Transcript

Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the planning committee. May I ask that you switch your mobile phones and handheld devices and laptops and anything else that seems to silence for the duration of the meeting. If the fire alarm sounds at any time during the meeting and we are not expecting it to go off, everyone in the council chamber should leave immediately through the nearest fire exits. Please proceed calmly to the assembly point in Melmede on the paved area adjacent to the river as you exit the site. I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting is being webcasted live to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing. If you are seated in the council chamber, it is likely that the cameras will capture your image and you are deemed to be consenting to this and to the use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If you are speaking at this meeting, your contribution will be recorded and broadcast. In addition, the public gallery area is being monitored by CCTV for safety purposes. May I also remind members of the public in attendance this evening that we appreciate respect to be shown to all of those addressing the meeting. Interruptions or disrespectful behaviour will not be tolerated. May I invite committee members and any nominated substitutes to indicate in turn that they are present. Councillor Bill I'll act. Present. Councillor David Bilbay. Present. Councillor Lizzie Griffiths. Present. Councillor Stephen Hives. Present. Councillor James Jones. Present. Councillor Richard Mills. Present. Councillor Matty Redpath. Present. Councillor Joshua. Present. Councillor Howard Smith. Present. Councillor Kate Taylor. Present. Councillor Dominic Williams. Present. I would like to introduce our officers this evening. They are the executive head planning development clear up in Brown. Planning applications area team leader John Buscher and senior planning officer Joanna Chambers. Planning lawyer Michael Alfred and democratic services officer Sophie Butcher. May I ask the democratic services officer to report apologies for absence please. Thank you. We've received apologies tonight from Councillor Eves to Contards, Seawythe Price and Pat Oven with no substitutes. Thank you. May I remind all Councillors present including any non-committee members who have a discloseable pecuniary interest in any matter to be considered this evening to disclose the interest now and withdraw from the meeting when we get to the relevant item of business. Are there any discloseable pecuniary interests? Thank you. In the interests of transparency may I also ask any Councillor present including non-committee members whether they wish to disclose a non-pucuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on tonight's agenda and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter. Are there any non-pucuniary interests? None, thank you very much everyone. Is the Planning Committee happy to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the committee held on the 27th of March 2024 which are included as part of the agenda? Thank you very much everyone. (paper rustling) (paper rustling) Item four, Chairman's Announcements. Rules for debate including the procedure for determining planning applications at this meeting are set out on pages six to eight of our agenda. I will abide by these rules. In particular, I will ask everyone to respectfully listen to the views of all the speakers whether they are members of the committee, ward councillors or members of the public. Councillors who are appointed to this committee sit as representatives of the whole Guildford community. Accordingly, all councillors must act fairly, openly and apolitically. Approach each planning application with an open mind and avoid preconceived opinions. Carefully weigh up all the relevant issues. Determine each application on its own planning merits. Avoid undue contact with any interested parties. Ensure that the reasons for our decisions are clearly stated. And our decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant legislative framework to include the National Planning Policy Framework, our own planning policies and other material planning considerations. We move now to item five, planning and related applications. May I advise public speakers that they have up to three minutes to address the committee and that this rule will be strictly adhered to so that I can be fair to everyone. As set out in our public speaking procedure rules, may I also remind speakers that in making their speeches, they should be mindful of the need to avoid making public statements which could be considered to be defamatory. Which could be considered to be defamatory, frivolous or offensive and should refrain from making allegations regarding individual officers or counsellors. Speakers must address their comments to the application and the committee may only take into account relevant planning considerations. Application one for tonight, 23P 01965, stream side, Harper's Road, Ash in Guilford, G12 6DB. I'd like to ask John Bushard to do the presentation and to ensure that he will be clear when moving from slide to slide for the benefit of those listening to the meeting on audio only. Thank you, John.

• Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'll just begin by just drawing your attention to the late sheets. So just a couple of changes to some of the conditions and a couple of additional conditions. Just really to tidy up the fact that there are two distinct parts to the side with their own separate access points and they're just a couple of corrections then as well to correct some typos within the report itself as well. So the application is for the construction of 24 dwellings including nine affordable properties on a site on a stream side which is off Harper's Road in Ash. Next slide. So the site is shown here within the red line boundary. It is located on the western side of Harper's Road which you can see just here. And since the adoption of the new local plan, it is now within the urban area of Ash. The site forms part of the larger A31 strategic allocation for Ash and Tongam. And the lands of the east of Harper's Road so just here is still located within the Green Belt. You'll have read in the agenda that there are a number of listed buildings in the surrounding area. You've got the closest one which is grade two listed, York House which you can just see just here. And the northern and southern halves of the site are separated by an area of woodland which you'll kind of see from the photographs later on as well as a stream which you can just see here. The northern half has a number of matured trees around its perimeter and also within the site itself. And the southern half contains the existing stream site dwelling which is just here as well as its uncidery buildings and its garden area which is just here. As you'll also read in the agenda, the site has a long planning history. Our members considered and refused a similar scheme for 22 dwellings back in June, 2023. That application was refused by members and the subsequent appeal was allowed in February this year. We have appended the appeal decision in full to the agenda as well which is just it follows straight after the officer report. And we've also copied the reasons for refusal which are on page 89 and 90 of the agenda. So the application before you tonight seeks permission for 24 dwellings rather than the 22 dwellings which were proposed as part of the appeal scheme. And because of that, you have a slightly different layout to the development which I'll talk you through later in the presentation. So next slide. So this shows the wider context and a little bit more detail. So I won't dwell on this too much but you've got the application site roughly here. You've got Habs Road running just here, north to south. What else can I show you? This is the Ash railway station. It's just here and you've got the railway line running in this direction. Hopefully that kind of orientates yourself in the area. Next slide. And this just for information shows the A31 strategic allocation in Ash and Tongam. So the areas within the blue line are the land which is allocated for hazing in the local plan. And as you can see, the application site is recorded on the very eastern portion of this kind of the main part of the allocation just here. The allocation, this part of the allocation has a significant amount of construction ongoing at the moment and also permissions which have been approved but haven't yet commenced. So just here, you've got the Bellway scheme which is called Wildflower