Transcript

Good morning. Welcome to this month's meeting of the Rother District Council Planning Committee. I am Councillor Brian Thracent, Chairman of the Committee. The Committee is required to consider all applications that come before it against national and local planning policies, where these policies appear to conflict with each other. The members are required to use their personal knowledge and judgement to come to a decision for the benefit of the District as a whole. It should be noted that the Planning Committee is not a public meeting, but a meeting that the public may attend. The Rother District Council has a public speaking scheme which allows members of the public and others to address the Committee on a particular application. All details are available on the RDC website. For those in the Chamber this morning, there is no fire alarm test scheduled for today, so in the event of an alarm, all persons in the Chamber are asked to leave by the nearest fire exit and reassemble outside in the front car park. It is important that you remain there long enough to be accounted for. We are joined in the Chamber this morning by the following officers, Kemi Arifieviemi, the Development Manager. I panic every time. Kirsty Cameron, Legal Advisor. Edwin Cork, Planning Officer. Michael Vladimir, Planning Officer. And Ruben Heywood, another Planning Officer. In helping with the meeting itself, we have two officers from Democratic Services, Julie Hollands, the Committee Secretary, and Eleanor Drew, who is looking after our webcast. That's it. On to the agenda. A reminder, please, to members in the Chamber to make sure you turn your microphones on before speaking, and almost more importantly, turn it off when you have finished. At some recent meetings, people in the public gallery have found it difficult to hear what is being said. And when I started this morning, I already had somebody at the back cupping their ear to hear what I said, which is why my volume went up slightly. The loudspeakers appear to be working correctly, but it will help if members make every effort to speak clearly and directly into their microphones. Right. Agenda item one. Minutes. Do I have your authority to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 30th of May as a correct record of the proceedings? Thank you. Thank you. Item two. Apologies for abstinence and substitute, Julie. We have apologies from Councillors Bayliss, Mrs Cook, Gordon and Grona. Councillor Field is standing in a substitute for Councillor Mrs Cook and Councillor John Barnes is standing in a substitute for Councillor Grona. Thank you. Gender item three. Any additional gender items? No, there's none. And for any withdrawn applications? No, there's none. Thank you. Agenda item five. To receive any disclosures by members of disclosable pecuniary interests and other registrable and non-registrable interests in matters on the agenda. The nature of any such interest and details of any dispensations obtained. Also, if any member considers themselves predetermined on any matter coming before the committee today, they should declare it and leave the chamber at the appropriate time. I will start the ball rolling by declaring a predetermination, as I did last time on agenda item eight as a ward member for Bexhill Qhurst. And I originally called this in, so I will be handing over to the vice chair for that and leaving the chamber. Are there any others? Councillor Field. Thank you. Item nine is in my ward. I have in the past spoken against this particular development. I don't think this application is the same as that, although it is attached to it. So what I shall do is I shall say my piece as ward member and then leave. Thank you. Any others? So simple a Councillor field, but also created a problem. Thank you, Councillor Field. There's no other. You're reminded to repeat that before that agenda item comes on. As will I. Item six, the planning applications index. The final page of this shows the applications being considered today. Just let you know, because of what I've said previously, I'm changing the order of the agenda so that I can hand over to the vice chairman at an appropriate time and leave the meeting in good time to fulfill an important family commitment. So we will deal with agenda item seven on which we have public speakers, then agenda item nine. Then I will hand over to the chair to Councillor Stanger to deal with items eight and 10. The planning committee members understand that planning meters, planning matters can be very emotive, especially for those directly affected by the outcome. Nevertheless, I would ask everyone within the chamber to remain calm and courteous throughout the meeting. Thank you. Agenda item seven application are twenty twenty two one one one eight P. Cottage Lane development adjacent to Westfield proposal is an outline for up to 20 dwellings with new access from Cottage Lane. This was called in by a ward councillor for decision by the committee rather than through delegation. And the recommendation is it be resolved to grant outline planning subject delegated subject to the provisos shown on page six of the agenda. The officer in this case is Edwin Cork, if you please. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, members and members visited sites and surrounding area on Tuesday. An update sheet, together with additional comments submitted by the parish council, was circulated yesterday, I believe. The application relates to an approximately one point one eight hectare parcel of unallocated land, which lies to the north of the village on the eastern side of Cottage Lane, which is a historic route way. It forms southwestern part of a larger parcel of land, which extends up to Mill Lane to the northeast. When the application was originally submitted, the site and adjoining land to the northeast were used for Christmas tree cultivation and had been for over 20 years. The land has since been cleared of trees. There's an aerial photograph, just put the cursor over that. So site you can see is. Yeah, this area here and you can see the former Christmas trees. Where my cursor is. Site is located outside of, but immediately adjoins the development boundary for Westfield. And the site here is where the wording West, who is that's effectively where the site is. So it runs down to the development boundary to the south below that. It's in the countryside and is also within the high wheeled national landscape. The site is not in an isolated location as it is adjacent to existing residential properties to south west and north, including dwellings in Fernie Close along Cottage Lane and Mill Close. Outline planning commission is sought the erection of up to 20 dwellings on the land with a policy compliant 40 percent affordable housing proposed. At this stage, access is the only matter for which approval is sought. And this is proposed to be from Cottage Lane opposite the shared driveways that in turn is cottage and ash cottage. The application is accompanied by a site layout plan, which is on screen now, and that shows a 20 unit housing scheme comprising a mix of two, three and four bedroom dwellings. This is an illustrative site layout plan only if outline planning commission is granted the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the housing development and matters that will be detailed and secured at reserve matter stage. Two offsite parcels of land are proposed for biodiversity net gain. One of these is the adjoining lands to the northeast and the other is located adjacent to Cottage Lane, some two point four kilometres to the northwest of the site. The committee report sets out the main issues to consider in determining whether outline planning commission should be granted. These include. It's your hands again is your headphone. They're working, yes. For those watching online, there's an internal hearing system, and it seems to have gone down at the moment. Members who use it are struggling to hear me when we've sorted it. Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello. Testing one, two, three, four. It appears that the system is not working. OK, and we will all speak. The system isn't working. No, I'm sorry about that. Sorry for the interruption. Back to you, Mr. Gore. OK, so we just set out the site and the proposal. So we're then on to the committee report sets out the main issues to consider in determining whether outline planning commission should be granted. And these include the principal residential development in this countryside location, whether the site is a sustainable location for new housing and impact to the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Having particular regard to the high-world national landscape in relation to the principle of development site is located in the countryside, where schemes such as this are not normally permitted as development plan policies seek to focus new development within defined settlement boundaries. However, the council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of housing. This means that the policy restrictions relating to development boundaries are presently out of date. As a consequence, this planning application falls to be considered in the context of paragraph 11 D of the National Planning Policy Framework, which means granting planning permission unless the applications of policies in a national planning policy framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole. This does not mean that housing schemes, which are unacceptable on sound planning grounds, must now be allowed. However, it does add weight to the benefits that potential additional source of housing supply would bring when determining the planning balance. Turning to the issue of whether the site is in a sustainable location. It is located at the edge of the settlement, approximately 500 metres to the north of the village centre. Access to the housing development would be from cottage lane, which is subject to a 30 mile hour speed limit in this location. The site is within walking distance of the services and bus stops in the village. However, some sections of cottage lane are without a footway function as a shared surface. This is acknowledged by the highway authority, who have advised that the site is not ideally located from an accessibility perspective. Nonetheless, given the relatively close proximity of the site to the village centre, the proposal could not be refused on accessibility grounds. This is subject to the provision of a 40 metre length, two metre wide footway to the south of the access with the connection to the nearby public footpath 27. Upgrading footpath Westfield 28 between cottage lane and main road. Upgrading of the bus stops either side of main road near Westfield surgery and the provision of an associated pedestrian crossing point. These offsite works can be secured by Section 106 agreements. In relation to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, it is considered that a sensitive landscape led development would provide an opportunity to conserve and enhance the landscape and see the beauty of the High Ward National Landscape in this location. The county landscape architect has advised that the site is more closely related to village edge and character than the wider High Ward National Landscape. And this is evident by the close proximity of nearby residential properties. Moreover, until recently, the site was used for Christmas tree cultivation, which was not typical of the High Ward National Landscape. The expectation is that a reserve matter stage, the design principles of building for healthy life and the High Ward housing design guide would be followed to ensure the development reflects intrinsic High Ward character and is embedded with a true sense of place. A number of other matters are addressed in the committee report, including housing mix, amenities and neighboring properties, highway and transport impacts, blood risk and drainage and biodiversity, etc. