Transcript

Two night announcements, if you remember to put your microphones on when you speak and turn off when you've finished and if you've got a mobile phone, if you can put it on silent or turn it off. Tonight's meeting will be broadcast to the internet and the Council has adopted a protocol for the webcast in all that is meetings. We know that the Council is a protocol for webcast in the Council and other meetings. Planning officers tonight is our planning manager. James Rogers. First of all, in deck rise of interest. Councillor JOHNSTON, you've declared an interest on item seven and you'll be leaving for that item. Will you? Sorry. That was for the previous meeting. That's all right. I'm getting a bit pure. All right. Right. The minutes of the last meeting, can I sign those as a correct record? Subject to the amendment there from Councillor John Whitehouse. Item four. Excuse me. Do you want to say something about it? Yeah, come into that. Yeah. Item four is any other business? Councillor AMrs. Just to say, I live in Woburn Avenue, but for the avoidance of doubt, I've not had any contact with the applicant or any of the people who have submitted objections to that item, just for the sake of the record. Okay. Thank you, Councillor AMrs. Cycleses. Is anybody recommending or wanting a Cycleses anywhere? No, right. Item six. Land at Mill Lane Hyunga, 30. Right. I've got a wrong one, so I'm reading. Right. So all of public speakers have got their advice for speaking at the meeting. They're all in person, except one who's in teams. We declaration of interest. We've done that, haven't we? Yes. The minutes of the last meeting, which is 29th of May. Any comments on that? Councillor DAN. Can I just clarify that item six on the minutes of Wednesday, 29th of May relating to Land at Mill Lane Hyunga, there was a recommendation that the use of all the S106 monies would go for car parking if possible, and that was being explored by the planning officers. I have had a message from Graham Court, and he's saying he's still waiting to hear about that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Chairman, if I can just say as well, we've had apologies from Councillor Hadley. Are there any other apologies? No? You should have apologies from Councillor Barnard and Councillor Janet Whitehouse. Okay. We'll make a look at that. Thank you, Councillor Whitehouse. Well, we've got a further bit of the last meeting. They're all correct. Any other business we've done that? Sorry if this is? No. So we'll want to item eight, which is Home Farm, Mount Road, Fade and Garnet, and I'll also have a planning officer to introduce the item, please. Thank you, Chairman, and good evening, everyone. So, yes, the first item on tonight's agenda is Home's Farm on Mount Road. The proposal is for the conversion of former agricultural buildings into commercial and distribution uses. The applications before members tonight due to an objection from the parish council and neighbours and officers are recommending that Plan of Mission is granted. I know that there are some new members on tonight's East Committee, but this application has previously been to Plan's East. This was back in March 2024. The application was deferred to await the results of potential traffic works of a third party. So I'll just run through the details of the site. It's located on the northern side of Mount Road and contains some redundant agricultural buildings. They're quite large in scale, as you'll see. The proposal is to change the use of the existing buildings from agricultural to employment uses. Now, in terms of the change of use, it's not inappropriate development in the Greenbelt, providing that the change of use doesn't conflict with the fundamental purposes of the Greenbelt or its openness. In this case, structural surveys have been submitted by the applicant, which demonstrate the buildings are more than capable of being converted for an employment purpose. It's not considered that that would cause additional harm to the openness of the Greenbelt. So this image shows that the buildings are clearly substantial and well constructed and clearly could facilitate the change of use that's proposed. Overall, the proposal facilitates and encourages the rural economy, which is something that our local plan is very clear that it's supportive of. It diversifies what would be just redundant buildings in what is, as I say, a rural area. Matters around the Eppin' Forest Special Aid Conservation are satisfied. They've been resolved, given the proportion of the charging, the parking spaces will be for ULA vehicles only, so electric vehicles. Now, just moving on to the reason it was deferred from the previous meeting. Now, it was deferred to await the outcome of something that the applicant has no control over by a third party. It was to do with highway works on Mount Road. That was my understanding. From the owner initiative, the applicant has conducted some further sort of traffic survey, surveys which has been considered by Essex County Council as the highway authority. Now, Essex County Council have come back to us and said unequivocally that the proposed change of use will not cause harm to the safety or efficiency of the local highway network. So, I just want to remind members that the decision on this application must be based on the planning merits of the case and the situation as it currently stands. What we can't do is rely on a scheme which may or may not come forward in the fullness of time. So, in that context, it is recommended that plan of commission is granted. Thank you. Thank you. Now, we have two speakers on this item. First of all, from theta-mount parish council, Councillor KIthera. Chairman, members, our parish council has concerns about this traffic generation and the impact on the Greenbelt due to the scale of the operation. Regarding traffic, Mount Road forms a rat run between Epping and Passing for Bridge, and we reiterate our comments submitted to the district council on 14th of July last year, and that we believe the claim this development would not have a detrimental effect of highway safety to be quite absurd. Our doubts about the traffic studies can be summarised to us. The initial traffic survey of 2022 failed to provide full classification of VBIN data. It states an increase in volume of only 2.9 percent over a measured period. There is no documentary evidence as to how this has been calculated, and we dispute this figure our own calculations using the applicant's own raw data. Based on the worst case scenario, so commercial value increased closer to 34.5 percent. So, the developer's optimistic 3 percent or our more pessimistic 34 percent or somewhere in between, take a pic. Moreover, the 2022 transport statement was produced over a seven-day period and performed along both Banks Lane and Mount Road. The 2024 ADC statement was only over a four-day period and confined merely to Mount Road. We contend, therefore, that there has been no consistency of evidence gathering and we cannot trust the interpretation. Indeed, the inconsistency in the data leads our parish council to the view that these reports should be disregarded as supporting evidence for the application. Irrespective of best guesses regarding traffic generation, the bottom line is that a significant increase in commercial traffic will inevitably result if the application is approved. Access and egress would, per force, be either through Fiddler's Hamlet, the scene of Untine regular collisions, or via the notorious Epping Lane Banks Lane Junction accident black spot, and then via narrow and torturous country lanes that were built for horse-drawn cart traffic. The inherent increased risk to Walker's horse riders and cyclists on our country lanes, together with the proposed scale of operation, an increase in the amount of hard standing in the Greenbelt, is simply unacceptable to us and detrimental to the local environment and we ask that the application be refused. Thank you. Thank you. And now we have Rob Preston, the applicant's agent on teams, hopefully. Good evening Chair and members. Good