number of other deliveries perhaps pulling in in front of the property. In this case, they've got a driveway to go in and do that already. So, that's just something to factor into your consideration. -Councillor Fowls? -Thank you, Janet. Just want to clarify what Councillor Selwyn said and the case officer's response. Is the first point at which we heard about this miraculous Alexa solution at this meeting, is that right? -Yes. -Because I could draw my own conclusion from that, but the highways officer is saying that his decision is not based on whether the gates open automatically or not. But it is here that we heard about that. Okay. The second question. We're all talking about cars stopping and going in. My concern is about cars coming out, okay, because typically I've not had the privilege of having an automatic gate. I've not had the privilege of having a garage for a long time. But when I see people using them, they tend to drive in frontways because it opens, and that's the logical thing to do. QED, if you're coming out, you're going to be reversing out onto what Councillor Cawe described as a narrow bend, and it's a sharp bend. So in weighing up the balance, as the highways officer, it's an issue to do with going in and also surely coming out. The other thing I'd just like to comment on, if I may, Chairman, is the point that Adrian made, which is that if vehicles are stopping at that particular property, you've referred -- I've heard several people say that they would naturally go and park in the driveway of the property to pull off the road, okay? So again, in my head, it means that potentially if you were to park on the road, it's a potential obstruction. So in weighing up your views on this issue of balance, you're obviously taking into consideration reversing out onto what appears to be a blind bend. Going in is one thing, coming out. So the person driving up -- if I could make an observation here, I was going to make it under comments, but I do think it's relevant. I've made it once before. It only takes one car to have an accident. The lady who was on the front of the Wilson-Gloss Standard, who was in Tesco's car park, got run over and bounced off her bonnet because the person who was driving the car -- she was a friend of mine -- was momentarily distracted in a car park at Tesco's, traveling at 10 miles an hour, and she was hit, okay, and was nearly killed. So for me, on balance, you've got to err in favour of safety rather than anything else. But I'm prolonging the question, but it's this issue of coming out rather than going in -- as well as going in, sorry. >> Yeah, if I may, as you'll be aware, when we do visibility displays for junctions, they're always measured from 2.4 metres back. So that is based on the fact that in the highway code, you're required to reverse in and drive out. So I know people don't do it, but that is the basis of pretty much the decisions we take, is that people will comply with the highway code, which is why visibility displays are measured from 2.4 metres back on the assumption that people -- >> We're seeing that people will always reverse in and drive. >> That's what they are required to do by the highway code. What they actually do is stick into the speed limit, and everything else that drivers do, I can't answer for, but that is the design practicality of driveways and junction design is that the people approach it forwards. >> Okay, thank you. Councillor Neill. >> Yeah, as a sort of question and a comment for the house officer, thanks very much. So having lived in Hollybank in the village before, I used to park my car in that little parking area opposite in the area where it says LB on the map on page 59, and again on the map on page 61. It seemed to me that if the applicant was to turn around that triangle and approach the garage from that direction, that that would be a safer option because that's not a through road, there's just a couple of cars going up and down there, but of course that would depend on the behaviour of the applicant, but, you know, it's their -- they don't want their precious car to be -- to be bumped into, so that might be a safe way of approaching it, but then what you said about reversing out is also interesting, so that was just a comment, but I'd like your response to that. >> Yes, you're absolutely right. That suggestion and a lot of the other things we've talked about are reliant on the driver behaviour, and, you know, we have to make assumptions about that, and we have to make assumptions about not only the person using this garage and this access, but the other people on the road around them. And, yes, that's why, again, we come back to on balance, whether the risk or the reduction in highway safety is acceptable or not. Is there a risk? Is there a reduction? Yes, there probably is. Is it acceptable or is it unacceptable? It's a balance. Now, I've taken one view. It's entirely up to you to take a different view. An inspector may take one view, will take one view or the other. You've had my opinion, and as I said, and as I said in my initial response, which was pointed out, it's on balance. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. What we have to bear in mind is that there is an existing access, so there is a car going in and out already. I mustn't lose track of that. >> Councillor Harris. >> Clarification. So it's a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit here, is that right? Yes. So if somebody is going down faster, they're breaking the law. Yeah, okay. That's the first thing. The second thing is could we go back to that picture of the car in the drive? Oh, I get that. >> Oh, geez. >> Don't worry. I think -- can we all remember the picture of the car in the drive? >> Yes. >> Yeah, I think it's facing in, isn't it? >> Yeah. >> And I think that's on a harder blind than the actual proposed one. So presumably, that car reverses out quite frequently, maybe every day. >> Are you referring to the big pickup truck that's on one of the -- or the little one that's next door? >> Yeah, it was just further down. It was a -- there's one here, wasn't there? It looks like it's been -- >> I'm