Metals which is well underway and under construction. So the south of the application site, you have Orchard Farm which plan and committee also refused but was allowed on appeal last year. That's a Bellway scheme. And then maybe the other one that you might recognise is land that main juniper colleges which plan and committee also considered not so long ago. The reserve matters application and that site was just in here. So it is fair to say that this whole area is a kind of an area which is under significant change and in transition because of the allocation. Next slide. So this is the proposed block plan showing the development. So you can see here that the scheme would be, as I said earlier, split into distinct sections so the northern half which you can see here which we've built around the existing trees on the site. And this would consist of eight detached properties and semi-detached properties as well all of which will be two stories. The access will be just here off Harper's Road. In the middle, you've got the existing woodland and the stream which will be retained as part of the development and improved and integrated into the scheme. And then the southern half of the site will contain 14 houses and two apartments. And you've got the existing access into the existing property stream site and that will be utilised to get into the southern half of the site. Overall, the proposed layout is deemed to be acceptable and officers fail will be in keeping with the evolving character and appearance of the area. In terms of the impact on the immunity of neighbouring properties, it is noted that this was one of the concerns raised by members for the last application, particularly impact on Oakside Cottage, which is just here. The 2024 appeal, so in February this year, concluded that the proposal would, that the previous the appeals scheme would have resulted in some loss of privacy to this property. However, the inspection noted that the degree of harm caused to the overall living conditions would be very limited. And that's that quote I think is copied on page 138. Or sorry, you'll see that from the familiar appeal decision, which is on 138, page 138 of the agenda. And officers fail that, given that appeal decision and the views made by the inspector, that although this scheme is slightly different, officers fail that the same harm would result from this proposal before you tonight. And that harm has been factored into the balance at the final balance of the report. The impact on new properties, which you can just see here, on the, this is the wildflower meadows scheme, which I referred to earlier, which is all of these properties I think have now been built out and some are occupied. There would be some harm, sorry, there would be some overlooking of these properties, mainly from the windows and the side elevations of these dwellings. But with proposed conditions 23, which allows for, first of all, no additional windows to be put in these side elevations, but also the windows which are positioned in these elevations to be frosted or obscurely glazed, that that mitigation will be enough to avoid any kind of adverse impact on these neighboring properties. Next slide. So although we're not asking members to basically compare and contrast the appeals scheme to the proposed scheme, you are considering the proposed scheme and nothing else tonight. I just thought it'd be just useful just for information purposes to show you the comparison between the two. So you've got the consented appeals scheme just here on the left and the proposed block plan on the right. So the northern half, no real change to that at all. It's the southern half, which you can see the layout has been tweaked slightly to accommodate the additional two dwellings. But as I said earlier, officers feel that the proposed layout isn't significantly different to the consented appeals scheme and no better, no worse than the appeals scheme and officers are content with the proposed layout as it currently stands. Next slide. So these are just a selection of the proposed elevations. Just a note on this that the, these do show some of the dwellings as having a gray colored roof finish and as noted in the report, your conservation officer has raised concerns about this and would prefer a more traditional red tile instead. So these dwellings here, once they're accurate in terms of the design and appearance of the properties, in all likelihood, the roof materials will change from this gray color to the, to the red color. So just, just bear that in mind when you're considering these, these elevations. But overall, the proposed dwellings will be relatively traditional in their appearance, as you can see, and we'll be keeping, in keeping with other dwellings recently approved by the council in the immediate area. Next slide. And this just shows just a variety of street scenes within the development. So I won't dwell on this too much, but you can see basically the variety of architecture that they'd all be fairly traditional in their appearance and how they're, you know, a fairly spacious and open development overall. Next slide. Onto a couple of photographs. So this is the northern half of the site. It's this, start with the bottom photograph. This is at the kind of the very northern tip of the application site looking south. So you've got the existing stream side house just here beyond the trees. That's the woodland and the stream is just in here. And you can see these trees are being retained and integrated as part of the development. And then the top, top photograph is looking back towards the boundary of the, the wildflower meadow properties, which I showed you earlier on. So it's, it's these properties that we're protecting from, from overlooking by the, by virtue of the, the condition with no additional windows and the obscure glazing. Next slide. And this is the southern half of the site. So you've got the top left. You've got the existing property stream side. And that's the access that will be used into the southern portion of the site. This photograph here is looking south again down the, the application site. And you've got the orchard farm, this, orchard farm development, which is on the other side of this, these boundaries here. And this photograph is facing north. You've got the woodland area just here. Next slide. So in summary, this proposal is found to be acceptable. And it's, sorry, an acceptable addition to this part of allocation A31. Being of a layout, design and scale, which is in keeping with the other developments already approved in the area. Although a number of objections have been received regarding highway safety along Harper's Road and the capacity of the local highway network, no objections have been raised by the County Highway Authority. In addition, it is very important to know that the highway's reason for refusal for the last application was not supported by the planning inspector. And I'm sure you've all read that in the report and in the appeal decision as well. It is acknowledged that the proposal would result in modest harm to the privacy of the occupants of Oakside College. And in addition, it is noted that there will be less than substantial harm at the lower end of the scale caused to surrounding heritage assets. However, to set out the report, the public benefits associated with the proposals are considered on this occasion to outweigh the harm caused to the setting of the list of buildings. Even so, and as explained on pages one away, some one, one, four of the agenda, great weight and considerable importance must still be attached to this heritage harm. The proposal would also result in an affordable housing provision of 39.1%, which is less than the 40% required by your policies. Therefore, there is a technical breach of policy H2 with a local plan. However, it is acknowledged that it is acknowledged in the report that this provision is very close to being a compliant position. The overall planning balance has been carried out on pages one, two, eight and one, two, nine of the agenda. And it has been concluded that the benefits of the scheme are sufficient to outweigh the identified harms on this occasion. As such, it is recommended that the planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions in the report and on the late sheets, as well as the completion of a Section 106 agreement. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
• Thank you very much, John. I'd like to now invite our first public speaker this evening, Mr. Andrew Kim, of Born Homes to Speak in Support.
• Thank you.
• Welcome to the meeting, Mr. Kim.
• Thank you.