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to all these matters. With regard to the proposed site access and cottage lane, the highway authority has confirmed that this is acceptable. In terms of the planning balance, this is not a situation where the impact of the proposal on an area of particular importance. In this case, the High Ward National Landscape provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. The so-called tilted balance therefore applies. This means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole. As the council cannot currently just demonstrate a five year supply of housing, the provision of up to 20 dwellings, including up to eight affordable units, would help to significantly boost the supply of housing in the district, which should be afforded substantial weight. There are also other benefits, including some short term benefits to the construction industry and further economic benefits from the spend of future occupants, which can be given moderate right weight in favor of the scheme. The proposal would deliver a minimum 10 percent biodiversity net gain and would result in upgrades to a public footpath and two bus stops near Westfield surgery. A new pedestrian crossing point on Main Road would also be provided. Money would be generated through the community infrastructure levy and new homes bonus could be approximately £168,480 over four years. Against this, there would be the loss of grade three agricultural lands. However, the proposal would not result in a significant development of agricultural land and nor would it result in the loss of high quality grade one and grade two land. As such, the loss of grade three agricultural land is given limited weight against the proposal. Taking all the above into account, overall, the adverse impacts of the scheme would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole. Accordingly, on this occasion, other indicate considerations indicate the decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with the development plan and therefore is recommended that outline planning commission is granted. This is subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement which would secure offsite highway works and financial contributions, affordable housing provision, custom self built provision and offsite land for the biodiversity net gain. Thank you. Thank you, Ed. Now that the officers has presented his reports of the committee, we now move on to the public speaking section of the meeting. We have three speakers registered today. Each speaker will have up to five minutes to address the committee based on their previous written submission. New information cannot be introduced at this stage of the proceedings. I will interrupt anyone who is still speaking at the five minute mark and the first speaker, please, if you come on and introduce yourself is Jane Clark. Clark of Westfield Parish Council. Hello, everyone, and as the chairman says, I'm the chair clerk of Westfield Parish Council speaking against this application for the parish council. So, yeah, would you give me the one minute warning? Thank you. OK, this site was not chosen in the DASA less than five years ago by officers, deeming it not suitable for residential development due to its location outside the development boundary and it being poorly related to the main core of the village. That statement still stands a very similar planning application just up the road in broadway for 20 houses was turned down at appeal in December 2023 and a new planning application for 15 houses was turned down by rather officers in February 2024. There is a huge similarity between these two sites. This appealed site. The inspector comments the council has a two point seven nine year supply of deliverable housing. However, the harm to the high willed provides a clear reason for refusing the development. Therefore, there is no need to refer to the test in paragraph 11 of the framework. The presumption in favor of sustainable development does not apply. So why does this not apply to cottage land, which is so similar? The officer has argued that the damage to the high willed is acceptable. Yes, it is outside the development boundary. It's in the countryside. It is a great three agricultural field. However, in the recent draft local plan, it states that the A&B has no grade one agricultural land, none, and only two point five percent is great, too, which means ninety seven point five percent of the A&B is great three. So great weight should be given because it is a loss of good quality agricultural land use of Christmas trees, but also potato farming. Previously, the report states the proposal would change the character of the landscape from countryside to suburban residential. This development is not near any suburban properties. There are actually only four properties along the boundary. And these are semi rural and rural. Also, Cottage Lane is a historic route way. And as the officer states, this development would change the character of this route. So what is happening is a rich piece of agricultural land within the A&B is becoming a service suburban development and changing the character of the historic route way to suburban. Attempts have been made to try and mitigate and fit policy to present the site as a sustainable location. But it's not, which is why it was not included in 2019 DASA. Highways admits that the site is not ideally located and then list improvements which cannot be achieved, including installing a two meter wide footpath for 40 meters. There is not the space to do this down Cottage Lane. You can't tarmac over the public footpath 28 or upgrade it as this is land gifted to the community held in trust by the parish council trying to cross at the A28 at this section is an actual death trap. We have recent speed survey showing cars on average exceeding the speed limit between 36 and 38 miles an hour, especially coming out of the village. And it's a straight piece of road. You cannot upgrade the bus stops and hopefully the committee would have seen how narrow the footpath is on the A28. Also, this site was cleared and is under investigation with the Forestry Commission, who has said in an email we can confirm that appears to the Forestry Commission that an offence has occurred and we are minded to serve a restocking notice. Clearing a site before permission is granted is a material planning consideration. The planning officer admits he cannot tell if this clearance resulted in the injury or killing of protected species. The preclearance survey on the website notes the site should be considered to be of local importance for nature conservation. Further studies were recommended as the site had potential to support brass snakes, slow ones and common lizards, which are protected species. Despite all of this, the officer gives no way to any of these issues and largely ignores the potential damage to wildlife. Finally, over 20 national and local level policies, including six from the High-world Management Plan, are not being complied with. The High-world not commenting on the site doesn't mean the application doesn't go against these policies, which should be given great weight as set out in policy DN2. They're not even mentioned in the officer's report. As we said, there is no presumption for development due to the level of harm to the High-world and the number of objectives going against the High-world Management Plan as well as Ros's own core policies. It's clear harm to a historic routeway and loss of agriculturally rich land. We do have to state suitable sites in Westfield for development, as per the DASA agreed less than five years ago. The Planning Inspectorate state in the Broad Oak appeal, the DASA is not out of date, nor is the development plan. It's not a sustainable site. The improvement suggested is not achievable. It's been pre-cleared with no confirmation about the level of harm on the local wildlife and the state is an important site. And furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape of the A&B. So on balance, this development should be turned down. Thank you. You've obviously spoken here far too many times. It is becoming a bit of a reoccurence. You've got your timing down to a fine art. Thank you. Are there any questions for the Clerk? Councillor Byrne. Thank you, Chair. You say the site was previously used for potato farming before it became a Christmas tree plantation. How long ago was that? I couldn't tell you have to ask the applicant. It was a Christmas tree site, but if you look at the there was a an environmental survey done before the site was cleared that's on the website and it gives you very clear photographs of the condition of that site. Thank you. It's easier for me because I'm facing straight on, but could Councillors remember trying not. Jane won't think it's rude if you're not looking at her. Look at her to start, but then face your microphone. No, no, no, no, no. That's I think everyone can see you, but it's not everyone can hear what a counsellor is saying if they turn away from their microphones. Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Barnes. Chairman, I'm not sure whether I'm directing this question to the right person, but I would welcome the parks if the park can fill out a little bit of our knowledge of this particular route way, because the high will is preserved, not merely because of its aesthetic qualities, but also its historic qualities. And there appears to be some implication in the officer's report that we are likely to find Roman remains, which presumably relate to that route. I suspect that is probably more a question for the officer. Until James says she has all I would say is I know that particular part of Cottage Lane has been untouched. There aren't footpaths down there at all from memory. I'm probably going to get shot if I get this wrong, but from that end, the foot passer, the other side where there is residential development, it is incredibly narrow and it's quite straight as well. It does go down a dip and then around the corner, but that's why we said it doesn't meet with the high willed management plan and their objectives. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. Remember, don't speak to me or to the speaker, speak to the microphone. Thank you, Jane. Just before I call the next speaker, I've just noticed that Councillor Maynard is online, who is the ward Councillor. And he's got his hand up, so I'm just going to ask him why he's got his hand up. Councillor Maynard. It's whenever you want me to speak, Chairman. I just wanted to alert you that I was in the meeting. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Councillor Maynard. Right. So the next speaker is Graham Fifield from GRF Planning, who's the agent for this application. Mr. Fifield. Thank you. And thank you for giving me the opportunity of speaking to you today. The concerns of residents regarding development is recognised. Change is often not welcome. However, the fact remains that there is a serious shortage of housing, including much needed affordable housing in this country in general, and rather is not immune from it. Your own document, the healer, acknowledges that even if all the sites considered suitable and available were to be allocated in the new local plan, there would still be a shortfall of housing to meet the current targets. Although the healer is not part of planning policy, the site at Cottage Lane is one that is being advanced as a potential allocation. The question, therefore, is where to locate these new dwellings that are needed. Over 80 percent or rather is within the designated nationally designated landscape. So unless all new housing is provided in Bexhill or Ryde, some will inevitably be within or modest extensions to villages in that landscape. National and local policies do not preclude housing development in such locations, but require it to be carefully controlled. The site is a Christmas tree plantation, and with regard to its contribution to the landscape, as the case officer referred to earlier, the East Sussex County Council landscape officer considered that it was not typical of the designated landscape and did not support any of the characteristics. By contrast, the point was made that a sensitive development could provide an opportunity to improve the landscape. Although only indicative at this stage, the layout that has been submitted with the application does demonstrate the scheme reflects these comments. For example, the layout is informal, with car parking areas behind the front walls of the houses so as not to be prominent. A circular turning area at the end of the cul-de-sac. Is proposed rather than a harsher hammerhead, together with open space and additional planting. It is the case that the previous shlar ruled out a much larger area of land extending northward into open countryside fronting Mill Lane as an allocation in the Dassault. However, the current application site is approximately one third of that much larger area and relates far better to the existing village and the existing development boundary. I have already referred to the benefits of providing affordable housing that arise from the development. In addition, the scheme will also contribute significant highway benefits, particularly for pedestrians. These include footpath improvements, improvements to the bus stop and the pedestrian crossing on the A28. The site is within walking distance at the centre of the village. Whilst Cottage Lane is a shared surface for part of its length, this is not uncommon in villages. The highway authority have not identified any serious highway safety issues. They have also referred to the very low morning and evening peak traffic flows likely to arise from the development. Concern has also been expressed about Westfield becoming very urban if this development proceeds. However, there are approximately 1100 households in the parish and up to 20 dwellings represents only a 1.8 percentage increase. Since the original application was submitted, the number of houses proposed has been reduced from 28 to a maximum of 20. This has resulted in a better layout, which I have already referred to. In addition, it addressed some concerns regarding