sure there was one. >> Yeah, I think it's been paved now, hasn't it? Like a paved drive, I've got it here. >> We can remember the picture. >> It had a paved drive, what it does on the -- >> So let's find it on -- [ Inaudible ] >> Carry on. Sorry, I'm just going to find it on Google. [ Inaudible ] >> Yeah. Probably can't see this, but -- >> No, we're not going to be able to see that. >> Well, you can probably see there, there's a car parked in the drive. Yeah? Can you see that? Can you see that, colleagues? You can see that? >> Yeah. >> You can see that, yeah. So that's the house next door, and he's going in front ways. And actually, the blind corner is coming up that way, isn't it? Yeah? So presumably, this car is reversing out quite frequently. >> Is that application in front of us? >> No, what I'm talking -- I'm not -- sorry, could you -- >> We're having a debate, and you're right. It's not fair that you keep butting in every five minutes while we're doing it right. It's not really fair. >> I'll keep my comments to the end. >> All right. >> Yes, he's -- >> But I'm -- you know, in terms of precedent, you know, in terms of people reversing out onto that blind corner, that's clearly happening at the moment. >> Yeah, okay. >> Yes, yes, yes. >> Hopefully, that's the end. >> Okay. I just wanted to understand. Have we explored the option of the garage just opening the other way, 90 degrees? So it goes onto the existing parking space so that they're -- all of these issues of safety aren't covered. Why can't the garage just face -- have the door facing the other way so that they can use their existing entrance, and we wouldn't have any of these safety issues? Why -- has that been explored? >> I think that's really to do with the levels at the site. So this garage is going to be sunk down slightly so it wouldn't be possible without probably doing a lot of excavation work to access it a different way, and then you've got kind of more -- a greater impact upon the property and the surrounding area. >> So it's going to have to sit higher in the landscape? >> Okay. Earlier in the office of presentation, what we were trying to demonstrate was there had been an evolution of the design, so we'd looked at several options, one of which was the one you've just described. But it's in a conservation area, and because of the levels of the land, the driveway goes up. So if the garage was to meet that level, that would make the garage higher. So -- and that would have implications for the neighbor in terms of residential amenity. So if you start sinking it down, that means considerable earthworks in order to make it level to get into it from that access. That starts to have implications for the conservation area because you're starting to change sort of the ground levels and any like retaining walls that you would need to hold it back. So the view was taken was that, well, if we need to lower it down, you don't want to change the ground levels in front of the property, the possibility was to bring it into its current position. So that created a highway safety issue that wasn't there before, but it overcame the other issues of changing ground level and that kind of thing. Also, the other thing to add is that because it would be -- the entrance to the garage would be on the side, there'd be much more sort of the doors would dominate that elevation, which again has implications for the conservation area and the design of the building. So we went for one that had the doors were much less of a feature, and again, that's what led us to the current design that's before the committee. >> Thank you. I think we've given questions a good airing. Yep, okay. We'll now move on to comments. Comments, please. Councillor Foal. >> Right. Well, I'm very clear, and I think it's one of the best debates I've certainly listened to for quite a long time because it's obviously finally balanced, but the ward member and the parish council would not be saying what they're saying if they were not concerned. We've had quite a long debate about something I thought was very straightforward, because then that to me concludes that there is an issue. However you cut it, there's an issue. It seems amazing. We could argue the semantics of whether the introduction of the motor car in the last 500 years, God rest your soul, Marcus, is aesthetically pleasing to a conservation area, and whether a garage is located in one location or not, I would argue that cars and garages do impact wherever they are. Seems to me that potentially there is, if you want to have a garage there, another solution which may impact on conservation, but sure as hell won't impact on safety. So to me, on balance, which is what the highways officer has said, I would just like to go back to the ward member's point 212. The purpose of a statutory consultees provide their view based on their experience. Ultimately it's up to us as an authority to decide whether or not a proposal is acceptable or not. If there's any issue to do with safety with a school 400 yards down the road, not having a crystal ball, knowing whether cars are going to get faster, driverless, goodness knows what in the future, for me, I would recommend refusing this application. And that's my view. Thank you, Jeremy. >> Thank you. Councillor Selwyn. >> Well, I echo the first part of Councillor Fowl's views that I think it was a very worthwhile, interesting debate. I come to the opposite conclusion, I must say, is that on balance I can absolutely understand why the officer recommended to permit. I am, and I on balance would have accepted that. The fact that I hear the applicant intends to have automatic doors actually diminishes my concerns yet further. So whilst I appreciate the points that have been made, I would, my view is that on balance this is something that we should permit. >> Thank you. Councillor Harris. >> Thank you. Well, we heard that the local planning authority must take, in legislation, must take measures to promote road safety. But that is in the light of the highways authority. We don't act unilaterally on that. We must listen to our colleagues in highways and work with that. At present, cars