• Good evening. My name is Andrew Kim, I'm the Director of Born Homes. The principle of redeveloping this allocated site has been established by the recently granted planning commission. The proposal has provided a net gain of 23 dwellings, including nine affordable, which can be delivered by Born Homes in the next two years. It includes the increased provision of nine affordable dwellings on the site with a mixture of 10 years in accordance with policy requirements. The inspector confirmed that the contribution towards the identified needs for affordable housing eight previously is notable benefit of the proposal, which is now nine, carry significant weight. The proposals will not lead to harm other residential properties or amenities, and additional planting buffer has been incorporated adjacent to Oakside College. All the proposed dwellings provide a high quality environment for future residents with generous garden sizes, room sizes, dedicated off-street parking and cycle storage. Born Homes will deliver a highly sustainable development employing air source heat pumps within excess of 50% CO2 savings and EV charging for every dwelling. The urban design officer supports the design and layout, stating that layout and proposed detailing is high quality and reflects the urban design and relationship with the countryside complying with policy. The woodland setting will be kept, improved, managed to provide public access through the green amenity. The links between the site and the surrounding area from the proposed cycle routes and pedestrian routes ensure that development integrates with the community and environment for the benefit of new and existing residents. The capacity of the existing highway network has diligently been tested by the council's highways team on several occasions and numerous appeal inspectors. It has concluded the scheme will not lead to a significant impact on the local highway network. The highways authority have no objection to the proposals. The proposals are acceptable in terms of drainage, ecology and biodiversity and are supported by all statutory consultees. The scheme in front of you has increased section 106 contributions by around 170,000 pounds. And the total section 106 contributions are around 900,000 pounds for 15 private houses, including the SANG. To conclude, the proposal, sorry, to conclude the proposal is similar to the consensus scheme, but with design, layout, landscaping and sustainability improvements incorporated along with the planting buffer for neighbouring occupiers safeguarding. The application therefore has significant merit and it remains consistent with planning policy. And I urge you to grant permission in line with your own officers' recommendations. Thank you.
• Would officers like to comment at all?
• Okay, thank you. The officer recommendation is to approve application 23P0965 subject to a section 106. Would any member like to speak on this application?
• Okay, Councillor Hives, Councillor Smith and Councillor Mills. Councillor Hives, please.
• Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just a quick question actually, not particularly material. It talks about an education contribution, age 69. What's that?
• Sorry, but your page, did you say?
• 69, I'm looking over.
• Yeah, so it's basically, as part of the planning application, we consult with the education authority at Surrey County Council and they've requested contributions towards early areas, primary school education, secondary education, so that basically, obviously this development will increase pressure on the schooling system within this area and the contributions are designed essentially to help offset that in terms of new projects to existing schools in the area.
• Okay.
• There'll be contributions towards that.
• Thank you. If you want to have a look at page 126, it's actually got a little bit more detail in there in terms of the amount of money and yeah, that it mitigates the impacts of the development, I hope that's helpful. Councillor Smith.
• Thank you. So comparing this, I know we're not here to compare them, but this is substantially the same as the application that we had last June, if I've sort of looked at it properly. We have two additional homes, but if I'm correct, we've got an additional affordable home on this one that we didn't have before. So before we had eight, now we've got nine, so we've won an additional affordable home. That's good, 900,000 pound contribution. Section 106 is obviously very, very welcome in the way that it's going to support infrastructure and the wider area. I did feel that this was an anomaly that we didn't approve this one last time because of the other developments that going on surrounding it. And given that it's one, it's been allowed on appeal, it seems to me that it would be, it would be a mistake not to agree this one as well. So comments that I made last time, I like the way they've managed to preserve the tree, the stream, the layout, it's nice. We had concerns before about Harper's Road, and I might not necessarily agree about the verdict on Harper's Road, but we all have to accept Harper's Road because of the highway's authorities, the view and also the planning inspectors. So for all those reasons, and the fact that I do actually like the buildings and the layout, I'll definitely be supporting this one.
• Thank you.
• Thank you, Councillor Smith. Councillor Mills.
• Thank you, Madam Chairman. I agree substantially with what Councillor Smith has said. I particularly welcome the component of rented housing in the affordable housing. I also like him very much retain my concerns about transport traffic highways in this country lane, but obviously we cannot press those in the circumstances of the highway's authority giving it its little tick. The one thing on which I quite like a little bit of insurance was that this is a sort of barrier at a line between green belt and between the built up area. And it seems to you, it's always helpful to have some, I don't know what the word of a roof, some barrier or something between the two, which cuts down on the visibility of the developed area and tries to preserve the overall country feeling. And if our planning officer could reassure me that we've got such a barrier there or something to mark out the barrier, I'd find that very helpful.
• Yeah, thank you. Obviously we don't have a physical barrier 'cause that wouldn't look very nice, but we do compare to previous iterations when that was a valid concern of this scheme. We have worked hard to try and soften the edges of this scheme. The Northern Half in particular, you can see it's kind of, it does, you know, compare it to the Bellways scheme here. You can see that it is a more looseness, kind of open formative element on this part of the site. The trees in the woodland here will help to screen the vast majority of the built form on the Northern Half of the site. And then the Southern Half, we've worked hard to kind of get some additional screening and planting in here on either side of the access way, which will hopefully screen both of those two houses as well at the entrance. So I think from the Green Belt, you know, you might get glimpses of it, but it certainly won't be, you know, in your face kind of brash urban development. It will be, it will settle in quite nicely in that kind of transition point between urban and Green Belt. Councilor Dargay.
• Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be brief. From planning point of view, this has been around for a little while. It was refused, it was appealed, it's a comprehensive inspector's report, which I've read. Addresses most of the issues. I can sit and debate whether a net 23 or a net 21 is an appropriate number, but the officers address that pretty adequately. And what I think is a good report. The only thing I would ask actually is that there are certain grandfian conditions, one or more. And there is quite a lot of reference to mitigation for wildlife, particularly bats. Could I just urge that we absolutely make sure that these conditions are fulfilled, because wildlife protection is not a joke, it's not a game, it's not just something that's just stuck in there for, you know, kind of cosmetic purposes. It's a real issue. And as I've pointed out in this chamber before, I think something like one in five or six of indigenous species to this country are threatened with extinction. And that's nobody's fault, but we must do everything we can to make absolutely sure we mitigate the problems that come. So I would just urge, from planning point of view, I can't see any reason why this would be refused. If it went back to appeal, we'd look petulant, and I think we'd get absolutely hammered with costs. But from a wildlife point of view, I think, can we just get an assurance that those conditions will be met? Thank you.
• Thank you. Councillor Akeda.
• Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I remember this application. I think it was my first, probably I think planning meeting at that time. So, and at that time as well, I think I was still, I was in favor of the application. And it still looks nice to me as well. My question is, I don't know, it might be a typing error. If you see the page 69, it says, Nine houses affordable. But if you see the second last paragraph on page 87, it says, 24 new homes, 10 of which would be affordable.