the effect on residential amenity caused by the proximity of new properties shown on the original scheme. As policy requires, such amenities are not to be unreasonably harmed. Other benefits arising would be the provision of a minimum 10% increase in biodiversity both on the site and adjacent to it and elsewhere in the parish. Whilst this is not strictly required, given the date when the application was submitted, which predates BNG requirements, the applicant is keen to put such measures in place for the benefit of diversity. I strongly believe that the benefits arising from this scheme, including the provision of much-needed affordable housing, improvements to the highway network and biodiversity outweigh any concerns that have been expressed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fifield. Any questions for Mr. Fifield, please? Councillor Field and then Councillor Milne. Thank you. I was just wondering if I could have some clarification. You talked about footpath improvements. Do you mean footpath as in the technical sense of a public right-of-way or in the sense in which it is often used wrongly for a pavement or a footway for pedestrians? It's basically the improvements to the footpath that runs along the south side of the boundary, which leads to the A28. So it's a public right-of-way? Yes. Thank you. Councillor Milne. Good morning, Mr. Fifield. I think from the way in which you addressed this, you're probably already aware of the amendment that there has been to Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. And that was amended last year by the Leveling Out and Regeneration Act. And I'll just read those words out. And I think probably the way in which you've addressed this shows that you know the principle. We have to, as a relevant authority deciding this, we must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty. So we have to further the purpose, not just have regard to, but we actually have to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. Can you explain how your proposal will do that? I think the point was made quite well in the East Sussex County Council Landscape Office's comments that the site has previously existed made virtually no contribution to that landscape. It was not typical of the ARMB landscape. And that a well-designed landscape-led scheme could in fact achieve an improvement to the national landscape. And that's what we hope we have achieved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Barnes. John Barnes. You acknowledged, I think, sorry, good morning to you. You acknowledged, I think, in your presentation that developments really within the ARMB need to be strictly controlled. I just wonder why you are insisting on an outline application, which means that we have to buy things about layout, design, entirely on trust. And I'd be interested also if you would say what steps you've taken to establish that this site will be viable with the affordable houses that the number that you're promising. To answer your first question, obviously, an outline application is just that. And when reserve matters applications submitted, the council has full control over all matters, such as design, external appearance, massing, et cetera, et cetera. So it doesn't mean the different outline conditions granted that it automatically follows that scheme that will harm the ARMB will be approved. In fact, I would imagine the opposite would be the case. But there is still full control over all the matters, such as design, appearance, landscaping, et cetera. With regard to your second point, all I can say to that is the applicant is perfectly willing to enter into the Section 106 obligation to secure the affordable housing. Thank you, Mr. Fifield. Any other questions? I have got one following on from Councillor Barnes and that answer, which is given the extra costs involved in all the Section 106 suggestions from highways, how sure are you that you'll be able to deliver the affordable housing? Because that's a lot of extra costs that are going on to this development. At this stage, I know no detail costing has been undertaken, as I said, the applicant has no problem with entering into the legal agreement. Thank you. Any other questions? No, thank you. We now have Claire Baker on behalf of the. Good morning. No, don't worry. We don't we don't. OK, thank you. Good morning. My name is Claire Baker. I am the daughter in law of the applicant, Mr. Michael Baker. Our family has lived and farmed in Westfield for seven generations where they have grown and supplied their farm produce since 1905 and during the First and Second World Wars. This was to local towns and villages such as Bexhill and Hastings. More recently, this service continued to be offered by providing wholesale potatoes, a little down gardens during the covid pandemic. The owners of this parcel land are people born in Westfield and consist of Mr. Kevin Baker, a school teacher, a lecturer, Mr. Michael Baker, a potato wholesaler. This is Elizabeth Porter, who works in the NHS for the mental health services. We are not a faceless large developer. We are a local family sensitive to the community. Westfield desperately needs housing, particularly affordable housing for our children and for those of us, like many of my colleagues who work in the public services on modest salaries. Our village was not a conservation zone, nor with many listed buildings as a really wide range of services and facilities for its residents and is the closest village to the conquest and the large supermarkets. It is a thriving community which we are all very proud of. Our family has provided plots of land for housing over the years. Heathfields for 70 houses in the 1970s, three houses in Newcutt and 20 in stable fields. Some of the objectives to the application live in these developments. This is a modest development of 20 houses, which will bring much needed improvements to the village, like the pedestrian crossing across the dangerously fast 828, which the parish council has discussed the need for on numerous occasions, but cannot afford. We understand that people don't like change, but this small development uses and enhances low quality land, brings biodiversity improvements, brings a much needed mix of housing as required by the parish and the district councillors. Thank you for listening today. Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker please? No, thank you very much. I will now ask Councillor Maynard, the board councillor, who also called this in to address the committee. Councillor Maynard. Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. Good morning. I think that within the village, as you know, I've been district councillor since 1999 and I've also lived in the village all my life and quite clearly, whenever large developments come along, there's always a lot of debate within the local community. I would say this has probably been the one that has attracted the most debate, chiefly because of the concerns by local residents that it is not in the local plan. And when one talks about, obviously, what could happen in the future, we are somewhat with this application, putting the cart before the horse, because it is very clear to me, I should declare an interest by the way, Chairman, as a member of East Sussex County Council. So that's a personal, not a prejudicial interest. I think that quite clearly county have made their representations. I'm not satisfied that all the points of the county ecologist have been taken on board. But I think there is a wider issue here, both in terms of precedent and in terms of the effect on the OMB. Just because the land at the moment isn't in a particularly good state doesn't mean it can be enhanced without actually building out the area. I think we have to be very careful and reflect upon where Westfield sits on the border with Hastings. And in fact, there's been significant development in Westfield in recent years. In terms of the affordable housing, I think we can be very clear up front and honest about the fact that Westfield Down has in fact delivered most of the local need. And in fact, many councillors were well aware because it's in the local plan that there's another fairly large site within Westfield Parish that will deliver additional affordable homes that is already within the local plan. I think that there are significant issues with this particular site in terms of accessibility. I am not convinced or satisfied by the comments made in regard of pedestrian access to the village. I think that there are significant negatives in terms of possible light pollution for those houses that front Cottage Lane opposite the site as cars enter and leave the site. I think that we have to be very clear, as I say, that this is not within the local plan. This is a speculative application. And who's to say that it wouldn't be included in a future local plan? But as things stand, this is development within the AONB and as things stand, this should be refused. I think we've been very careful in the past. I remember so clearly, both in terms of the work that the Parish Council did when Westfield Down went to the last local plan, that there are incredible sensitivities within the village to make sure we protect the AONB. As things stand, as an outline application, I think Councillor Barnes is quite right. There are too many imponderables within this and it is outside the development envelope of Westfield. And I'm very clear as local member in the representations that I've received that I'm not satisfied that the access to the village would be good. I'm not satisfied that road safety in Cottage Lane, which is already something that both the Parish Council and the County Council have looked at in terms of enhancing pedestrian safety. I know that the applicants just referred to the A28. Well, Cottage Lane itself is in fact quite a dangerous road. And the clue is in the title. It is Cottage Lane. And that is the problem in terms of accessibility to the village. As things stand, therefore, I would urge the committee to turn this application down. Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Maynard. Right. We now start on questions for the officer, Councillor Mary Barnes and then Councillor gambling. Thank you very much. Everyone, one of the things that we haven't heard much about is what happened to the Christmas trees and what the Forestry Commission then said as a result of the trees being disposed of. From what I read on the report, it would look to me as if the Forestry Commission is going to take fairly punitive action. And that for 10 years, if they have to replant, there would be Christmas trees still on that site. That's part one of my question about it. How was the trees disposed of? Was it on fire? I mean, I'm just thinking of the pollution that went into the atmosphere. And why has there been no effort at all to continue the sale of potatoes? Potatoes actually enhance the soil. Any amateur gardener who has ever planted potatoes does it first to improve the soil quality. So why on earth is this, has that not gone through all the tests that we would normally accord to any change of use? Why are we still, why are we, it's all systems go housing. This cannot possibly be right. This is a rural area. That's an agricultural field. What efforts have the authority made to make sure it can't continue as an agricultural site? But above all, why was the, how was the Christmas, it must have been quite a large Christmas site. How was it disposed of and why? Thank you, Councillor. I'm afraid I can't answer the question why the trees were removed and why the applicant has decided to put in an application for the planning commission. That's entirely up to them to do that in terms of the Forestry Commission investigation. I did set out, I think, in the committee update that I've been informed that a restocking notice has been served. And I don't know what the details of the restocking notice are because I haven't seen them, seen it. So the implications are, yes, that the trees may have to be replanted for a period of 10 years. But what I would point out, what I've said in the committee report is that that's a matter that's dealt with under separate legislations planning. So we we we can still make a decision on the application. But but but the planning commission, if granted, wouldn't override requirements under the separate legislation. Why are we making a decision that can't be implemented? Because we have to deal with a planning application and we have to make a decision on it. Thank you, Councillor Galbally. Good, Chairman. This application goes against several of our policies, most of which have been detailed by Jane Clark more keepably than I can. I will point to one issue, one particular issue that concerns me. We have a duty to protect the AONB. We live in a very beautiful part of the country and it's our job to make sure that as far as possible, no harm comes to us. In fact, paragraph 182 of the NPPF states, great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing, as Councillor Meir has already pointed