can park on the side of the road there. There are no parking restrictions, so Clee Highways doesn't think that it's such a dangerous road that it requires restrictions on parking. So you can go and park there if you want and people just have to be careful when they come down. Indeed, if somebody's pulling into a drive there, you just have to be careful when you see it there. And if you're not, you'll be going over 20 miles an hour. And if you hurt, if you injure somebody going over the speed limit, that becomes a criminal offence, not a road traffic offence, and it's slightly different. So you might want to remember that if you're going over 20 miles an hour in a 20-mile-an-hour zone. At the moment, cars are reversing onto the blind corner and it may be a slight issue, but it's happening at the moment. And if this was the Fosse Way or a major trunk road, I'd absolutely agree there's no way we should allow this to happen, but it's not. It's in a quiet village, relatively quiet village, where you can stand in the middle of the road and chat. And if people are doing 20 miles an hour, as they should do, they'll see you when they come around the corner. And we shouldn't make plans based on the assumption that people will break rules. We shouldn't make, I don't think we should grant it, not permit this because we think people will break rules. It's like not allowing a license because we think people might get drunk and cause a kerfuffle. We should grant it based on the assumption that people will adhere by the rules. So on that basis, I'd like to propose that we accept the officer's recommendation to permit, and I'll look for a seconder on that. Thank you. Having read this beforehand, I came ready to refuse it, but I was very surprised by what I've heard about garages and the space in front of them. It is against everything I understood, and that has led me to change my opinion based on the opinion of the road safety people. But I'm very surprised, and it will change a lot of things going forward because it's no longer the absolute no-no that I thought it was in planning, which has surprised me immensely. But that's led me to change my opinion. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stokes. Yes, thank you, Chair. Item 10.323, so it says here in highways terms. Page 54, sorry. So in highways, in highway terms, a better solution would be to use the existing access and driveway and position the garage on the space in front or beside the existing dwelling. However, the conservation officer and planning officer have determined that it's not an acceptable option. Of course, there is, so therefore there is another solution, and that is the fact that the applicant doesn't actually have a garage at all. So we're simply starting from the point where we need to provide a garage. What is the best option in delivering it? So I think that just needs to be, bear that in mind. But overarching above that is we, ultimately we need to look at whether this proposed garage is going to have an unacceptable impact on the highway safety. And that's what it all really boils down to. Bearing in mind there are two, that there's only existing driveway to the side of the proposed entrance and another driveway to the other side. So really it's about how the cars are going to enter and exit. That's now new central entrance in between the existing two. I think that was just a comment I wanted to make, that you have to have a garage there. The other option is we don't have a garage and the highway safety is unaffected. >> Thank you. Councillor Neill. >> Yes, so I'm somewhat like Councillor McLean. When I went into the site inspection briefing, I thought, oh, this is going to make it more dangerous. But having reviewed it and having heard the presentation, I think there are ways of the applicants being able to enter their garage safely. And of course they're going to be doing it, they're the people who are going to be using it. They don't want anyone to come hurtling down the road and banging into their car. They want to avoid an accident. I think we can assume that they will do their very best to make sure that they enter that garage safely. They're going to do their best by having Alexa involved, as well as other means of making it safe. And I think the reversing out is a problem, but they're having to do that already. So, I don't think, in retrospect, and listening carefully to our highways officer, that the garage is going to make the highway safety worse than it is currently. So, that's my opinion. >> If I could just come in there, I've heard it said once or twice that there's vehicles coming in and out of that space already. And I think it's just important for the committee to be clear that there isn't at the moment. There isn't existing access, but the garage is going to be creating a new one, and there is no access coming in and out on that point of the highway currently. >> Thank you very much, Chair. I want to take this opportunity first, and not for the first time, to compliment Councillor Cunningham on a barrister-level degree of brilliance in presenting a balanced case and making his point so effectively. How fortunate it is that in the ward that has more applications to planning than any other ward, he assures us that they've got such a talented advocate. Second, I want to take the rare opportunity to, but not the first time, just doesn't happen often enough, to say thank you to highways for being here today, treating us as intelligent people, not getting wound up by stupid questions, if there were any, and you're very welcome again. And anything we can do to make your visits easier and more frequent, I'm sure we'll do. I'd like to thank the officer for what has been an exemplary, if a little lengthy, that's not your fault, but a brilliant preparation, and indeed answering the questions again without getting wound up. And finally, to colleagues for their patience too, I think on balance I will vote to permit. And I think we only have one more person watching to comment, and it's Councillor Fowlkes. >> Well, you thanked everybody. >> Not you. >> No. But I must say, I would certainly concur with what