• Yeah, that was fixed in the late sheets, yeah.
• Okay, sorry, I didn't say that. My apologies on that side. But yeah, overall, I think the rest of the things are quite good. So I'm happy to see this one. Thank you. Oops, thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to speak on this application? Is there anything else further, you guys? Okay. Following the debate, I moved the recommendation to approve application 23P 01965, subject to a section 106 from the chair. Do I have a second? Councillor Smith, thank you very much. We will now move to the vote, which we will conduct via roll call. This will involve Democratic Services officer asking each Councillor whether they are voting for, against or abstaining in respect of the motion to approve the application.
• Thank you, Parliament, I just want to make clear that we are voting to approve the application with the conditions that have been amended and shown to you in the late sheets. Are there any questions about that? You're okay with those conditions. Okay, in that case, we will move to the vote now, please. Thank you, Sophie.
• Thank you. So Councillor Madi, redpath.
• Four.
• Sorry, four.
• Thank you. Councillor Kate Taylor.
• Four.
• Councillor Lizzie Griffiths.
• Four.
• Councillor David Bilbay.
• Four.
• Councillor Dominique Williams.
• Four.
• Councillor James Jones.
• Four.
• Councillor Howard Smith.
• Four.
• Councillor Vanessa King.
• Four.
• Councillor Stephen Hives.
• Four.
• Councillor John Shaw.
• Four.
• Councillor Richard Mills.
• Four.
• Councillor Berta.
• Four.
• That's unanimously approved.
• The application is granted. Thank you very much, everyone. We're going to move now to the second application on our agenda this evening, 23P02.045, the Mandalay Hotel on London Road in Guilford. I'm going to ask John Bush to do the presentation and to ensure that he will be clear when moving from slide to slide for the benefit of those listening to the meeting on audio only. Thank you, John. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So next slide. I'm sure you all know where the Mandalay Hotel is, but just to refresh your memories, it's located on the eastern side of London Road, close to its junction with Warden Road, which you can just see here, London Road here. The Hotel is situated within the Warden Road Conservation Area and is opposite the 10th-centre Conservation Area. The Hotel itself comprises of a number of connected and detached buildings, which extend approximately 35 meters into the site, which you can just see here. There's limited parking to the front and some to the rear of the site with both parking areas accessed to the front from London Road. Surrounding areas mixed use in character. You've got some residential properties and also commercial properties on Warden Road, just here. And you've also got some offices and commercial properties on the other side of the building on London Road. Further up, you've got G-live and obviously, further again, the Upper High Street. Next slide. So planning permission is sold for a two-story extension to the rear of the hotel to provide 25 additional bedrooms, which you can just see here, which is that the main extension to the hotel. And then as well as that, it proposed a modest extension to what the applicant terms is, the Colch House building, which is here, to provide an additional two bedrooms in this location here. The site benefits from an extant planning permission for a similar extension. And I'll show you some slides in a second, which should help you on that. That extant permission was granted in 2015 and was partially implemented by virtue of an already commenced extension to the Colch House. Next slide. So this plan, this slide shows the proposed elevations of the extension to the main hotel building. So the top slide or the top image shows the rear elevation of the hotel. And this is the proposed extension just here. This is the site elevation. So this is the elevation, which would kind of front onto the Colch House. You can see set over three floors with the third story being within the roof. And this is the opposite elevation, which would basically front on or face onto the rear boundaries of the properties on a modern road. Next slide. This just shows you, again, whilst you're not comparing it to the 2015 permission, just hopefully gives you a little bit more of an understanding as to what the difference is. So the 2015, the extant permission, which could be finished and built out at any point, is the kind of the shaded gray area. And the extra bit that's-- sorry, I suppose the extra floor area that they're seeking now, who compared to the appeals, the 2015 scheme is this area just here. And the rear elevation, there's no change at all to that. So it's an additional-- on this part here, an additional 2.7 meters. Next slide. So this just shows the grand floor-- proposed grand floor of the proposed extension to the hotel, as well as to the Colch House as well. So you can see a number of proposed additional bedrooms, as well as one bedroom on the ground floor and another bedroom on the first floor of the Colch House. You can see the existing parking area here to the rear of the hotel, which would be retained. Next slide. And this just shows the first and second floors to the hotel extension. You've got the rooms here, which would be within the roof, which I showed you earlier. Next slide. And these just show the Colch House proposals in a little bit more detail. So you've got basically the extension here, the ground floor on the bottom, the first floor on the top. But they're irreplaceable to each other with the staircase going up. And then you've got the elevation. So it's basically that that's the extension just here on the side elevation of the main Colch House building. Next slide, just under some photographs. So this is the existing rear elevation of the hotel. And you can see the Colch House just here to the side. Next slide. This is the gap between the boundary and the existing wall of the Colch House, where the extension will be located. So just in here. Next slide. This is the side boundary of the site. So this is the boundary base you've got. Sorry for interrupting. Kate, did you? Sorry, the slides weren't moving forward. They weren't going to show up. Oh, thank you. Is it working now? OK, thank you. Do you want me to go back? Sure. No, it's not moving. Oh, I'm sorry. OK. There's a bit of other people they might not have been-- Yeah, well, I'll go back. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, so just repeat then. So that's the rear elevation of the existing hotel. And you can see the Colch House just here. And the extension will basically come out into this portion here on the side. Next slide. This is the existing Colch House building. And the new extension would come off here for the additional two bedrooms. Next slide at the moving. This is the boundary of the side, which basically water and road. You've got on the opposite side of the hedge. And you've got the hotel grounds just here. So you can see that it's quite a mature and dense boundary screening between the two sides of the hedge. Next slide. This just shows you the context of-- you've got the existing hotel, the rear elevation of the hotel. And you can see the water and road properties just here. So you can see the hedge that you're just looking at along here. So you can see that views will be limited between the two. Next slide. This is at the very rear of the boundary of the side. Off the rear car park, you've got just to orientate yourself. You might have read it in the report. This is the Red House just here. And this is Lincoln House here. Next slide. And that's a better view of the Red House. Next slide. This is a view between the access, basically, which cars would come in to reach the rear car park. So you've got the cold house just here in the main hotel building here. Next slide. And then just a couple, because obviously it's in a conservation area and a sensitive site in that regard, you've got the existing Mandalay Hotel here. And you can actually see that the cold chest just here to the back, actually here. Next slide. This shows you the built form on this side of the hotel, and then on the other side, see just here. And you've got Warden Road, basically running up here. Next slide. So the officer report concludes that this proposal is an acceptable extension to the existing hotel premises. No harm has been found to neighboring properties. The impact on the conservation area is considered to be acceptable. And the application is recommended for approval. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, John. I'm going to now ask our Democratic Services officer to read out a speech submitted by Dr. Kate Ralph to object. Thank you, Sophie. Thank you. Dear committee members, my name is Kate Ralph. My house is on Waterton Road and backs onto the hotel. I'm speaking on behalf of many neighbors and not just myself. Can I thank you for the opportunity to speak at this meeting and to apologise for not attending in person due to a prior commitment? I would really like to be there. In addition to the increased size and proximity to the neighbors, we have two main concerns with the new proposal. One, access. We take issue with the proposed access statement. The design and access statement submitted by the hotel states that access from the road network will remain as existing, which is already fully inclusive via a range of entrances to the hotel. The wording used, a range of entrances to the hotel, is misleading. The actual access to the back of the hotel consists of a narrow single entrance which we believe is not suitable for a development of this size. We would like it noted that back in 2004, when the underground function room was under construction, the hotel built an access road through the rear garden of 44 London Road and behind the properties on Waterton Road. This involved removal of part of the historic crinkle, crinkle wall. This temporary road had no planning permission and caused significant disturbance and noise. Towards the end of the build, retrospective planning was applied for but refused. However, it was too late. By this point, the building was almost complete. We are concerned that the hotel will need to do this again in order to access the back of the property. The residents would like to see the construction management requested by highways, which must be approved before planning starts. This includes the provision of parking for site personnel, operatives and visitors and storage of plant materials. The site is just too small to accommodate this and combined with the access issues is just not feasible. Number two, ecological issues. The planning document states no ecological issues are identified in the extant application. Therefore, it is unnecessary to submit further assessment given the ability to undertake the work to the hotel under that decision. We would like the following ecological issues to be considered. A noise pollution and increase in carbon emissions. The neighbours would like it noted that since the extant application was granted, the hotel has installed new air conditioning units to the outside of the existing building, which caused significant noise pollution to the surrounding area and increase the hotel carbon footprint. The neighbours have submitted complaints via email, see letter of objection. And the noise has been acknowledged by the hotel but nothing has been done so far. The submitted plans show no air conditioning units. We are concerned about the ecological impact of any new extra units to be added to the new extension, the bats. We and our neighbours have bats now garden gardens and believe they are roosting in the trees at the bottom of the garden and in the hotel grounds. We would like a bat survey commissioned. I've just run out of time.
• Thank you, Sophie. Would officers like to comment on any of those points, please?
• Okay. The officer recommendation is to approve application 23P 02045. Would any member like to speak on this application? Councillor Bilbay, then Councillor Mills, please.
• Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to be crystal clear on something with John, please, if we could. What we're talking about here, if I'm correct, is five additional bedrooms to that which was previously approved with a relatively modest increase in the size of the site. Am I correct about that? Thank you.
• Thank you.
• Yeah, sorry, Councillor Wilbur. Yeah, that is correct, yeah. So the exam permission is for 22 bedrooms and this proposal is for 27, yes. It's for an extra five bedrooms, yeah.
• And with the Chairman's approval, just one that I haven't used much time here. So therefore, many of the comments made in the speech that was read out by Sophie probably relate to the previous concerns with planning permission and not necessary for this one. I think I'm correct on that, am I not? Thank you.
• Yeah, I think obviously there are still valid concerns. There are still a consideration that we must consider and give way to, however, yeah, you are right, the same issues were raised with the previous application, yeah.
• Thank you, Councillor Mills. One moment, please, Councillor, can you put your microphone on, please? Thank you.
• Good night, first of all, ask a couple of questions of the planning officer before making my own comments. There is a comment, I think, in the paper that between the quite strong rejection in 2000 of the 2014 application on appeal and the approval by predecessors of the 2015 application there were significant changes that by implication clearly made it acceptable. I was impressed by the arguments against the expansion of this hotel by the, in the objection of the appeal and also in officer's comments on the 2014 one. So I would be very much, very pleased to know that the 2015 one was substantially changed from those comments.
• Okay, so we can look the information up. John wasn't the original case, or it hasn't been the case officer on this, but I think it's fair to assume that the 2015 permission must have addressed the concerns of the 2014 permission. That said, even if they didn't, permission was granted by the Councillor in 2015, and therefore, because that permission has now been technically implemented, you have to give that significant weight.
• Yes, I accept that, of course. That's absolutely clear that we have to follow from that consent, but nonetheless, it seems to me that having looked around this site, the comments made persistently by, before that consent by council officers and by the man conducting the appeal. Strongly suggested that there's imbalance, the imbalance between the amount of development on this site and the remaining open area was completely out of proportion, and that was certainly my impression now. There is very little space at the rear of the hotel. Now, if this is a hotel where people are just going to come and stay one night and come a bit, well, maybe that doesn't matter to them, but nonetheless, in terms of the character and style of the conservation area, a point made both by the inspector on appeal and by officers on previous applications of this kind. If that is the key thing, the character of the impact on the character of the whole area of the conservation area, then it does, I think, matter very substantially. The second point I take up on, which I'd quite like, some reassurance if it is possible, is that I know that in the original, in the application that was appealed and then defeated the inspector was concerned about the impact of the development on the Red House.
• Wrap it up, please, Councillor. Sorry, sorry about that.
• So just to come back on some of those points, obviously your consideration as a planning committee this evening is the impact this development will have on the conservation area, and the test is whether, and it's set out in the report, is whether it will preserve and/or enhance the character of the conservation area, and there's some reference made to the conservation area. However, I would caution you to put too much weight on what happened in 2014, because that was a chapter in the planning history of this site, and an appeal was decided. However, in 2015, a permission was granted. In granting that permission, the council would have considered the same test in terms of whether the development preserved and/or enhanced the character of the conservation area, and in considering that application, they concluded that it did preserve and enhance and met the test in section 72 of the planning act. So if you like, that's your almost starting point for considering this application. Those considerations were given, a permission was granted, and indeed that permission has been technically implemented, and therefore that permission could carry on being implemented, and that extension could be there in how long it took them to build it two, three months from now. So members, you do need to give that significant weight, and I'd suggest that reflecting or using your reference point for decision-making this evening of the 2014 appeal would not be the right place for you to start in your consideration of this application this evening.