out, and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in areas of outstanding natural beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. I do not understand how the report can tell us that it is not considered that the impact of the proposal would provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. That puzzles me because it's in direct contradiction to addition by, what's his name, planning inspector Jay Hobbs in an issue and an appeal concerning the Old Manor House in Broad Oak, where he stated the council only has 2.79 years supply of deliverable housing. However, the harm to the HWNL, the AONB as we knew it, provides a clear reason for refusing the development. One of them is wrong and with great respect, I suggest that the officer's report is wrong in this issue. Mr. Fifield would argue that this is not a particularly pretty bit of land. Well, that may be so, but paragraph 182 does not allow us to pick out bits of land which we don't like and say it's not a very nice bit so we'll build on it. Building 20 houses... Is there a question? Sorry. Yeah, I will. I'll come to it. Quickly please. Building 20 houses does not conserve, much less enhance the landscape and scenic beauty in areas of actual and natural beauty. So why did the report state that it is not considered the impact of the proposal on the area of particular importance at AONB would provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. The question is, why would you say that? We said that because we've got an opportunity here for the developments proposed, saying an outline with access is the only matter that's for approval at this stage. But we've got the opportunity here to secure a really well-designed landscape that scheme on the site that has regard to the high-world design guides. And so we've got an opportunity to get a development that's in keeping with the AONB and objective S2 of the high-world management plan says a new development needs to reflect the intrinsic high-quality carrots and placemaking embedded with a true sense of place. And we could achieve this on this site. When the Reserve Matters application comes in, we can really secure a high-quality site that's landscape-led. A high-quality design development that's landscape-led with lots of planting on the site, buffers, and so it would sort of fit in with the landscape. And just in terms of the general context of the site, it's immediately adjacent to the development boundary and the development would be viewed in that context as a modest extension to that. Chairman, so you consider that building 20 houses would conserve and enhance the landscape? I think given the context of the existing site, which is the use of Christmas tree plantation, which isn't typical of the high-world landscape, given the proximity of existing residential development and the fact that this new development would be seen in that context, and the opportunity for us at the Reserve Matters stage to scrutinise the design and layout of the scheme and the landscaping, that yes, we could secure a high-quality landscape-led development here, which would enhance. Thank you. I thank you for your reply and disagree totally with it, but I thank you for it. Thank you. It's Councillor Field, then Councillor Stanger, then Councillor John Barnes. Councillor Field. Thank you. Yes, Councillor Maynard reminded me I should have declared I'm a member of East Sussex County Council, and furthermore, I sit on the Planning Committee, which is where unresolved objections to TROs end up. It's personal, it's not prejudicial. Thank you. Councillor Stanger. Yeah, just a question for officers. What difference would you see between this and the mentioned other site of Broadache, in Westfield and Broadache? The Broadache site relates to a different settlement, the Broad open, this is Westfield we're talking about. The Broadache site is for development of a parcel of land that's to the south of the linear Udamoor Road development, so it's actually separated and detached from that development, so it's almost in isolation of the development on Udamoor Road. And at that time, or for that application, there were details of design and layout included in that scheme, and it was clearly an overdevelopment, or the defensive development on the scheme was too much for the site, and they were unable to provide appropriate landscaping on the site. So that wouldn't be the case here. We would have the opportunity to secure an appropriate density of development on the site with landscaping included in the permit. Yeah, the other thing about how does it viewed, you say the edge of development boundary, so what is that viewed in the context of the planning spectrum? How is that viewed on the edge, do they say that in context of the development boundary, or just as a general rule, or is that the application by application? It'll be case by case, but I mean, this site, members visited the site on Tuesday and would have seen the proximity of the site to the development in Cottage Lane. They're firmly close just to the south, and then we had Mill close up to North as well, so you could see very much that it's immediately adjacent to existing development. Moreover, Cottage Lane itself, and further down Cottage Lane, you can see that you've got how, there's a mixture of houses, the pattern of development really is sort of houses that are set back and facing Cottage Lane. And then in amongst that you have coldest access development as well as that sit behind those dwellings in the frontage, and really this development would be viewed as a, as I said before, modest extension to that. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Councillor John Barnes, then Councillor Milne, then Councillor Mary Barnes. Councillor John Barnes. Yes, I think we must explore a little more this concept of alongside. The development boundary, by definition, they're going to be a great many sites alongside the development boundary. Indeed, at this moment, there is one in Burwash in my ward, which has twice been turned down now on a planning application. Because it is outside the development boundary. I just wonder, and the word technically occurs in 1.2. I just wonder why you think this is only technically within the countryside. When, in fact, we have drawn on development boundary as recently as 2019. Yeah, it is in the countryside. I can't say more than that. So. Mr. Cork, I have to speak this way. I think you've, to some degree, already answered my question. But could we have the plan up again on the screen? The one of the development boundary. Well, the on which I'm really asking a question about the surrounding development. OK. That one? Yes, yes. I was really, I wasn't able to go on the site visit on Tuesday. But I have been, I went yesterday and had a good look around myself. Yes, yes, of course, it is in the countryside in the sense in which you explained it outside the development boundary. But going further up Cottage Lane, there is a great deal of development. Very well, very well concealed, I have to say. But when you actually go there, there are a surprisingly large number of surrounding houses. And the question really is, I think you've probably answered it. You know, you feel that this relates well to the existing development, which are already substantial. Is Councillor Mary Barnes next? Then I've got Councillor Stanger. Just a few questions about the footpaths. I think it says that there's a footpath between Cottage Lane and the A28. I couldn't actually see anywhere in the report as to how that's going to work. At one point, I think it was talking about 40 yards, 40 square metres or 40 yards of tarmac. Tarmac is horrible stuff to be putting down in an environment. Can I also ask the question, because the clerk mentioned one of those is going to go over land which is owned by the parish council. Can you explain that as well? The 40 metre footpath, first of all, would be just outside the site entrance. And that would link up with the public footpath number 27. Are we talking about the Cottage Lane entrance? Yes, the Cottage Lane entrance to the site, the 40 metre footway, is at the front of the site. I'll just see if I can get the first. Where the site entrance is, and it just runs slightly down to where basically the development boundary starts here. If you will remember that we walked up public footpath 27, it was just a mud path basically. And we had a look into the site. Public footpath number 28 is just here. And we did walk along to footpath 28 and I believe Councillor Stander had a walk up there just to see where that went. And this is the footpath that we are talking about being upgraded. I've been told by the Highway Authority that that is a possibility for that to be done. So I don't know any difference to that I'm afraid. That's why I've been advised by the Highway Authority and they've spoken to their rights of waiting. Then asked about the top north east corner of the site. Which appears on the plan, which admittedly is only an indicative layout. That appears to be an opportunity to go from that top north east corner. Further on into the site beyond it. Is that true? I mean, what would happen there if that if that was all extended? And are we looking at only phase one of a development? OK, so the northeast parcel of land, which is outlined, you probably can just about see it's outlined in blue. That is one of the offsite parcels of land that would be secured for biodiversity net gain. So that would be secured under legal agreement and that would have to be managed. Well, one of the conditions says that that would be managed for 30 years for BNG. So there wouldn't be scope for that to then be developed. Thank you. Before I start on the repeats, I'm going to ask the question because you mentioned highways. I'm just going to say because you used the word from the highways report. So I'm just going to say there is a question at the end of this. We have often commented about the lack of details we get from highways on this week. On this one, we seem to have had an absolute avalanche. And I'm wondering from you if you think the highways have gone beyond their remit when their report says. The proposal could not be refused on accessibility grounds, so they're doing our job for us. And you actually also repeated in your thing that it could not be on. So I think the words should should be there. But do you think they've overstepped their mark in this one and the sheer length of conditions that they want? One of six to make this even slightly sustainable seems a bit over the top, but have they exceeded their remit? I mean, I don't think they've ever said the remit. They're just saying what they think. The requirements they're asking for are essentially a footway outside the site, improvements to a public footpath and improvements to bus stops and also pedestrian crossing. I don't think that's unreasonable. Members on site. We did we did walk in Cottage Lane. I didn't personally didn't think it was highly trafficked, but members might take a different view. And I think we said it was maybe a five minute walk to the village centre. So it's not that far from the village centre from an accessibility point of view. But I think it's not that far from the city centre. That's why I think it's not that far from the city centre. I think it's not that far from the city centre. I think that's why I think it's not that far from the city centre. I think it's not that far from the city centre. I think it's not that far from the city centre. Thank you. I've now got five more counts. Hello. Yeah, this is still questions for the office. There isn't debate. What weight should be given to the housing and economic land availability assessment that was done recently? I think it was last year or the other acronym for it. But the housing and economic land availability assessment, what weight should be given to that? It's it's a background report, so it's not part of the development plan. It is a consideration, but it's the view of officers. Officers have obviously drafted that. And of course, that's not being accepted. It's just a document. Councillor John Barnes. I think this question is probably more for our legal advisors than for Mr. Chairman. But I am interested in the way the report deals with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. And I have consulted more than once in previous months and years since the Monk Hill or Surrey Hills judgment was made in the court of appeal. Which struck down, in my view, the presumption of sustainable development in the area. That doesn't mean that you don't have to strike a balance, but it is the tilted balance that the appeal court judgment dealt with. We appear now to be importing a new distinction. We're saying that the two sub clauses of paragraph 11. The first one says, if you show that there is damage, then that is an absolute and you should turn it down. But we're then importing into 11D against, I would have thought, the natural meaning of the word. The notion that if it doesn't pass subsection A, then the presumption of tilted balance is brought back in to 11D B. Now, I would