evening. Good evening. So my name is Rob Preston. I'm the acting agent for the applicants, which is in Halmarshis State. You're considering an application because the five we've done with the palm buildings to commercial leases. The application has been recommended for approval with all relevant technical statutory quantities in support of the application, including high-based noise training industry colleges in contamination in support. The application has been assessed to be an accordance with the development plan and natural policy. The application will support the viability of the existing operations of the farm, through permitting farm diversification, which the MPCF supports great rates in supporting rural businesses through regenerating otherwise redundant rural buildings. The application will also provide benefits to the local rural economy through supporting new employment opportunities, whilst constituting appropriate development in the Greenbelt through re-use of existing buildings have been confirmed as permanently and structurally sound. No additional built form will be introduced and the only external change to propose a replacement of these specialist planning. The proposal therefore in policy terms does not represent inappropriate development, harmful to the purposes of the Greenbelt, including openness, and it will continue to maintain the existing function accounts of the Greenbelt. A scheme with new planting and landscaping under condition will also have a screen of proposal and assimilated into surrounding countryside. The application is thought to maximise highway safety through propacence upgrades and relocate the existing access to achieve maximum disabilities plays, which is the betterment of the required standards. Robust traffic calculations, including speed surveys, have been undertaken. These were updated last month, following the previous committee, and they corroborated the previous assessment, in fact, finding that the average vehicle speeds amount raised to the main rate impacted by the proposal has since reduced. The assessments demonstrate any potential increase in vehicle traffic on the highway, resulting from the development will be negligible and can be accommodated without impacting the safe and efficient operation of the highway. This has been reduced by the relevant quality, which is Essex County Highway, in their technical consultation response, and they have reached no objections to the data. We trust that for the reasons for benefits of this small-scale development is clear. By generating local employment opportunities, redeveloping redundant buildings for supporting agricultural diversification, we therefore respectfully ask that Councillors support the Office of Recommendation of Approval. Thank you. Thank you. Members, your comments? Councillor Bedford. Just first of all, Chair, I'm just apologies for late this this evening. I've been caught all day. Thank you. You had no decorations and interest. Thank you. Councillor MACKAY. Thank you, Chair. I have some concerns about this, and I believe I raised these at previous meetings. Firstly, obviously I'm always very supportive of employment opportunities within our rural green belt. That's a fantastic thing that we should always promote. However, the good news is that Fade and Mount, of course, is located so close to so much employment being its geographical proximity to Epping, Fade and Boys, and of course, neighbouring areas. But the reason I would like to speak is particularly as the County Council, of course, for Fade and Mount, where I've been on top of the highways matters with the parish council. There are always highways challenges in rural communities, but I can think of no place where it is worse than in Fade and Mount, and that is backed up by the regular accidents that occur and so many near misses, and there is plenty of evidence there, and all of this has been submitted to Essex County Council and to the highways department, and there are schemes that we are looking to progress, and I think this was the topic of conversation at our previous meeting. Now I completely understand what our officer has told us this evening and what we are to consider, and I fully understand that responsibility. However, from a practical perspective, we know that it's not just people driving to and from an employment opportunity that this scheme would deliver. It's all of the other vehicles that may or may not come. The reality is there are too many unknowns. Is this going to be a business that has frequent deliveries? Is this going to be an employment opportunity it needs? Two employees, 12 employees, there is just too much that we don't know. On the basis of that, I find it difficult to support. I know full well that there is huge anxiety in the Fade and Mount community about highways safety, and I fully accept the reasons why officers would like to see this be approved and why it's been recommended for approval, but I just fail to see from a highway safety perspective, anyone that knows those roads will see the danger is just so obvious, and so for that reason, Mr Chairman, I'll find it very difficult to support this scheme, as was my previous position. Okay, thank you. Other members? Councillor JOHNSTON, sorry, thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I do share Councillor MACKAYVAS' concern about this one. Again, it is the unknown factors. It's a commercial use, but what we don't know is the type of vehicles that are actually going to be used as a result of that commercial used, whether they're going to be purely cars, small vans, or under commercial use, they could actually be significant in larger vehicles that will be included, if not at this moment in time, at a later date. As soon as you've got commercial use, you open yourself to some very heavy, possibly even HDV vehicles, or a similar size. Could I just ask the officer, and I apologise, because obviously I wasn't on this committee previously, but I see there's the updated traffic report, which I can understand that if this was refused on appeal, that may not be strong enough. But was the most recent traffic report, it says in the report an independent ATC survey, was that survey actually organised and requested by any applicant, or by the Council, or who actually triggered that survey? Sorry. That was the applicant that did that. Thank you. So just make sure I've got the understanding right. So the applicant organised for the survey, it was then sent to Essex Highways, and they have taken that report. All right. Sorry, can I just have one further question, Chairman, if you don't mind. Have we got confirmation that Highways visited the site? Sorry, again, that might have been covered at the previous meeting, and my apologies if it was. No, I don't know if they visited the site or not. They've looked at the report, the findings of the report, and come to a view based on those findings. Thank you. OK, I'll vote on that today. Yes, I'd like to ask the officer a couple of questions relating to traffic use. Now, I understand that Highways consider that the proposed additional traffic would not be detrimental to the safety and other aspects of the road users, but would it be feasible to ask the applicant to actually put in some traffic calming measures, such as around the corner from the road, as you're approaching bank's lane and the new development, a warning sign about junctions or a speed restriction, or does this come under something like the local Highways Panel, or has to be triggered by the local council? So, for the Council to require something, a traffic calming measure or the like, it has to pass the test of applying a condition or an obligation. Now, what that means, basically, is that if this is not provided, that plan of permission should and must be refused because it conflicts with our policies. Now, in this case, the highway team have confirmed that on its own back, subject to conditions that they have set out, there will be no impact on the highway network. What planning applications can't do is so all they're required to do, I should say, is essentially wipe their own face. They're not there to improve an existing situation. Albeit, I know that would be desirable. It's not something that we could enforce them, force them to do as part of this proposal. Okay, any other comments? Councillor Amos. Thank you, Chairman. Not a lot to add to what Councillor MacKive or Councillor Jones has said, but I recall that when we deferred this application before, it was because of the traffic situation, which had been enumerated to us by the parish council and other objectors. Now, no disrespect to Essex highways, and I've looked at all this chart and all the readings that have come out from there. But I have to say, I do tend to give more weight to people who can, as they've told us, the various problems that have happened in the area through traffic accidents, etc. And whilst I fully accept what the officer has said that it's not for us to sort out the traffic problems as such, nevertheless, it has said it would only marginally increase it. Well, we've got problems there now, so if we're only going to marginally increase it, we're still increasing the traffic problems. So, I am really quite concerned about this application. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers? No? I could have mentioned earlier, I will be a voting chairman. Councillor Betred. Thank you. I just wondered if the officer might explain a little bit to us at the moment the current use and usage of the site compared to if V8 use is actually approved, because I have to remember it's about a change of use of leave. So, I'd like to know a little bit more about what the current usage is around what proposed usage might be. So, at the moment it is an unrestricted agricultural use, but my understanding is it's not currently being used, but it could revert to that, if say, this application were to be refused. Okay, any other questions? Well, unless we've, Councillor Bekai, I was going to say, Mr Chairman, I'm happy to propose a refusal of the application if the committee was at the moment of a second. Only a seconder for the right? Have you a seconder for a refusal? You're going to second it, yes. Oh, second. Right. Chairman, you need to write on the proposal. To start with, right. I think we'll tell the Councillor Jones wanted to speak as well. Sorry. Councillor Jones, did you want to speak again? And now it's fine, actually. Thank you very much. Okay. Right, we have to just vote on the original proposal first, which was to grant the application, and those who favor a grant of the application, please show. Councillor interjecting. Six. Those against? Four. Five, actually. Five. Yeah. So, that application is granted. Right, moving on to item nine, which is the Paul Lodge Farm Epping Lane application, EBF240623. We have, we've got two speaking, three speaking, when we come to it. I'll ask Mr Rogers to present the application, please. Thank you, Chairman. Yep. So, item nine, tall lodge on Epping Lane. The application is for the erection of an agricultural building to store hay and farm sheenery. The proposal is before members tonight, due to an objection from the parish council and neighbours and officers are recommending that planning permission is granted. Sorry, a bit slow. Right, so just starting with the site, I'm just going to change my pointer. Starting with the site itself, it's located on the southern side of Epping Lane, which is to the northeast of Abridge. The proposal seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of this large agricultural building here. The building is substantial in its size. It's 32 metres long and 4.6 metres high and it's clearly being used for agricultural purposes as things stand. Officers accept that the building is clearly necessary for the purposes of agriculture. A report was submitted to demonstrate that. Now, planning permission was granted for a residential development adjacent to where the agricultural building has been erected. So, this is the agricultural building in question and this is the residential development, which is currently being built. The first thing to note is the distance that this neighbour in particular is from the... I accept that it's very close to this boundary. It is 15 metres from the edge of this dwelling. With this one, it's 3.8 metres, so it's a bit closer, but it is further away in terms of its full kind of extent. The storage of farming equipment and general agricultural activity is not considered to have a significantly harmful impact on the living conditions of these adjacent dwellings here. And so, in summary, agricultural buildings, I mean, the first thing to say is that they're not inappropriate development. There is no qualification in that, so the size is irrelevant and the impact on the openness is irrelevant because it is just an appropriate use in the green belt. The building has been demonstrably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and given the degree of separation with those adjacent dwellings, and it only being used for storage purposes, which is a condition, which is proposed, it is concluded that there wouldn't be significant harm to the living conditions of these neighbours and therefore is recommended that planet vision is granted. Thank you. We've got three speakers, Mr. Michael Calder, who is an objector. You have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I'm speaking on behalf of the neighbouring land owners of Tor Kult, a development of four houses, immediately adjoining the boundary of the subject building, which strongly objected to this application and urged you to refuse permission this evening. This application is misleading and has key matters missing from your officer's report. First, this application is retrospective in nature, which is not clearly stated in the description of development. The building was constructed without permission. Second, this application proposes the use of a new vehicle access from mapping lane, also constructive without planning permission. The application should explicitly see retrospective permission for this access, otherwise a separate planning permission is required. The Council's enforcement team was investigating this issue, but it's not been addressed in the officer's report. Third, in December 23, the Council refused retrospective planning permission for a second building of 650 square feet adjoining this one, but not shown on the plans on the screen. The report does not include the full assessment of their individual and combined impacts. Together, these buildings are overbearing and they are joining residential dwellings to the residential dwellings and harmful to the Greenbelt. This application is the second attempt to retain this building. The Council refused planning permission for its retention as recently as February 23, citing harm to the Greenbelt and adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. The refusal stated that the building caused oppressive enclosure of the boundary and results in loss of outlook and general amenity. The officers recommended enforcement action to ensure the building's removal. This time the applicant proposes removing two unauthorised containers, cladding the walls in black weatherboarding and installing acoustic installation in the rear wall. These token measures do not address the previous reasons for refusal. The oppressive nature of the building, the loss of outlook and the disturbance from activity near the residential dwellings will persist. The site's planning history requires a fuller examination. The applicant previously obtained permission for a hay barn on this site and later converted it to residential dwelling due to the lack of need for agriculture. The applicant sold the neighbouring land for residential development for the same reason. Now these new buildings are deemed necessary. Had the applicant sought planning permission before constructing these buildings, we're sure the officers would have insisted on exploring alternative more suitable locations within the applicant's 14 acres of land rather than located right up against these dwellings. We therefore urge you to uphold your previous reason for refusal. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now we have Catherine Martin Hudson, the third in Mount Parish Council. Good evening, you have three minutes. Thank you, Chairman and members. The parish council has also been approached by concerned residents about the proposed development and, as the parish council, we also have our own concerns. We provided comments back in November 23, stating very clearly that it is considered that this is an overdevelopment within the Green Belt. I would point out that there has been no detailed traffic analysis or highways report provided. We can compare this to a similar application further down EPI lane, EPF 027424, where highways clearly state that the developer has not demonstrated that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of, and I stress this, highway safety, capacity and efficiency. And we are of the opinion that the same criteria, if it's applied to that application, should be applied here. To follow up on the further gentleman's comments earlier, the site has been subject for similar previous applications, and we remind new and existing members of the history of this site. There have been numerous applications for agricultural buildings that were subsequently converted to dwellings, even within as little as seven years. The applicant then discovers the need for new buildings, as is here, and the process is repeating itself. What was a pristine Greenfield site, until modern times, is now in essence a small village, as evidenced by the other developments. We fail to see, this has been a robust offence of the Green Belt, and we feel that enough is enough on this site, and ask that the application be refused. Thank you. Okay, and now we have the applicant, Mr Robert Holloway, please. Thank you, Mr Chairman, Councillors. The application before you is for an agricultural building on my working farm to securely store tractors and equipment, and baled hay and season. The sad fact today is that any equipment left unsecured will be stolen in hours or even less. Rural crime is rife in the area and getting worse, as reported by the BBC News this morning. Dry baled hay left outside in inclement weather is worthless. That is the application. There is no agenda or plans for any future or other development. I have cut and baled hay on my land for over 30 years. I have owned a farm tract to continuously since I was 15 years old, my first been a fall to major. This is a department of farming and rural affairs, rural payments agency registered holding. The building by modern farm standards is very small, with an eaves height of only 3.2 metres. The ridge height is way below all other buildings nearby and the new development next door. If it was not for the airfield being within three miles, it would fall under permitted development. It is situated within the long-established existing farm yard, not encroaching on any green field area, screened by trees and not visible from the road. I consulted with all the long-standing neighbours and residents of Epping Lane. I received 10 letters of support, including the Gold Club and a senior flying instructor from the airfield who confirmed that there was no impact by the building on aircraft safety. I would just add one other minor point. There is no increase in highways traffic from this development. The hay will be taken from the field and delivered, whether there is a building there or not. So there is no increase on traffic flow by this using the building. As for access, I have two rights of way. One right away through the development next door and I have also got another very old access which I reinstated and the council enforcement officers have accepted that and no further action has been taken on that. I hope I have given some clarification. I would ask you to consider this matter solely on the facts in the officer's detailed report and the facts and evidence in the submitted application. Here say in vague opinion should be set aside as unsubstantiated. The council's professional planning officer has studied this application in great depth and recommends approval. I would therefore ask the members to support the officer's recommendation. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you, Holloway. Members, that's famous. Thank you, Chairman. We have heard that there had been a previous refusal. Could the officer help us by telling us the reason for that previous refusal and how this particular application is different from that? Thank you. Thank you. So there were two reasons for refusal in the previous application. The first was it was not demonstrated to the satisfaction of officers that the building was reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes and therefore it cannot be demonstrated to be an agricultural building and therefore was inappropriate development or that was the conclusion that was reached. In this revised application we have justification, the size of the site, the fact that the field needs to be maintained and the storage of the equipment to do so. In most cases does require some sort of building to store that in. So that reason was overcome. The second reason, as I said in the presentation, so there isn't much materially different from the previously refused scheme to this one. The only thing to note is the relative distance between the neighbouring residential dwelling and the building that's been erected. It is a substantial distance of 15 metres from the actual elevation. I accept it is directly adjacent to the curtillage but again there is no right to a view in the planning system. There is a right to outlook and to light and to not have your privacy significantly compromised but and I accept that this is a building that is visible given its scale but the view has been taken by the case officer that this will not result in significant harm to those residents when they do move in. Thank you, Chairman. I've got a question first. When the new houses were applied for next door, was that a green field site? I don't know the detail of that. It seems unlikely given it's in the green belt so it would be likely that it was a previously developed site in some way but I don't have that detail in front of me unfortunately. Thank you and also clearly this is a working farm. I'm not a small nature but it is a working farm. If you were looking from an adjacent property, you would see farm work of some sort and you would see farm buildings. So I think it's a little difficult to argue that you shouldn't have any buildings there and I believe the conditions that have been put forward that offered by the applicant are quite substantial and should certainly cover any problems that have been raised. Thank you. I shall be voting for it's. Thank you. Councillor JANNSON. Thank you, Chairman. This is so many is so difficult. I do have some concerns about the proximity of the building. I think considering one of the objectives made a very good point in that there are possibly better locations within the site for this but appreciate the building is there already so it's very difficult to actually look at alternative sites. I always find it extremely hard to vote for something that I wouldn't want at the end of my front garden. I'm perfectly honest and I think it is going to, I know these people have no right to view. I fully appreciate that but I do think they are going to have an impact on those properties. I think it's a real shame that it is located where it is. I am disappointed that we haven't really now got the possibility of looking at alternative locations. I am finding it very hard to support this at the moment of time. Thank you. Thank you. Go for the John White House. Thanks, Chairman. Yes, I listened carefully to the objectors. I do have a lot of sympathy with the parish council's point about sort of recycling of buildings in the Green Belt. But I think the difficulty the Council has is the government has steadily loosened those protections when I joined the council. It's quite difficult to build extensions and things in the Green Belt and even on previously developed land. The tests were quite big hurdles to overcome. There has been a very deliberate sort of policy of making it easier to deliver previously developed land in the Green Belt. There has been an announcement about pretty development just before the election, if I remember rightly. This sort of thing is almost encouraged now, according to national policy, rather than discouraged and clearly we were obliged to determine applications in accordance with national policy, even if the history on the site. I think the key issues here probably are the impact on neighbours and the presence of the building. But if it's purely a cultural building, that's not inappropriate in the Green Belt. If the government says, Well, in the future, you might go to convert into a house, that is the government's planning policy. It would take government to change that. Okay. Thank you. Chair, from the driver. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I hear everything that my colleagues have said. I have to sympathise with what has been said, and I share the concerns of Councillor Jones as well. I often take that logic when I look at these schemes. I think a lesson to be learned here is that retrospective plan applications are just never a good idea. I do think we have a function as a committee to address that. We are a council, as we know, that grants permission for things in the Green Belt. We have a lot of sympathy for our farmers and we want to support them. But, of course, when applications are done in this manner, it makes it very challenging for a committee because, you know, 10 neighbours supporting an application doesn't necessarily mean to say that you should go ahead and do it. We do have systems and processes in place. I am in agreement that it is the proximity to those dwellings. I wouldn't like it. But also, I do think it is something that, if we were looking at this as an application rather than retrospective application, we would, my experience on this committee would show that we wouldn't want to see it happen in that location. We would be looking for an alternative location. That alone, I think, is a good enough reason not to support the application. But a more of a concern I have. I don't share huge concerns about the highways issues in this particular application because I am quite satisfied that, in its current state, there wouldn't be a huge impact on the highway. My main concern is the neighbouring properties and also the fact that this is the manner in which this application has been made. Unfortunately, it is something I find very difficult to support in itself, I think, retrospective applications. I understand when they can happen in error, I understand when that can happen, there are cases of it. But, I think, in this instance, there appears to be a site like of regard for neighbours. For that reason, I find it difficult to support as well.

• Thank you, Chairman. I agree with some of what Councillor MACKAYVER has said. However, I think we have to go back to the conclusions in the report about the proposed development being acceptable within the Greenbelt, and we have to purely base our decisions on planning matters. It is considered acceptable, an appropriate development in the Metropolitan Greenbelt, and the report states it wouldn't have an adverse effect upon the openness of the Greenbelt. There are key things that we have to consider here. It would not be harmful in character and appearance to the surrounding area. I think it's already there, that's the problem. It is quite high, and nobody likes retrospective planning conditions, but we have to understand that the planning system is designed to bring people back into line and regularise the building. Therefore, I'm minded to accept that there are no legitimate planning reasons why this should not be granted. The officers have gone through it quite thoroughly. I get the previous report and the requests that were put in. I just can't see a legitimate planning reason for refusal in the Greenbelt. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to ask the officer a couple of questions. I understood in the conditions that there is some indication that they will not be permitted to go for change of use in the future as condition number two. I wonder if you explain that. Then the other thing I understand in the application and perhaps you can explain a bit more is that the applicant has suggested that they will screen it to some extent with some sort of trees, but also making it look a bit pretty, as we say, having horizontal weatherboarding. Then thirdly, the other people have talked about the other structures, and is there an indication that the other unlawful structures are going to be removed? Thank you. So, starting with the first one, condition two, the main thrust of that condition is to ensure that it's only used for the purposes of storage of hay and machinery in connection with the agricultural use, which would be approved if it is granted. What we can't do is the applicant may decide or subsequent owners may decide at some point to put in a planning application to change the use of the building. What conditions can't do is prevent that from happening. What the condition is designed for is to stop it changing into something that could be done without permission. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that no, we can't stop an applicant putting in a planning application, and that would need to be considered, but the key thing is the local planning authority would have control over that. The condition wouldn't be, isn't designed for that particular purpose. So, that's the first thing. The second question, the screening, so my understanding is that there is not much space in order to provide a screen. I think there is some level of landscaping which was approved through the residential scheme that was allowed on the adjacent site, but mine is saying it is kind of hard up on that boundary. So, I don't think that condition, we could put a condition on regarding that. In terms of making it look prettier, I mean, it's an agricultural building. It's utilitarian in its design. It's what you'd expect to see in an agricultural or rural setting like this. The last question regarding the removal of other structures, so the applicant has offered to remove two small containers to the south of the site. Again, even if an applicant offers to do something, the local planning authority needs to ask the question, would this pass the six tests of applying a planning condition? So, is it reasonable for the Council to impose those containers to be removed, given that this is not inappropriate development in the Greenville, and the only real issue, or let's say the salient issue here, is the potential impact on the neighbour, it's immaterial that the containers would remain, and that's why officers have not recommended that condition be attached to the concern. Hopefully, that answers all your questions. Sorry, I want to come back on the screening. I thought I'd read in the application that the applicant was going to do black horizontal weatherboarding. Can you confirm that is the case, please, which does look a bit better than corrugate shine. Is that on the other side by the residences? Okay, so I don't know if that's the case in terms of what they are proposing. What the Council could do is impose a condition to have the materials agreed in writing, because remember, this is a building that exists, but it's not an authorised development. It's a development that's been put up without authorization, so imagine it's not there. If it were not there, should the Council require those materials to be agreed prior to it being erected? That was the question that I would ask. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just wondered if it was in light of that information, because I think the answer to that question would be we probably wouldn't ask for it if it was in another location, but we probably would if it was so close to those properties being that that's such a really helpful information. Can I just see if possible the bird's eye view image, I just want to refresh what that looked like, particularly with the debate about the Greenbelt openness. It didn't look like... Sorry. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, because Mike Watkins, I just wanted to refresh my memory on that. Yeah, help me make my mind up, thank you. Okay. Councillor JOHN WATTS, and then Councillor JOHNTS. Thanks, I just wanted to pick up on the comments about the horizontal boarding. I've got the resubmitted planning statement in front of me, and there are three bullet points. They're one of which is the applicant proposes to clad the building up to ease level with horizontal and black boarding, and then there's one about a bullet point about internal acoustic insulation and one about proposing to remove the touristicers and containers, so I can't imagine there would be any objection to conditions on that line at those lines. Okay, Councillor JOHNTS. Thank you. I would just reiterate, as Councillor JOHN WATTS has just said, that those suggestions would still need to be conditioned. I still have concerns on this one, and I agree there's no high ways impact, absolutely none at all. I totally agree that it's agricultural use, that's proven, and I completely trust that it's going to be agricultural use, but well, beyond the foresee of the culture. I just have a lasting concern about the location. The report does say that it recognises the impact on neighbours, just because it's appropriate in the Green Belt, yes it is appropriate, it's agricultural, but just because it's appropriate in the Green Belt doesn't mean that it can be located anywhere, and I think we do need to consider the impact on the neighbours. So I'd just like to ask the Planning Officer, I know this is a question that you hate to be asked, and I really, really do, and I'm part of me, says I shouldn't be, but if we refused on the grounds of the impact of neighbours, given the report that's in front of us, would we be very vulnerable if this went to appeal? I did apologise, thank you. Now it's a good question, and so the first thing is you make the correct distinction between Green Belt appropriateness and potential harm to neighbours, because they are different things, and as you say, just because it's not inappropriate doesn't mean you can put it wherever you want. I would say that members are not bound to follow the advice of professional officers, as long as a reasonable argument can be made, that there would be a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbours, it would be something that can be defended, and indeed it was a previous reason for refusal as well, so I would say it's obviously not a recommendation that we put forward, but one that could potentially be defended. Other members, any comments? I'm inclined to agree and acknowledge what Councillors Bedford and Kesca said, but I was looking at the birds I view of the property and of the actual image of the property, and I'm wondering whether, and I saw some sort of indication that there was some sort of natural boundary between the actual structure of the property and the adjacent land to the side of it. Are you able to tell me, are there any plans for a natural boundary, and what those plans are, or if there is an existing natural boundary and the nature of that, please? Yes, so my understanding is that the adjacent residential site had a landscape condition that had to be filled as part of that residential use, and that forms part of that boundary. One of the plans actually marks approved trees, which implies very strongly that that is a boundary that would be between residential and the agriculture building that's been part of. Any other comments? Well, the recommendation is to approve the application. Those in favour of approval, please show. Six. Those against? Five. Five. Okay. Any abstentions? Yes, I would say. So the application is granted then. The weatherboarding conditions, are they already on there? They're not. Can we put those on there? You can vote on that. Members, we mentioned about weatherboarding, the condition of putting weatherboarding, because it's not about weatherboarding. Are you in favour of that? Yes, please show. Yes. Can you go? Another extension. So we'll put that condition on. Yeah, just to be clear, Chairman, are you so materials to be as stated in the application form, rather than materials to be agreed by the Council? Is that right? Yes. The members want weatherboarding. If that's what the... Okay, I understand. I can take that away and deal with that. Okay. Right, I think that concludes item 9. We go on to item 10, which is 40 woven having fader boys. Application EPF046224. We have two speakers on that, and the application is approved. I'll ask it's ready to put that to it, please. Thank you, Chairman. So, yes, the last one tonight is number 40 woven avenue in Fader boys. The proposal is for the erection of a single-story rear and side extension to existing dwelling. Applications before you tonight, due to an objection from the parish council and neighbour. Officers are recommending that plan of permission is granted. So, just starting with the application site, this plan is kind of upside down because the application site is actually located on the north western side of woven avenue. You can see so it's kind of inverted. Woven avenue, there's a mix of two-story semi-detached and teary style houses. So, this is the application property as it currently exists with its equal rear elevation with the adjoining neighbour. This is taken from the neighbouring property, which, as you can see, the rear building lines are the same at the moment. And again, this just shows in a bit more context that they're kind of mirror images of each other as things currently stand. So, the proposal is to erect a single-story extension, which will have a 4 metre net projection on the existing rear elevation, the number 42. This plan just shows the extended ground floor in a little bit more detail. Members will note that the adjacent dwelling at number 38 has got plan of permission for, and this was in 2022, for an extension of exactly the same projection at ground floor. And this is the proposed rear elevation. Members will note the slight change in land levels to the non-attached neighbour. At number 38, it's on slightly lower ground. But you can see the design of the extension is such that it actually pitches a way to its full height in the middle of the site, so away from both shared boundaries. It's important to note as well that this is the dwelling that has the existing planning, the extant planning, consent for the 4 metre to deep rear extension. Overall, it's considered that the net projection of a 4 metre deep extension with this design where it pitches away is not going to cause excessive harm to the living conditions of the attached neighbour. And whilst no certificate of lawfulness is in place, the permitted development does allow for 3 metre deep. And this is in general, I'm saying, in general, 3 metre deep rear extensions are ones that don't need plan of permission. But that's not to say that that would necessarily be the case here because a certificate has not yet been issued or hasn't been issued. But I just wanted to add that. So overall, it's considered that the provider was not going to cause harm to the significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbours, and therefore, it's recommended that plan of permission is granted. Thank you. Thank you. Now, we have two speakers. First of all, Chris Andrews, who's an objectoring person. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good evening. My name's Chris Andrews. I'm here on behalf of my mother and father-in-law, Roy and Sylvia Gordon regarding the objection, the objection to the application at number 40. They feel very strongly about this. Their window is only 150 ml from the existing fence. And obviously, when this extension is built, it's going to tear above the existing fence, and it's going to cut so much light out. We go to the, you know, talking to various people, there's this 45 degree rule with the right to light. We think, well, this is going to totally take the light away from their property. We did a lux level testing on the sunniest day today, and at the moment, in the kitchen stroke dining room, because it's a combined area, the kitchen lighting level is 139 lux. As you go into the living room, it goes down to sort of 100-110 lux, and that's on a sunny day now. We feel this is just crazy. They've lived in the property for over 54 years, and they've seen so many changes. What with the road? I know this isn't part of the delay, but the road's just so busy now. They've previously done an extension at the property, which, as I understand, has been overbuilt, and there was a Councillor ringing me to say, they have accepted it, but he did overbuild the existing extension. So we feel we'd just like to bring that up, because if it does go ahead, we feel we've done it once, he can do it again. Like I say, it's mainly down to this right to light, and the light we're going to lose. Also, with the property being that high, in the winter, they're 82 and 83 years old, even now, they get moss on the ground where the patio is. With the height of this, they're going to take so much sun away from the patio that you're going to get more moss, more slips and falls. They're not the youngest people in the world now. So yet, we understand they're building up to the boundary line of my father-in-law's property, but they're also building up to the boundary line of the next door property, although that doesn't have attached to their property, they're just going to take their—we just feel it's the wrong to be. It's just been overdeveloped. All I can do is ask for you to reject it. Thank you very much. OK, thank you, Secretary. Now we can repeat a gooch from the Theta and Perish Council. Evening Chairman, good evening members. We support the objectors' view on this. I would like just to make a couple of points if I may, and I'll be brief. I've been informed that there's been no site visit, which appears to be the norm these days, which is very unfortunate. We just don't see how an accurate assessment can be done, particularly on buildings such as this. As you saw in the pictures, it's very limited space anyway. This property has already been significantly enlarged over the years. The 45 degree hasn't been assessed at all by the Planning Officer. Now, in the good old days, Planning Officer would have gone through—actually looked at this application from the neighbour's perspective and actually made an accurate assessment. How he's done this, I've no idea, but our view is it's an inaccurate assessment and basically wrong. The second point is that as the officer has actually stated, number 38 has actually got a planning permission for something very similar. That diagram he showed you was inaccurate. If you look at the Planning Officer's report at number 38, he makes a major point about the boundary of number 38 being inset by 0.9 of a metre. He makes a point indicating that if that indentation wasn't there, it would be, effectively, an objection beyond this—you know, beyond neighbourly and seriously impact the immunity of the neighbour. So we believe that there needs to be some consistency applied here. You know, if the Planning Officer on number 38 has asked for an indentation, then surely the number 40 should be indented as well. If they indent it, 0.9 of a metre, I think everyone would be happy. We can then approve the application and go on. Thanks very much. Thank you. Mr Rogers, your comments on the objectives. Well, about the—I mean, they mentioned about the—you didn't really cite yourself, so you probably wouldn't know. There are several things that they mentioned that we'd like to know about, really, but you don't—you can't help. Councillor JOHNSTON. Sorry, thank you. I totally agree with what Councillor Gooch is saying. I think it is really difficult the fact that this goes right up to the boundary. The neighbours have thoughtfully retained that gap between—and I think the—the reach right up to the boundary on this is pivotal—is pivotal. Sorry, pivotal. That was the word. I very nearly asked for a site visit on this one at the beginning of the meeting, but under item seven, but actually felt—I only actually went past—I know the road extremely well, but I actually only went specifically to look at this this afternoon. And if I'd done so earlier, I think I would have called for a site visit because the impact of this can only be seen by visiting the neighbour's property and actually seeing the view from their property. I find it very concerning that we have now had confirmation that the site wasn't visited. I do agree with Councillor Gooch's previously a planning officer would have been able to view it from the other property and be able to properly assess the impact. At this moment in time, as much as I would not like to waste people's time, I do wonder if I might have some support for a site visit and apologies for not mentioning this under item seven earlier. Thank you. Councillors interjecting. Thank you, Chairman. I share the concerns of being expressed about it being built right up to the boundary. I do wonder how it's proposed they would get access to the rear of that property, should they need any particular maintenance—I mean, large-scale maintenance there. And I can't envisage it. You would have to drag your garden waste through the house. Maybe you could, should. But most of the houses down there have been extended, but they have got access—I live in one that's been in there—but there is access so that everybody has got access to the rear of the property by one means or another, and I can't see that it is here. Thank you. Okay, Councillor BASSET. Thank you, Chairman. It's not often that I agree, perhaps, with saying, Boysbury Council, but on this occasion, I very much do. And the reason that I think I'm looking at this with my planning head on and not my normal thinking head, and the reason is I can see from the photographs that we've had up there on the screen today, this is already a very well—what I would consider an overdeveloped site. The amount of extension that's now being proposed—I agree that the boundary needs to be really 900 millimetres back to match the other side—we have to go on the application that is before us today. And I think on the application before me today, I'm minded to refuse on the basis that I feel it is overdevelopment of the site and impacting on the neighbour. If someone wants to second that, they're quite welcome to. Okay. Well, hold on. I'll just hold another couple to speak. Councillor Deck. Yes, I want to ask the officer a few questions, please. Looking at some of the plans, I wasn't sure whether—certain number 40 looks, though, it's got dual aspects in the existing kitchen, and if it's a mirror image of 42, that's likely to be the case. But I think I'm right in saying that the back garden faces northwest, and therefore, if you're looking at sun and daylight, they're not going to actually lose much—or any sun, really—from something to the north or northeast, which is where the extension would be. As far as the 45 degree rule of thumb, I know that it relates to sun, because, obviously, they may have their living room at the back, but there are a sunny room at the front of number 42. But can the officer, please, explain to us how the 45 rule of thumb goes, because, presumably, it's not planning policy, per se? Thank you. Thank you. No, it's not planning policy. It's, as you say, very much a rule of thumb. It's a way of when you're undertaking an initial assessment of seeing if the 45 degree line is intercepted, particularly for a first floor extension, is where it's used, is if the 45-degree line is taken from the closest habitable first floor room window, which is usually a bedroom, so kind of primary space. And if that line is intercepted, it doesn't mean that planet missions should just be refused. It means that further investigation is needed, because there could be other factors. There could be, as Councillor DAD said, the direction of the sun, as