• Thank you. Councillor Shaw.
• Thank you. My only concern was made by a member of public about the area outside for cars, and for vehicles is very, very small. I happen to know that facing it on the left of on the same grounds, there are businesses there, and it's very difficult to get in and maneuver around that area. There was a comment about the difficulties, you know, particularly while building. Is there anything that can be put into the conditions to sort of mitigate the problems that it would cause?
• Yes, so the reference has been made to the construction management plan, so that would be your normal mechanism to mitigate the impact of development. Obviously, as a planning committee, we'd strongly recommend that you wouldn't refuse it on the grounds of that, because that may present you with a challenge, defending that out of appeal and also probably stop all development within sort of your town centre or urban areas where you do have those constraints. So your mitigation for the impact of construction is that construction management plan, accepting that there isn't an inevitability with any construction, even on a greenfield site, there is going to be traffic, noise and disturbance resulting from the construction, but that's a temporary impact.
• Councillor Schor and then Councillor Smith, please.
• Thank you, I'm thinking more about the space that's available and the damage that could happen to the surrounding properties or boundaries or whatever.
• Yeah, in terms of it is a tight site, and therefore, there will have to be really, really careful consideration by the developer of stroke builder about how they responsibly carry out that construction. And whilst we couldn't categorically confirm that there wouldn't be any impact or any damage, there was some damage, that's sort of a civil matter, then, because that would, you know, as long as the construction management plan demonstrates to the council that the developer is going to carry out that development in the most appropriate manner, given the constraints, then that would satisfy the condition.
• Councillor Smith, please.
• Yeah, if I can just echo Councillor Schor's comment as well because that is, this size on a very busy junction of the nightmare junction as well, so that's going to add sort of traffic problems to, so I think it's about that sort of management plan, it's really, really important for this site. I thought I knew the geography of this area quite well, I live a couple of minutes around the corner and I can recognize Waterton Road and London Road, but I've never, or the walk past, I've never seen the rear of this. I can imagine the comments from neighbors and it's that some of that's mentioned in the report about the proximity, but there seems to be the houses on Waterton Road, I think some of those are actually businesses and not residences from memory, but the two grey buildings at the bottom of that slide there, I think one is Linden House and something, where's the access to that? Is it off, is it the road off Waterton Road? It goes that, and what, are those buildings, are they homes, are they flats, are they, do you know what they are, sorry. 'Cause they are, the approximate, they are much closer than the houses on Waterton Road.
• Yeah, yeah, so the access to these, yeah, it's from kind of around about here from Waterton Road. I can't remember the name, where, I can't remember the name of the road. 'Cause then here, yeah, you kind of come to a cul-de-sac, which is, I think you've got another block of flats here and some further flats down here, that's the Red House, that's the Linden House, so yeah, they're both, as far as I'm aware, and they're split up into apartments.
• I would just also make the comment that this is, obviously a popular hotel, popular local business. I've heard lots of comments about a short hotel bedroom, so that's probably not a planning consideration, but yeah, so yeah, I mean, I would support it for that, because it's obviously something that's required for the town centre and the prosperity of the town centre, as well, so, thank you.
• So the economic impact of providing more hotel rooms is the material planning consideration. Does anyone else want to speak on this, Councillor Redpath and Councillor Williams, thank you very much.
• I wasn't gonna speak on this, but you jogged my memory Howard. Just, it's one of those things that every time we meet with G Live, is they always say there's not enough hotel rooms in the town centre, it's the ongoing theme because they have a huge venue and they can only, you know, they could hold conferences, but then when would all these people stay? And you end up having to, you know, the company, whoever they're hiring it, have to ship them all over the place, because there's not enough hotel rooms in the town centre. Obviously, this is really well positioned for G Live and to rent out, and I do think we need to support businesses in the town centre, especially at the moment with the state and at the high streets in, so I will be supporting this application.
• Thank you, Councillor Williams.
• Thank you, Chair.
• Yeah, no, this is, I did have to think about this for quite a while, because, you know, it looks like it's filling up quite of the volume in there, but it is still quite, I suggest, a large space around that. Just to kind of double confer on the southern side here, so where the extension is, and as this is our main concern for potential harm of privacy, that is the Lincoln House and the Red House. So it says that the southern elevation of the extension does not contain windows, unlike the extent permissions. So basically, there are no windows on that side, so they won't be kind of overlooking those residents as they are the closest residents. I want to check the privacy on that. Is that what I'm reading correctly?
• Yeah, that's absolutely correct, yeah. So you can see, so this is the ground floor, so you can see the windows. So these are the two bedrooms, basically, that would face the Red House and Lincoln House, so no windows on the end elevation, their windows would be on the side. And then as you go up the floor, first floor, it's the same thing, and they roof as well. So yeah, no windows on that side in the rear elevation fronting onto the Red House, yeah.
• Yeah, and then obviously surrounding that, as we've assessed, it's mainly businesses on either side of the hotel.
• It's only on one side of the hotel 'cause it's on a corner. So, yeah, it's only on one side of the hotel and then then on the back there are homes.
• Okay, does that make sense?
• Yeah, and I thank you. I think just as a finishing comment, thank you. Yeah, no, I think it's, we have to obviously make that balance between supporting a business that needs this growth and as it is a planning, planning, losing the wrong word, you know what I mean? And also weighing up the impact on the residents, but I think as for my, I'm leaning towards for with that, as it all seems to be a good balance there, thank you.
• Did anyone else want to comment on this? Okay, my only sort of question, I mean, I had no comment until I heard the public speaker actually. They mentioned that a bat survey was not done this time because they said they, if I'm right, did they not do a bat survey this time because they didn't think there was one worth doing last time? Is that what she said? 'Cause I'm just thinking 10 years is a long time to not do a bat survey. And I don't know whether that's actually a reason to refuse this time around, I doubt it, but I'm just wondering whether there's something that we can do going forward to ensure that these kinds of things get looked at more regularly. Okay, so the lady said, we would like a, she believes there are bats in her garden at the bottom of the garden in the grounds. They want a bat survey commissioned before any work is done. I'm not sure whether that's possible to do, but has there been a long time between bat surveys there? Do you know?