be interested to know why we are differing from the Surrey Hills judgment on that. As if by magic. So, obviously, I've got the section in front of me. So, paragraph 11 talks about a presumption in favour of sustainable development. And the tilted balance, as it were, is initially triggered by the fact in 11D. Where it talks about there being no relevant development plan policies or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date. And then footnote eight talks about where the local planning authority can't demonstrate a five year housing land supply. So, initially, the tilted balance is triggered. So, that talks about granting planning permission unless, and that's where you go into D1 initially. The application of policies in this framework that provide areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. And then you have footnote seven that talks about where there are, where there's a clear reason for refusal due to the harm to the, in this case, the ARMB. If, as I said, the officer has clearly set out in his report why, and obviously this is a matter of planning judgment in terms of the weight to be attached, that he didn't feel that there were sufficient reasons to refuse the application. And it's at that point that you then go on to consider sub-paragraph two of 11D where, so only where the, isn't a clear reason for refusal, you then, and because, I'm sorry, 11D1, it disengages the tilted balance. And then 11D2, you're talking about where the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole. And that's when the tilted balance is then engaged in terms of assessing what the benefits and the negatives and the positives for the application are. So that's where you've got the two, and you, if one is triggered, you don't go on two, so if 11D1 is engaged, there's no grounds with clear reasons for refusal, you don't go on to consider two, it's only if there are no clear reasons for refusal with D1 that you then consider D2. If you look at the wording of 11D little b, it doesn't talk about the tilted balance, it talks about a balance. And that's, I'm not quite clear why we are re-importing the notion of tilt at that stage. And as I read the Surrey Hills judgment, they said no, the tilt doesn't apply within the ARMB. That doesn't mean you don't have to strike a balance under 11D little b, but it's the notion of tilt that we've imported which worries me, and this is not the first time we've done it. So you're talking about 11D, albeit you refer to 11B, that refers to plan-making as opposed to decision-making, do you mean 11D sub-paragraph one and two? Maybe we should discuss this outside the meeting, but I have to say, as I read 11D little b, it doesn't bring in words like significantly and devastatingly outweigh, it's about striking a normal balance. I mean in the Monk Hill decision, the benefits were considered to be insufficient to outweigh the harm to the ARMB in that case. So the harm to the ARMB was considered to be a clear reason for refusal under 11D1. But we can have discussion about the case at another time if it would assist. Thank you, Councillor Barnes. I've just made a note here, we need a training session on MPPF 11 just for the whole session to get a common understanding. Councillor Maynard, I have seen your hand, I will get back to you eventually. How's the fields? Thank you, just a quick question and I think it's probably for Kirsty. I've been in these meetings before and been told there's no such thing as precedents in planning. Therefore, are references to planning applications before or else relevant to what we're discussing? Obviously, planning history is a material consideration, that's been set out in the report. Do you mean precedents in terms of appeal decisions? No, I'm meaning members of the public have talked about what they consider to be similar applications, for example Broad Oak and the result of that application. But I've always been taught that we consider the papers on the table in front of us and that precedent isn't an issue. So therefore, are those considerations relevant and if so, why aren't they discussed in detail in the report? Obviously, Evelyn set out early in the response to a question, we consider each application on its merits and the Broad Oak case, the Broad Oak application was different in terms of the applications that is in front of you, so consider each one on its own merits. Right, thank you. Yes, we need to be consistent and it just seems to me of the old adage, doesn't it, two lawyers and at least three opinions. I'm still not awfully clear, but thank you. Thank you. I've got Councillor Gray and then Councillor Creason. Councillor Gray. Thank you. Just a quick question for Edwin. We know there's a huge shortage of housing, particularly affordable housing in Westfield. If this site is refused, are there other sites that are available in Westfield? There was the Westfield Down development, which Councillor Maynard referred to earlier on, that's 100% affordable housing development that's built. And then you have the Moorhurst site, which we had an application on for the care home, that's allocated to 40 houses, sheltered housing. And I think as part of that, affordable housing is required as well, so yes. Thank you. Councillor Creason. Thank you. As another rural Councillor, because Rye is considered rural, we've had people trying to nibble bits out of the ANOB around the town outside of a development boundary, as have other colleagues in that sort of area. And we are custodians of the natural beauty and all that stuff. My view is, if we're going to be asked to do something quite controversial like this, I want more detail. You can't just say, because I mean one of the things I've found, although I'm fairly new at this, is that the more detail you get, the more decent assessment you can come to. I find this, we're being asked to do something, these people could change their minds before they've finished, and we could end up not doing the right thing. I'm very concerned about that lack of clarity. Question. The question is, why haven't we got the information that we need? I understand what Edwin was saying, sorry. But at the end of the day, we can't make a firm decision. I know our firm decision at the moment is to come back and get the sort of definition of what these folks want. But it seems to be that the social housing element seems to be put there. It comes across as if it's just, let's do that. I am concerned, very, very concerned about this one. Thank you. We're still questions for officers at the moment. Let's just ask Councillor Maynard if he's got a question for the officers, if not, and there's no more questions, we'll start the debate with Councillor Maynard possibly. Have you got a question, Councillor? I just want to raise three points of clarification. I do think I'm not here to, I'm not going to ask for another bite of the cherry, but it's just three points of clarification. Certainly when the officers mentioned the other allocations in Westfield, he's forgotten the Woodland wayside, which is the other one I was referring to, which is a large development. It's also against the high-willed management plan. And furthermore, although we're told it's not a planning consideration, I believe a restocking notice has been served. And again, I don't think I'm being unfair in making those points. It's just simply points of clarification so that you can make a quality decision. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Maynard. I detected there were no more questions. That's a good a part, only to start with the debate. So thank you for that. Anyone got any observations now? It's open for debate. Councillor Barnes? I think these are always very tricky because there is a strong case for knowing that we require housing. Whether or not we think the withdrawn government target of 733 houses a year was ever realistic, we all know that we're not even building up to our own target. So there is always a case in favour of development, and there's no doubt that 20 houses with a proper affordable component would be of benefit. But what worries me is the arguments that have been used to outweigh the harm to the RMB. By definition, 20 houses with the associated parking and the other paraphernalia that goes along with development is bound to do substantial harm to the field in which it is built. And if it's in the RMB, that is by definition doing substantial harm to the RMB. What worries me is we're getting to something which I think is deeply undesirable, which is rather than actually having a proper development plan, where we decide to add to certain of our settlements, fund developments, we're getting a constant nibble at the edges of our villages. Sometimes, for instance, we turn those down flat, even though it's a single house, presumably because we think a single house is worth having. But then we get to saying, well, maybe. But then we turn it down again. And these are officers decisions. They're not ones that I have brought to the committee. And yet, at the same time, I can show you one of those in action. But at the same time, suddenly we get to this more substantial development, by definition therefore doing more harm, and suddenly it becomes desirable. And it worries me because it throws the whole purpose of our local plan, which is to identify sustainable settlements, service centers, and to actually add properly designed, properly planned developments under control. I think this is primitive. It's not that I necessarily think that it is wrong in principle that there should be development here. But I think we are not in a position to make that judgment. And certainly I wouldn't want to make that judgment without knowing a lot more about the detail, the design, how it blends into the area. I think what we see already on the other side of the road is the way that these sort of developments have gone on in the past, and they don't really fit in with Westfield, to be perfectly honest. There are a different set of designs all along, and we are going to add to that. So at a time when design is becoming much more important, when layout is also important, lighting, all of those kinds of things, I just worry. We've got a proper Regulation 18 consultation going on for our new local plan. This site has been volunteered for that. This is in the consultation process. But suddenly we are being asked to prejudge the consultation process, not in detail, simply on access. And I have to say I have some doubts about the access, because to my mind it is rather too close to the crest of the hill for there to be proper visibility for the traffic. I would have preferred the access, if it's going to be access to the site, to have been rather nearer the lower end, rather than opposite the house, opposite the drive, opposite. But that's because, as a driver, I know how important visibility is as you come over the crest of a hill. I would have wanted a chance to query our highways expert on the precise location of this access. But for all these reasons, I am really very hesitant about reaching any decision at all today. I'm minded, I must say, given all the uncertainties, if we have to take a decision other than this is premature, to go against. But at the moment, I would prefer to rule that this is premature and rule it out on those grounds. Thank you. Councillor Field. Yes, thank you. I do agree with Councillor Barnes, to some extent, it is premature. And that partly is the issue with accepting outlying applications for developments of this site. And I know Councillor Barnes has said in the past that Westfield meets Housing, and I think we would probably all agree with that. But we are here, and I always understood that outlying applications are really saying this site can accommodate this number of houses, whatever is detailed in the application. And the fact that we have misgivings, we're not sure the affordable is going to stay, we're not sure what the design is going to be, is not actually, in my view, a matter for this meeting, because we are being asked to determine whether the site can take the housing. All the rest is down to the detail, which I'd very much hope this committee was involved in. Thank you. Councillor Meer. A number of observations, really, rather on the one hand, this and on the other hand, that it's difficult. I completely take Councillor Barnes and Councillor Field's points about this not being in the local plan. We have a plan led system and then we have paragraph 11, which says that we have to go another way. And I find that very difficult to live with, but that is what we have in front of us. And we have to try to make the best of it, I think. But I really wish the rules were otherwise, I really do. I find it a very curious concept that a suburban housing estate can enhance the national landscape. I mean, there may be all sorts of very good reasons we need to house people and so on, but to enhance the national landscape seems an extraordinary statement. But yet at the same time, the policy and the legislation must be contemplating the fact that it can. So we have to consider