you said about the ward member and indeed the parish council, and that's why I was moved in a slightly different direction, which is why I'm going to propose that we refuse the application just to get it out of the way, because I think on balance there is a highway safety issue, and I think it was a very measured presentation. But I'll just say again, I think there is an issue there, and I think we may regret this. But if I haven't got a seconder, that sort of clears the air. >> You're seconding his. >> Thanks. Hurtling. Hurtling doesn't really go very well with a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit. That's the law. It is also good practice under the Highway Code to reverse into a garage. So I think it's been well presented, and I've already said that I would second it, and I don't think there have been any good and substantive reasons to reject the application. >> Thank you. Got no more comments. We'll go to Councillor Conningham. >> Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Can I just say, first off, that the purpose of bringing this to committee was to have that debate? That's what the purpose was. There's no ulterior motive here to stop people building garages. That's not the point. The point was safety concerns were raised by highways, and they took an on-balance approach. It's our job, as the members, to look at each planning application as it happens, and see whether or not we agree that on balance, the safety has not been impacted to a degree that we are concerned with. Now, somebody could come down that road and knock a kid over, but it could happen. It could happen now. It could happen with the garage there. The idea of this debate was to make sure that every single aspect of this was looked at thoroughly, and I think that's been done, and I very much appreciate the fact that you've all taken the time to do that. I mean, some of the things that I would say, we can't control how other road users park in the road or reverse in or reverse out. We certainly can't condition, under planning law, I don't think that would pass the Reasonability Test, that somebody has to reverse into their garage or not. My point in asking for a deferral was simply that I didn't think that we had looked at all the potential options, not putting doors on the garage, for instance, having the door that rolled up, rather than opening out into the highway. I didn't think enough of those were looked at. I didn't think that the highway's concerns were given enough weight by the conservation view to really make a clear judgment on it. But having had this debate now, I think everybody, including the people that were objecting to this on highway's grounds, can at least now say that the council did a full and thorough investigation and that they came to a decision that was based on the extra information that they received. So, although I asked for a deferral, if it's the committee's decision not to do that because they think they've got all the information they need, then so be it. But the point, as I say, was to ensure that we had a full and frank debate around safety issues, because in the future, if something does happen, I for one want to be able to say, No, we looked at this properly, and we felt that on balance it was okay. So, that was the purpose of it, and I hope it did its job. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We have a proposal from Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Selby, to permit this application. So, we'll now take a vote whether to permit or not. >> That is 10-4, and one against. >> Just after this, could I ... >> Yes? >> I could say after this. >> ... there in my ward, and it's quite a big thing. And she said to me, and I'd like to share this with you if it's all right, she said, "A positive about all this is that I've now been spending hours of my life watching planning committee meetings on the webcast to get an idea of how it all works. It's not only fascinating, but really impressive, and it's clear just how much effort the committee puts into making sure that planning applications are discussed properly and right. I feel rather embarrassed that I hadn't realised quite how much work it all is previously, or just how much time and energy is spent by councillors. So, without any wish to appear as if I'm sucking up, not my style, thank you. I now feel as confident as I possibly can be in the process. Your email has further helped with this, so I just wanted to share that with the planning committee, and if you ever feel that, and all of us, so thank you. >> Thank you. Now, go back to the agenda. Item 11, sites inspection. We've decided there's going to be a sites inspection for all of us to go to Wrencombe Airfield, because that's likely to come before committee next month. So, it's one that's been hanging around a long time. There's a lot involved in it, so I want to ensure that all members are familiar with the site. So, we're all going to a sites visit on the 3rd of July. >> Perfect timing. >> Oh, yeah. Keep that in mind, please. Yes. >> I'd just like to say, because I wasn't able to be at the annual meeting, how pleased I am that you were elected as chairman. I think you did an excellent job last year, as you know I said that, and I think it's great, yet again, and you're excellent vice chairman. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> You got thank you. >> Item 12, licenses subcommittee. Do we have anything? >> Yeah, there's a taxis subcommittee taking place on the 26th of June, and that's Councillors Mark Harris, Julia Judd, David Fowles, Michael Van, and Ian Watson. >> Okay. >> You need a sub, don't you, Mark? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Bear in mind, please. >> Hi. It's just to let you know that now that I'm the head of planning services, we have a new interim development management manager who will be taking over from me at these committees. Without meaning to embarrass him, Richard McEllistrom is sat behind you and has been observing the meeting. So Richard should be looking after you going forward. But I'm still around if you need anything from me. >> Okay. Thank you very much.