you quite rightly say, the garden is northwest facing in this case, so the impact of the sun is less than it would otherwise be. The levels of land, so it can be acceptable if the 45 degree line is intercepted, and it's very much a starting point. And each case is based on its own merits, and every case is different. But, you know, in this case, officers come to the view that there wouldn't be significant harm to neighbours, but that is open to interpretation. Councillor BED for use, propose the site visit? No, I propose, open development on the site and impact on the neighbours, so there's a reason for a refusal. I don't know if you want to. There's two options. One, we do the site visit, or two, go for the proposal for a refusal. It's over to officers to decide which way you want us to do it. You can vote for a site visit, but without voting on the officer's recommendation, but you can't vote to refuse without first voting on the recommendation. Ask for a proposal for a site visit. How are we a proposal? Sorry, Chair, and I actually proposed a site visit before, prior to the discussions, actually, and having listened to the discussions and the concerns, it was the impact that I felt we needed a site visit for. If we're looking for a refusal based on the proximity, the actually going up to the boundary, it's actually slightly different, without we can see from the plans. So, I think possibly I'm reverting to Councillor BED for its proposal for a refusal, which I'd be happy to second. Mr Rogers, have we got good reason to refuse? It's down to members. I mean, you're the decision maker. Our recommendation is to approve, but if you feel that the impact on that neighbour is excessive, then absolutely, that's your prerogative to refuse. So, in that case, you first have to vote on the officer's recommendation, either to approve or refuse. I'll do that first thing. So, the officer's recommendation is to grant those in favour of grant. Those in favour of the officer's recommendation not to grant refusal? Sorry. We have to... No, this is against the officers. Against the officers, yes. That was in favour of the officer's recommendation. No. No, I'm afraid not. I'm sorry. You have to vote for the application and against the application and then abstentions. If the vote is lost, the application is not granted. Then the committee has to come up for reasons, very fusal, when you then vote for those reasons, against those reasons and abstentions. So, you've got to do the vote first for the application. Right, we'll do the extension vote next. Thank you very very. So, we've got to do the... Perhaps this is something to have afterwards, but this is different to what we used to do, which was to consider whether the reason for refusal before we voted, not vote against recommendation and then decide whether or not the reason for refusal. It does seem a bit about face, but obviously we've done it now, so we need to continue, but I think for future reference, we need to think about who's refusal before we vote, rather than afterwards. Yes, I was just agreeing with Councillor Laighaus, you can go straight to refusal on a vote, but as you've started the vote, whether you expect the officer's recommendation, you should finish that vote first and then move to the reasons for refusal. Mr Bedford, thank you. I think we've done that. I think the proposal was all those in favour of the officer's recommendation to approve, which was... That was lost. That was lost. Then the next vote went to... So, that was only one person voted for the application to be approved. Then we went to refusal. The reasons for refusal were as I put forward, which was then seconded, and we voted on refusal. That's right. I thought we'd done that. My apologies. I don't think we voted on refusal yet. I think we have voted not to grant planning permission. My understanding now is that there will or will not be, but hopefully there should now be a proposal for refusal, which we have already had. As part of that proposal for refusal, we should clarify the reasons for refusal. Then the vote will go to committee members for those in favour of refusal on those conditions, on those reasons, and those against refusal. Can I just say that I think that we need to finish the vote, which was who was in favour of the officer's proposal first, because as far as I can understand, we have not had extensions. Yeah, I think we've actually done that. And can I just clarify with Vivian that before there is a motion to refuse that you have to actually put your reasons first? Yes, there are. You have to postpone in second those refusal reasons that are put forward by the committee, and then go to the referral to refuse the application. All I was saying was that on the first vote, there was just one person against it, so you didn't check if there were any extensions. That's all I was saying, and then you can move on to the second vote to refuse it. Well, you have heard. We move on to now to refuse. We're moving on now to propose to refuse, but we need to actually have some reason for it. Right, so we have voted on over-developer. Right, we have rejected. Councillor MACKAYGER, you were going to give us a reason for refusal? I was just going to reiterate what we've all discussed, which was that the reason for a few is always impact on the neighbours and over-development. It's my understanding. Can I just, before you say that, impact on the neighbour, if you're looking at planning policy, I think you need to be a bit more precise about the officer can advise us on that. Yeah, well said. So what would be helpful is if members could identify what specific harm would be caused to the neighbour. As I said, as Councillor DAD says, there are a number of things to look at in terms of outlook, privacy, light, etc. So I'll leave it to members. Councillors interjecting. Thank you. In that case, then, we propose that one of the reasons will be on the size, mass and bulk, and the closeness of the extension to the existing boundary of the neighbour. Sorry. Can I clarify? On the existing boundary to the... Are we talking about the semi-detached neighbour, which is already joined, or are we talking about neighbour on the other side, where there is a gap? We're talking where the gap has been reduced down, so that it is... So the impact... Between 38 and 40. Yes, it's close to the boundary between 38 and 40, and the other side of the fence is the 900 millimetre gap. Thank you. Councillor Jones. I think you could actually strengthen that by saying, rather than proximity to boundary, I think it's actually on the boundary. So I don't think it's just proximity to the boundary. I think it's actually on the boundary. Sorry, can I just come in? So just to wiggle out the... So we've identified that it's the size, mass, bulk proximity to the boundary, on the boundary, result in what harm? Impact, but as in, are we talking light, outlook, overbearing... Okay. I think it's difficult if you talk about light, because who is impacting... Can I just finish? If you're looking about light, there's sunlight and natural daylight, and that will affect number 38, differently to number 42. Councillor JOHNSTON. Sorry, in that case, I think it's part of the reasons. We need to say impact on both neighbours, and although we wouldn't put it in the reasons, obviously, just because the direct sunlight is impacted does not mean that light in general is not impacted. Okay. Any other reasons? Mr Rogers, is that good enough reasons? Yep, I've noted it down. Yep. Okay. So we agree to that? Was there a seconder to Councillor MacGyver's proposal? Thank you. Okay. No, that's all agreed. I think we need to take a vote. Right. Okay. Those in favour of that proposal then? Unanimals. Okay. So I think that, um, finishes that item. I think that's the end of the meeting, isn't it? Yep. That finishes item 10, item 11, exclusion of public and press, and there's no need to exclude the public and press. I thank you all for your attendance, and declare the meeting closed. [clicking] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [BLANK_AUDIO]