that. We have a site which is rather degraded by the growing of Christmas trees, the cutting down of Christmas trees and so on. I don't like that being used as a reason for saying that this is enhancing the national landscape, because there are ways of improving the landscape without housing. It's rather like letting a listed building fall into disrepair and then saying, oh, well, we can have UVPC windows because it's already gone. I don't think that is right. Against that, of course, we have the advice of the landscape architect that there would appear to be no harm to the national landscape from doing this. The full application point is a very good one. I would love to have seen this come forward as a full application, but unfortunately, I think we have to decide on what is in front of us. And this is an outline. Again, it's an unsatisfactory feature of the planning system. I'm rather reassured by Mr. Cork when he says that the application is up to 20 houses. And because I'm so familiar with permissions being given or in the local plan for about 30 and then you get the application for 40 or 50. So I think up to 20 is fine. The actual density seems to be perfectly acceptable. And at around that number, I think it's all very achievable. Of course, there is nothing to stop the applicant coming back tomorrow with an application for 40. There's nothing we can do about that. But we again, we have to deal with what we got in front of us. And I think the number of up to 20 is sufficiently flexible to allow a good design to go forward. Those are my observations, as you see, I haven't really made my mind up yet. Thank you, Councillor Stang and then Councillor Byrne. Thank you, Chair. Just I agree with a lot of colleagues have said it would be better to see, especially as it's a kind of controversial and need to be more design and for plan and would it give us more kind of comfort in ensuring that the OMB is protected national landscape. But of the balance, I do believe, as I walked along to the bus stop and I walked along the lane towards the village, it is quite a not built up, but it's quite a residential area. And it would only add to this rather. It wouldn't be an isolated development within the countryside, in my opinion. I think the affordable is great and hopefully it can be delivered if it goes ahead and also the foot bath and the bus access. So currently I'm sitting there. I'm minded to agree with the officers. Councillor Byrne. Thank you, Chair. I'm a bit confused as to which debate we're having. I believe we're being asked to approve this purely on access grounds currently. And yet we are not the arbiters of access. We've got a report from highway saying it's OK by us with the enhancements to the footway and the footpath that we talked about. So if we're not the arbiters of access and highways are, what's left for this committee to actually decide on? What we're talking about now is the type of development. So we're really debating are we are we looking at this sort of development to be is there anything that could come forward after the outline application that would make that would make the application acceptable? So and we haven't got any of those details. So just correct me if I'm wrong at the moment, if we approve, we're saying we approve access, all we're really doing is agreeing with county and they're the people who own the decision. And yet it doesn't preclude us at a later date from saying, even though the access is OK, this particular scheme that you've now brought forward with design, with layout and with numbers is not is not to our liking. We want to refuse this. That seems to be the situation. I'm worried that we're being asked to take the first step and that subsequent plans will be will be couched in terms of when you've already said access is all right. So surely at least one of these schemes is all right. It seems that a softly, softly I hesitate to use the word devious, but I think it's a tactical approach that's seeking to achieve more by this application than really meets the eye. So are we are we really being asked to second guess highways on this? Thank you that it's Council Barnes and Council Gandy, but I'm just because that's trigger the thought for me. And this might be a ridiculous thought, but that's it's very true. It's about access. And yet highways have added all this list of other things to make the site suitable, not the access suitable, but to make the site suitable. So I'm not quite sure where that fits in because. Highways have done all that list of other things that make the site acceptable and they've not restricted their comments to the thing that we're saying today, which is the access. But that might be totally model thinking and I'm quite prepared to be shocked by the office. Yeah, we're considering access, but we're also considering the principal residential development as well. So so, yeah, is it in principle and acceptable location for residential development and highways have advised that it is subject to meeting their requirements and offsite works. Thank you. I've got Council Barnes and Council Gandy, Council Barnes. I think one of the problems with highways, they never turn up to answer questions. I have quite serious doubts to the driver about the precise location of the access, but that that I can't explore because the officer isn't here to tell me whether he has considered the point where he had a contour map, whether he's visited the site. I've no assurance on any of those things. So my doubts about the access, which is the one point that we have other than we're being asked to approve in principle a development outside the boundary on the grounds that we have a land supply problem. I if we didn't have a local plan already out of Regulation 18 consultation, I will feel a little happier about the timing of this, but we are in danger of preempting the very consultation process that we're currently undergoing. And we would do so in the teeth of the view of the parish council, a considered view, a reasoned view. And I have to say that by definition, a development of this nature must do harm to the A&B. The question really is whether the benefits outweigh that harm, but we all know when you look at a development of this size that you have parked cars, probably two, these are three and four bedroom houses, no two bedroom houses. We're told at this moment that much was vouchsafed to us. That means two cars a house, almost certainly, in a rural area. So no details here about parking. That again affects the layout and the site. I know nothing about that. The impact of those cars on the landscape could be substantial. And then you get all the paraphernalia of a development. And I know, living in an isolated settlement in the countryside, that nevertheless I create lighting problems at night. I do have paraphernalia. I actually have at the moment a swimming pool. That is not enhancing the A&B. I just do not think we know enough, and in principle I don't think we should be taking a decision today, so I'm prepared to move the fusil. I want to just point out that we're considering not just access, but more importantly, the principle of development. But Edwin has just done that, so I shall hold my peace. Councillor Bray. Thank you, Chair. I take heart from the fact that by the time this comes back, looking at the houses actually built here, we will have our new local town, which has the principle of green, so the core. So I think that, at the moment, we're just looking at how we can improve it. And just to get this into perspective, I know we need to do our utmost to protect the national landscape, but I look at North Bexhill, and it's not national landscape, but it is beautiful countryside. In my world alone, we've lost about 350 houses built on Washington Park with plans to build, the same amount of areas. We are losing. There is a plan for 800 houses in the city. We are just losing. It's all falling on North Bexhill. And this is just 20,000 in Westfield, which is urgently limited, so I'm minded to approve. Councillor Stang. Yeah, and I'm getting to that position now that I think with the outside buying a diversity net gain and the other measures, hopefully with the more detailed plans coming forward in the future, I would like to move a motion to recommend the officer's motion. The first mention of the motion was to catch the barns to be used, but it wasn't put and it wasn't seconded. So the motion has been put to accept the officer's recommendation that has been seconded. That was the very question I was discussing up here. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Yes, so I will take that as another learning lesson for me that I should have asked if anyone was seconding Councillor Barnes's motion to use. So technically, as that was the first motion that was put, I will now ask if anyone wanted to second Councillor Barnes's motion to refuse. And that's Councillor Gagnon. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Who thought today was going to be straightforward? [BLANKAUDIO] So what I will do subject to the discussion going on behind my back in a moment is to adjourn. So that Councillor Barnes and Councillor Gannley can meet with officers and myself to discuss the reasons for the refusal, which will then get put to the committee for a vote. But I will just find out what the result of the discussion behind my back was. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] We will take the motion to refuse first. We will now adjourn for 15 minutes to allow for Councillors Gagnley, Barnes, and Creaser, who wanted to second it. You're welcome to join us in the chairman's office next door to discuss the reasons for refusal that can be put to the membership for a vote. We'll be back at half past 11. And can I just remind you not to speak about the application as it's still live, except obviously those people coming in the office with me. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. I must remember to say in future a break till sometime after, not the actual time. Right, so we're now coming to a motion to oppose the officer's recommendation to refuse and to refuse the application. The reasons being given are that the proposed residential development by reason of its intrusion into the countryside of the high wheeled national landscape outside of the development boundary would cause substantial harm and irreversible damage to the landscape and scenic beauty of the high wheeled national landscape. Contrary to paragraph 182 of the national policy, national planning policy framework and RDC policies OSS4, RA2, RA3 and EN1 of the core strategy and policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the DASA. [BLANKAUDIO] Chairman, could I, by reason of its scale and intrusion into the land. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Right, I'll have another go. I'm sorry, I've got to say that again. So the reason is the proposed residential development by reason of its scale and its intrusion into the countryside of the high wheeled national landscape outside of the development boundary would cause substantial harm and irreversible damage to the landscape and scenic beauty of the high wheeled national landscape contrary to paragraph 182 of the national planning policy framework and policies OSS4, RA2, RA3 and EN1 of the core strategy, policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the DASA. [BLANKAUDIO] All those in, yes, Councillor Thiele. Sorry, could I ask some clarification because I didn't really understand that. Because the scale of the development, the application is up to 20. So the scale of the development isn't defined in the application. [BLANKAUDIO]