• So just if I could come in and probably refer you to the comments of natural England, there isn't a bat survey that's been submitted because it's not felt necessary in this case. But I'm just checking because what has been suggested that there's a condition requiring bat boxes back and...
• Yeah, condition seven requires boxes.
• So the condition seven is reflective of that sort of biodiversity net gain point and obviously the provision of bat boxes will encourage bats to, I was gonna say boxer, to habitat the area. Okay, well, they're in the other comments from anybody. Okay. In that case, following debate, I move the recommendation to approve application 23P02047 from the chair subject to a second, please. Councilor Ector, is your hand up? Thank you very much. And we'll now move to the vote, please, which we will conduct via roll call. Thank you, Sophie, over to you. Councilor Vanessa King.
• Four.
• Thank you. Councilor Bailalak, sir.
• Four.
• Councilor Madi Redpath.
• Four.
• Councilor Richard Mills.
• Against.
• Councilor James Jones.
• Four.
• Councilor David Bilbe.
• Four.
• Councilor Dominique Williams.
• Four.
• Council Howard Smith.
• Four.
• Council Elizabeth Griffiths.
• Four.
• Council Kate Taylor.
• Four.
• Council Jan Schor.
• Four.
• Council Stephen Hives.
• Four.
• So that's 11-4 and one against.
• The application is carried. Thank you very much, everyone. Can I just ask for a five minute pause on the webcast, please? Thank you. I just need to take a break, sorry, guys. We're now moved to our final item, 21P0182 Northmore's Alotment site in Wapelston. I'm going to ask Joanna Chambers to do the presentation and to ensure that she will be clear when moving from slide to slide for the benefit of those listening to the meeting on audio only. Thank you, Joanna.
• Thank you, Chair. This application has been submitted on behalf of Guildford Borough Council, acting its capacity as landowner in support of the Slyfield Area Regeneration Project. Next slide. The development is required to facilitate the wayside urban village development, which requires the reprovision of allotments from the existing Bellfield site shown here in red. Guildford Borough Council purchased the application site, shown here in outlined red, to relocate up to 724 rods with the remaining provision to be located at the existing order short road allotment sites. Next slide. The application site is located in the Greenbelt to the north of the Slyfield Industrial Estate, immediately adjacent to the Royal Mail site, adjoining to the east, the new waste treatment plant, and its access from North Mores, which is within the industrial estate. Next slide. A public footpath runs across the site at the present time and through the woodland to the east, which links Slyfield to Jacob's well. A public footpath diversion order has been granted to accommodate the proposed development. Next slide. The application seeks to change the use of the land to allotments and would provide 78 new allotment plots and two beekeeping plots. The application also includes the provision of a small building containing W.C. facilities and office and storage areas. Access to the site would be from North Mores, which would lead to a small car park for nine vehicles and approximately six bicycles. Planning Commission was granted for the same development in June 2020. The current application seeks to formalise changes to the site boundary and the layout of the allotments and associated facilities to enable the allotments to be completed and made available for use. The approved consenting scheme is shown on the left and the revised proposals which planning consent is now sought on the right. And the main changes comprise a realignment of the southern boundary to exclude post office land. Associated redesign of the car park at the southern edge of the development and the allotment facilities and the vehicular access and a reduction in the UV charger capacity from 7 kilowatts to 3.6 kilowatts due to a lack of electrical capacity in the local grid. It's important to note that development has commenced under the extent consent and a significant amount of work has already been undertaken and this is highlighted in yellow on the current application plan. Next slide. The principle of developments therefore will be established under the extent consent. The proposal constitutes appropriate development in the Greenbelt would be a significant benefit to the local community supporting local and national objectives for healthy and active lifestyles. The development of allotments in this location would not prejudice the delivery of the joining waste treatment plant and will facilitate the wider cycle area regeneration project. This plan shows in more detail the work undertaken under previous consent in blue which comprises the creation of the allotment plots to the north east of the original public right of way which is shown here. Construction of the car park and the access driveway which is currently waiting to be surfaced and there are no buildings yet on the site. The installation of the allotment boundary fencing and gate and the installation of drainage infrastructure. The remaining works comprise the completion of the allotments to the west and south of the original public right of way, the installation of the allotment buildings and the installation of landscaping and boundary planting. The development has necessitated the loss of semi-improved grasslands, rub, scattered trees and young plantation woodland and ruder or habitat. However, the proposed design provides for embedded mitigation avoiding effects on futures of ecological value with further measures to deliver compensation and biodiversity enhancements as set out in the previously approved landscaping ecology management plan. The plan also forms parts of the current application. The development would not materially impact on the character of the area, residential immunity or highway safety. Also to note that the revised application law also allows some retention of additional woodland around the boundary. Next slide. Some concerns have been raised by the Guilford Alotment Society about the revised layout and location of the allotment facilities and the attendant risk of crime and antisocial behavior. And these comments are reported in full in the officer report. The approved layout is shown on the left and the proposed revised layout on the right. And you'll see from this that the buildings have been moved from the southern boundary due to the realignment of the boundary to the northern part of the boundary. And this is where the Alotment Society have raised concerns that the revised building location materially obstructs the line of vision between plots and the entrance, which is a security feature of the original plan. However, this has been discussed with the applicant who's looked at options and has advised that the proposed layout is the configuration that best delivers on the site requirements, including turning space on site access for emergency vehicles and accommodation at the car parking. Whilst working within the confines of the site in respect to levels, trees and landscaping, which constrained the access track to the east. Whilst the proposed buildings will sit between the allotments and the entrance, this will be the case for only a small number of the plots immediately adjacent. And there will be surveillance of the entrance and car park from all other plots and views through the buildings. The technical team has subsequently met with the Alotment Society to discuss the project in further detail. And this has resulted in amendments to the internal layouts of the allotment facilities. A designated liaison officer has been appointed to manage the transition from Bellfield into the new allotment sites and will remain in position until North Moore's is fully handed over. The design allowed to the proposed allotment facilities, storage office space and toilets, have subsequently been updated in consultation with the allotment society since the submission of their comments in November last year. Furthermore, a condition is proposed to address concerns about security, which requires the implementation of a written scheme for the reduction of opportunities for crime, including details of locks, lighting and CCTV. Next slide. Some pictures of the site to show the work that's been undertaken to date. First slide shows the access way and the boundary fencing. Next slide. Next slide shows the gates, which have been erected to the site. Next slide showing the work on the car park and in the distance, in the rear, the sheds that have been erected on the allotment plots which have been provided to date. Next slide. And a further image showing the allotment sites, which have been constructed to date. And the final slide showing, again, a longer distance view of the allotments and the woodland planting around the edge of the site. Officers are satisfied that the changes to the planning application did not deviate from the scheme previously approved by planning committee in June 2020 and that it is in accordance with the development plan. The officer recommendation is to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the report and the revised highways condition set out in the late papers.
• Thank you. Thank you. There are no public speakers for this application and the officer recommendation is to approve application 21P01, 882. Would any member like to speak on this application? Councillor Smith.
• And the main concern I would have about this is obviously the discussions and the dialogue with the allotment society. The way that the report reads sort of gives the impression that this is an ongoing discussion, an ongoing dialogue to try and resolve their issues and obviously the main issue that I can read from this is one of security and safety for the allotments and the allotment users. So would I be correct in saying that this is a discussion that's ongoing with them and it's still open to sort of some tweaking as the development progresses? Thank you.
• Yes, that's correct. As I've set out in the late papers, we have had some further amplification from the applicant with regards to the liaison that's taken place and the liaison officer is there to work with the allotment holders during the transition and the move from the existing site. As said, since the submission of the comments which are reported in full in the report, there have been some further changes to the layout of the buildings to meet the requirements of the allotment holders and the development of the security strategy would involve liaison with them with regards to the measures that have been taken and ongoing monitoring of that. So there would be continued opportunity for review of that in the future. But I think discussions are ongoing and work is ongoing to ensure that the move is as successful as possible.
• I believe that we have got the liaison officer in the room with us. Would you like to come and join us?
• Or I don't mind this side.
• This side?
• Yeah, sorry. Thank you, yes, 'cause you're probably speaking not a ward councillor.
• Okay, thank you for just either of those microphones will be fine. And thank you for catching my attention. And yeah, if I can give you three minutes to address this, that would be really helpful. Just want to turn on your microphone when you're ready. Thanks.
• Hi, I'm Nikloa or Nikki. Some of you might know me as a park ranger. I am the liaison officer with give bar council and gas. We have ironed out quite a lot of issues. With the security, we have padlocks on the tool fencing and the gates and everything. We are looking into some kind of solar wifi for cameras, which I can honestly say works, 'cause I use it personally, done stables. So I know that works. Yeah, and we're just working extremely closely with gas. I saw Phillipa this afternoon. We had discussions about other bits and pieces down there. So, yeah.
• Oh, that's really helpful. Thank you so much, Nikki. That's all right. Thank you very much. It's really helpful to gain more insight into what happens outside of this room. So thank you very much. Councillor Bill Bay, thank you.
• Thank you, Madam Chairman, just again to a clear. So what we're actually approving here is, I think this is my words and not trying to put words in people's mouth. Work in progress, but unlikely to be major conceptual change to what we've seen from these slides and the presentation. So really what I think what I'm hearing is there will be some tweaking, little in the way of major conceptual change. And therefore, we are effectively approving a majority proposed scheme, but not quite there, just with some fine tuning. Am I correct in that? Thank you.
• I think I'm just gonna ask Claire to step in and clarify absolutely what we're talking about here. Thank you, Claire.
• Yeah, yeah, it's obviously particularly important giving the, you know, the council is the applicant here. So what Joe's been describing is that there's various conditions within those conditions and the discharge of those conditions as sort of remaining, refining of what I think Nicky's really ably described to you will take place within the context of conditions. So there's no change to the plans or anything because as a planning committee, you are being asked to approve the plans in the same way as you are asked to approve plans of all other applicants across the borough. And the approved plans that are set out are those that will be approved. And if those plans change in any other way, they would have to be done in the normal way through section 73A or 96. So hopefully members that just confirms to you exactly what you're being asked to approve this evening.
• Thank you, Council Smith.
• Just a final sort of slightly niche question, if you like. I noticed that there's some bike spaces here on this site. Is there any possibility that we can have colored? I'm keen on starting a trend for having covered bike spaces. So the way it rains your bike, asking for a friend, obviously. Is it possible that could be considered for sites such as this where we're installing, where we ourselves are installing bike spaces? Thank you. Members, I think you can only determine what you've got in front of you. In your capacity as Councillors, you may wish to have discussions in other forums around how we ensure that we are delivering the most sustainable developments possible as the Council or scaring permission for others to deliver. But I think that's conversation in for another context.
• I was just going to add, there is a condition, condition 12, which requires secure covered parking for the bicycles. So there is a requirement for covered parking for bicycles.
• I remain corrected.
• Thank you.
• No, the one thing that was strengthened this time round were the highways conditions in terms of pedestrian access to the site and the provision of bicycles. On page 44, and a charging point for an electric bike as well.
• Thanks, I was looking at a completely different one. Does any other Councillor wish to comment on this application? In that case, following the debate, I move the recommendation to approve application 21P01882 from the chair. Do I have a second, please? Councillor Williams, thank you. We'll now move to the vote, which we will. Sorry, I've just been reminded again by people paying attention. No, thank you. To remind you that we are voting to approve an application subject to the amended conditions which you can find on the late sheets. Do you have any questions about those amended conditions? Okay, so we are going to vote to approve this application based on those conditions. I'll move to the roll call now, please. Thank you very much, Sophie.
• Thank you. Councillor Richard Mills.
• Four.
• Councillor David Bilbay.
• Four.
• Councillor Kate Taylor.
• Four.
• Councillor Bailão-Actar.
• Four.
• Councillor Dominique Williams.
• Four.
• Councillor Stephen Hives.
• Four.
• Councillor Howard Smith.
• Four.
• Councillor Lizzie Griffiths.
• Four.
• Councillor Maddy Redpah.
• Four.
• Councillor Verstking.
• Four.
• Councillor James James.
• Four.
• Councillor John Shaw.
• Four.
• That's 12 and you know how sweet.
• Approved.
• The application is approved. Thank you very much, everyone. Can I please draw your attention to the planning appeal decisions on page 177 of your agenda? Are there any comments that anyone would like to make on that Councillor Actar?
• Just to brief on good result, three dismissed, one new one allowed, so well done. Thank you.
• Getting there, ladies and gentlemen. Any other comments? In that case, this is the end of the meeting and may I ask that we end the webcast. Thank you and good evening, everyone.