Beam me up, Scotty. [BLANKAUDIO] Well, you were the second of the amendment. Would you like to just nod on a wink to Councillor Barnes and take scale out, possibly? I think on balance, it's necessary to say that, because up to 20 is up to 20. It's not going to be in single figures, is it? [BLANKAUDIO] It could be, but we'll leave scale in. [BLANKAUDIO] One moment. [BLANKAUDIO] Right, so scale is in there. I'm not gonna read it again unless anyone actually needs it read again. [BLANKAUDIO] So all those in favor of rejecting the officer's recommendation and refusing the application for those reasons, please show. [BLANKAUDIO] Those against. [BLANKAUDIO] That is lost, therefore we come to Councillor Stanger's. No, it was quite simple. Councillor Stanger's motion, seconded by Councillor Gray to accept the officer's recommendation. To grant outline planning permission delegated subject to conditions and the completion of section 102 agreement to secure vision of offsite highway works as required by East Sussex County Council Highway Authority. Financial contributions as required by East Sussex County Council Highway Authority. Affordable housing provision, custom self-build provision, and offsite land for biodiversity net gain. All those in favor, please show. One moment. Councillor Creason. [BLANKAUDIO] Did I say 102? [BLANKAUDIO] I was just checking you were listening. I do apologize. Section, no, it is important. Section 106, thank you. All those in favor, please show. [BLANKAUDIO] All those against. [BLANKAUDIO] That is carried, thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] So planning permission therefore is granted. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm now going to stand down from the chair and let Councillor Stanger take over the rest of the meeting. And I think he's going to revert to the original agenda so that the people here for 16 high and close don't have to sit through another one. So thank you, thank you for your contributions this morning. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Give me one minute, I'm just adjusting everything, one minute. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] And we'll move on to now on the agenda. Item eight, application RR2023, 627P, 16 height and close Bexhill, erection of a new two-story shallow bungalow with access onto Collington Lane West, an erection of extension to existing dwelling. And the officer presenting the application, which was deferred in an April meeting, will be Ruben Heywood. Over to Ruben. Thank you, Vice Chair. Good morning, councillors. The application consists of a proposed new dwelling and an extension to an existing dwelling in Bexhill, which was considered by the planning committee at the meeting in April earlier this year. Members deferred a decision for officers to review the potential for an alternative access to the site with the applicants, in order to alleviate potential impacts on the cottages opposite. Next slide. There we go. The applicants assessed the potential for a revised access to the west, as shown, but found that visibility would be impeded by boundary treatment to the west. The local highway authority, East Sussex County Council Highways, were re-consulted for a definitive view and raised an objection to the revised access, concluding that the visibility spade to the west is obstructed by a neighboring fence, which falls outside the applicant's control and therefore cannot be secured by condition. As a result, the applicants wish for the application to be considered with the access as originally proposed at the April meeting, which did not raise an objection from the local highway authority, subject to conditions. At the April meeting, members also requested that a condition was added for electric vehicle charging, and this has now been included in the report under condition 18, which requires the installation of an EV charging point prior to occupation. Members also suggested that the removal of permitted development rights could be reviewed for a strict further development. If this is something that members still wish to include, a further condition could be added for the removal of Class A, E and F permitted development rights, pertaining to extensions, outbuildings and hard surfacing. The application is therefore to be considered by members as previously submitted to the April Committee, with the additional condition for electric vehicle charging. Thank you. Thank you, Reuben. As there is no public speaking this time, as it's a deferred application from April, we will move on to the award members, but I don't know if Andrew Heywood is online? No, and Councillor Drayton can't speak because he said he's predetermined, so there's no award speakers either. So we'll move on to questions for the officers. Anyone question for the officers? Councillor Field. Yes, thank you. We were all very concerned at the April meeting about the effect of headlights on the properties across the road, which is why it was deferred to discuss the question of access. And I don't understand, unless I misheard you to say, that the question of access is outside the control of the applicant, because surely when their architects design premises, they design where the access goes. So I really don't understand that comment. Thank you. So I think what was being said there is that the revised access, the visibility displays that would be required, would require the removal of a fence, which was in neighbouring ownership. So that was why that couldn't be secured in this case. Councillor Mear. Yes, a question for the officer. As I understand it, the gardens, the amenity space around the new dwelling and around the existing dwelling will not comply with robbers policies on those amenity issues. Is that right? Thank you. So the rear garden for the proposed dwelling would measure just over nine metres in depth, but would have quite substantial width. And the garden for the existing dwelling would have a side and sort of rear element which would exceed nine metres in width. So paragraph 4.71 of the DASA does state that in a limited number of cases, the rear garden slightly less than 10 metres in depth may be accepted. And this is considered to be one of those cases. I was looking to see where the side amenity space is on the new dwelling. There's no side amenity space on the new dwelling. It's just the existing dwelling has got that little bit behind the proposed extension. Thank you. And when you talk about removal of permitted development rights, you're talking about garden sheds and the like. Yes, so class A, E and F relates to extensions to the dwelling and outbuilding and also hard surfacing. Thank you. Tony Ganley was next, Councillor Ganley. But we've just got Councillor Andrew Hayward online, which is the ward member. Would you like to say something, Councillor Hayward? Yes, thank you, Chair. I just had a few points that I was running through, spoken with residents past. I just want to draw attention to some of the material considerations. There is things such as shadowing on to number number 15. And also the now part of the lane where the proposed driveway is proposed to come out onto. I don't know whether anyone has seen behind the hedge, but the ground on the opposite side of the hedge slopes downhill. So if any vehicles were to exit the driveway, you'd get some shining into the property opposite. Just to clarify there. Just to clarify, obviously the deferral was for the access, so we can we just bring it towards the access. Thank you. That would be the safety issues, really, with the three pathways that come out on the road. It's used by all children. So a number of blind residents use the road to get to important places because they feel it's an area that's simply a bit quieter than the main roads. And I think we just felt that the narrow part of the lane didn't really feel like it could support a driveway. If something like this were to be put through, then similar properties might also consider driveways on the quiet lane. I believe that's everything I've got to say. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. On to Councillor Ganley. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. In April, we deferred a decision in order to review the potential for an alternative access to the plot. The specific concern was, and a very serious concern, was the question of headlights of the proposed development. Coming out of that proposed development and shining directly into the rooms of the cottage opposite. I can't find anywhere in the report which addresses this very important issue. Would you could you tell me where that's addressed? That problem is addressed in the report. So we haven't addressed that specific concern directly, but the application was deferred review the access being new, which we did go back to the applicant to try and come to some solution, but we weren't able to. So that's why the application has come back as it is. Right. So we're left with the same position we were in in April. And that is we do not like the idea of a car with headlights exiting from the proposed development and shining straight into the presumed living room or bedroom. I don't know what doesn't really matter which one is shining directly into the rooms of the cottage opposite. Yeah, that is a problem for me, a major problem. Councillor Grey, thank you. You understand that. What I'm really confused about just by moving it because it's not a big area. I should say that I do know this lane very well, it's a lovely, quiet lane to cycle along to avoid the more busy roads. This is a very narrow bit of this lovely country lane. And so I can quite understand why we've got 48 letters of objection for this lane. So can you explain why it's safe a few feet further down? Thank you. I think the what members before the application for was for consideration of an alternative after. But this access that is already been assessed by highways was considered to be the most appropriate to allow safe ingress and egress out of the site. The alternative access that was considered to the west highways raised objection to it because of the of the location of the of the of the new access and the inability to be able to provide that visibility to be able to see the sort of east and west of the of the road itself. And the fact that the neighbouring property to the to the west is not in the or the land within the west is not in the ownership of the applicant. So they cannot control or say no boundary wall or boundary treatment should be reduced or things like that. So there won't be that opportunity to be able to address the disability issue if that was given the fact that the land doesn't belong to the applicant. So that's why they came back to say that on the basis that they would not be able to control the boundary treatment along that boundary. The opportunity to achieve a safe and ingress and egress out of the site with good disabilities there will not be achievable. And that's the reason why they raised objection to that new access. Thank you. Any further questions? We got Angela. Councillor Meara. Thank you. Yes. A question about the boundary treatment along the lane itself. I think I saw illustrations showing hedging. I'm trying to find that in the condition. Do we actually have a condition that hedging will be planted along the front? Thank you. So I believe there was a landscaping plan that was submitted as an amendment prior to the April meeting. That included post and rail fencing across the front boundary with hedging planted as well. Councillor Barnes. If Ruben could turn to the landscaping plan. There seems to be quite a normal amount of hard standing. Am I right or wrong? Will that be permeable or not? I understand it's grass creeks. Yes, I believe that's actually grass creeks. Any more questions for the officer? No. OK. Thank you. Move on to the debate. So we'd like to open the debate. Councillor Gandy. Well, I think we're left with the same problem we had in April. That is, who wants to turn your mic off directly into shining directly into one's bedroom? You might be up to all sorts of things in that bedroom. I don't know if it's the bedroom or the lounge, but I wouldn't want headlights shining into my room. And I'm quite sure the people who live opposite don't want it either. I would move approval. Sorry, I wouldn't. It's just made it clear, Councillor Gandy, you're moving refusal. Do we have a second? And the ground for refusal. So we have a second, Councillor Gray. And so we need. We need to link that with a clear planning reason. I think material policy. We need to a general. Just positive development. Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what you mean in terms of impact from headlight. We're talking about one dwelling and you've got other houses that have massive front amenities spaces or parking in there that would have equally the same impact. So we're talking a matter of maybe a few nights in the winter where it's that quick. I'm trying to understand to assign in terms of the level of impact or the level of harm that you are sort of pulling from this to for the reasons refusal. I'm just not in a position in that sense. Well, I'm not in a position to know what the the occupant of the proposed development, how often he or she would would exit from the property. It could be once in a blue moon. It could be every night. I don't know if perhaps he might be working nights. I don't know. No wonder. How's the feels. Thank you. Thank you. I do find this very difficult. I understood that there's a concept of immunity, which I never really find definitions quite complicated to understand. But are we not talking here about detriment to the immunity of the neighbors? Yes, we are. But what I'm trying to understand is, yes, in terms of the headlights, you're talking about light pollution. So into what degree of harm is that from a singular or two vehicles entering into the site would have that harmful impact on the living conditions of the people or residents opposite the site? I need to be able to have that substantial harm coming up from what you're saying. Well, we're talking about a new development of a four bedroom property. In addition to the existing property, so it's two properties. OK, so it's a four bedroom property that is proposed. There could be more than one person existing. Could be two. The four bedroom is more likely to be two cars and they could be exiting. Who knows. I'm still struggling because I mean, I have a four bedroom house and I have one car, so it doesn't sort of add up that because it's a four bedroom house, there will be more than one car coming in and out of the side. I'm just trying to demonstrate here the level of activity in terms of coming in and out of the site is a significant enough to result in a light pollution that will be harmful to the living conditions of the of the residents living opposite the site. That is where I'm trying to tease out your concerns in terms of getting to that point. Thank you, Councillor Meer. Yes, I've got crazy observation. An answer to some of what he will say. The lane at this point is very narrow. I looked at it on Google Earth. The lane is very narrow at that point and the cottages opposite are very close to the road on their side. So we are talking about the headlights being a very close proximity to the existing cottages opposite. And I think it is also having a detrimental effect on the remaining rural aspect of that lane. It is an unfortunate degradation of the environment. Obviously with the lane, highways haven't objected, so that means that we can't go down the highway route necessarily. I wasn't going down that route. I was talking about the nature of the lane, not highway safety, but the appearance and the tranquility or the sense of rural ambiance. Councillor Creason. This proposed house is right on the pinch point. I did go to the site and those two little places across the way are considerably lower. So you are going to have more of an impact in terms of that because where it is they are very close to the road. So the pinch point there and then the greater activity of coming to and from. And of course it is further along you go, which we all did, is that it widens out. So quite a lot of those great big houses going that way are a bit further back. So it is not such an impact, but it certainly would have an impact on the properties. It would have a detrimental effect on their amenities, I have to say, unless of course you are an exhibitionist. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor John Barnes. I am probably going to make myself very unpopular with colleagues. I have got every sympathy with what people are saying because the location of the house's opposite is very close to the front boundary. And they will undoubtedly be affected. I was in favour of deferring. I have to say though, I do not think we are going to win this one on inspection, on appeal. I just don't think the grounds are sufficiently substantial to say that you are going to have an unbearable effect on those two properties. I wish I didn't have to say that, but I think somebody has got to be realistic about this. Thank you, Councillor. Anyway, Councillor Fields. Thank you. I will always in my circumstances ask myself, whose planning committee is this? Is it the council's or is it the inspector's? And does the inspector is a whole bunch of people, not one we can identify? Are we really right to be second guessing what that organisation might say? We should be here judging this appeal on the merits or lack of merits as we see it today. Thank you. Yes, we can reply to that though, Chair. If you are thought to be being unreasonable, I just would want to know from my colleagues what weight they are putting on. We are assuming two cars, I assume, and we are assuming that they will access mostly in the daylight. So we are talking about night time access and at that stage people will have curtains drawn. So I just don't see, I'm sorry, that this objection is sufficient. I'm not saying it's not true, I just don't think it's sufficient to bear the weight of refusal. Thank you. Anyone like to add anything to the debate? So we have a provisor and a seconder to refuse. We haven't got to any. We're going to need to adjourn to get a clear planning reason to refuse before it can be put to the vote. You must not talk to anyone about the application or it's still alive. We're going to go to. So we say ten minutes, just so it be totally gandling poly gray. Come together and find a substantial reason for refusal. This would unreasonably harm the amenities of the occupiers of that property. Contrary to policy OSS4 of the core strategy. We have a proposer. The vehicle, I would say vehicles plural. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough to toting you. Councillor Barnes. Chairman, we've only dealt with the light issue. Are we not allowed to introduce any new thoughts on how we feel about the development? I believe it was deferred for access and the light issue, trying to move the access. It would have sorted the light issue. Maybe it was moved along, but the highways have said no, because there's a fence on the neighboring property that cannot be out of the applicant's control. So they can't insist on any conditions on that. So that's why they refused the second option. So what we're looking at is a sort of box-sticking exercise, because I do accept what Kemi is saying. It's quite right, you know. But how come we not look at overdevelopment of the sites? The fact is, you know, it is. The last meeting. I don't think we actually are that keen on the idea of that. I certainly am not at all keen on the idea of seeing that building put there. It is totally out of character. And I would love to look for a reason that would stick. And I do accept that Kemi's explanation is that it's not going to stick if it comes to an appeal. But if we could introduce what we didn't possibly go into last time, which was a long conversation about how we felt about that building and whether it should be there. I'll seek advice. I think if members remember, I did ask the question before it was deferred last time, if that was the only reason you wanted it deferred on. And that was the only reason I was given, was to consider an alternative access to the site. I did ask the question because I did say that if it came back, would members make a different decision? So if you wanted to refuse it in the last meeting, then you have the opportunity to do so with other reasons with it. Now we've gone back to the applicant to just consider access only. I think it would be highly unreasonable to refuse it or add additional grounds to refuse or because or even consider the I mean, it is down to members, but it will be unreasonable. Thank you. So are we ready to move to a vote on the table or do you want some more debate on this? Next, we made the motion, I've read up the motion and we have a proposal tone again, the council again, Lee and a seconder Councilor Polly Gray. All those in favor. A refusal. Sorry, this is for refusal based on the reasons I read a minute ago to do with light pollution and amenities. All those in favor or refusal. All those against. One against and I'm saying. Just to be clear for people online, it's eight for refusal, one against and to abstain. Thank you. That is refused. And we go on to now next application, which is I'll give you a chance to leave the room if anyone would like to run to the next one, which is the Bigwood London Road battle. As a field, thank you. Now, then, I know you're chairing this meeting, but I've got a plan. I declared an interest which I don't think I actually have and said I would speak as a board member. Long discussions with our solicitor here have highlighted the fact that our constitution doesn't actually let me do that and probably needs looking at again. So what I propose to do is have my say now before anyone's heard anything from any officers or anybody say what I came to say, which wasn't much and then go safe in the knowledge that I know my presence here will not influence any of you. Right. This is your wish and your rights. Right. So what I would say is that this is a development in the area and be it's kind of a rare breed cattle breeding center with a barn. And what they're proposing to add on to it in the area and be is a bit of incremental development in the form of a wet room. I can understand why if you're there because there's no house, you might want a laboratory. I don't think a wet room is personal to a farming enterprise. I would therefore hope that it wouldn't be granted, but I can quite see you make up your own mind. And I'm going to thank you. Thank you, Councillor fields in a few minutes for council field to leave the chamber and we'll continue. We are. So moving on to the application, which is our R2 0 2 3 2 6 0 6 P land at Big Woods, London Road Battle, a demolition of existing barns and construction of a replacement farm as an alternative planning application track and hard standing as existing. This is recommended to be resolved to plant for planning permission. And the officer is Michael. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Councillors. This application relates to an agricultural holding located on the eastern side of London Road Battle, as can be seen on the site location plan and Google Earth Energy. Some members may be familiar with the site as in June, 2023 members granted approval for the reaction of a barn at the site, which measured 30 metres in length by 15 metres with a ridge height of five point five metres as seen on the next slide. Members determined that the barn was reasonably necessary for the purpose of agriculture within the unit and found that the bond would not harm the high wage national landscape, nor the amenities of neighboring properties. And as such, planning permission was granted subject to conditions. This application before members is similar to that previously approved and seeks permission for the reaction of a barn, which would measure 30 metres in length by 15 metres in width with a ridge height of five point five metres. The main difference between the two schemes is that this current proposal intends to erect a small lean to extension on the north eastern corner of the barn, which would be used as a plan state, a welfare area and would contain a wet room, toilet and rest area. During the course of the application, the scale of the thing two has been amended. Initially, the lean to measured seven point six metres by nine metres. Go back a couple of slides. And that's as was submitted and that measured seven point six by nine metres. However, this was considered to be excessive when compared to the scale of the holding. And as such, it was subsequently reduced in scale to measure seven point six metres by five metres. And as you can see in the next two plans with a ridge height of three point six metres, which represents a forty four percent decrease for what was originally proposed. And it is noted as terms of field mentioned, there is no dwelling on site and no alternative currently on site to accommodate any or all of the elements. And so a lean to structure attached to the barn to provide a rushing and respite facilities are considered to be reasonably necessary on this holding. And it is not uncommon for these elements to be provided on agricultural units. Furthermore, the size, scale, location of the barn has already been accepted under the previous application, as has the existing hard standing. The additional lean to as proposed in this application is similar in footprint to the existing detached structure it would replace and would be seen as a coherent addition to the barn. The proposal would be of a scale and design approach for its use and location, and as such, it would have a similar landscape impact to what currently exists and what was previously given approval by members. Given this, the proposal should not detract from the character or the appearance of locality or the landscape and scenic beauty of the national landscape. It is also not considered that the proposal would harm the amenities of neighboring properties due to distance between the barn and neighbors. Overall, the proposed replacement barn and additional lean to extension is considered of an acceptable scale and design for its agricultural purpose. The proposal does not recently harm the amenities of neighboring properties and would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of locality in the highway national landscape. As such, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you, Michael. We have Councillor Fielder, who is one of the board members, not here. We have no public speakers and the other board members, Sue Burton, is also not here. I don't believe. No, that's fine. So any questions for the officers? No. So into the debate and any anyone would like to add or move. So Councilor Cooper first, please. This is a question, actually, having had on stuff. We have a low inside our barn. Why does this one have to be separate outside? I don't understand that. Why do they need an amenity room if it's agricultural? Because sorry, because they're all indoors doing stuff like into English or whatever. Can you speak? But having had that kind of activity myself, I don't need to see why they want to keep upgrading it. Well, exactly. I got the bar and we just put toilet inside like everybody else does. Question for the officer. To be honest with you, I don't know. I would like to know. I would like to know why it's got to be outside and in addition. And he won't know that. And so the provision is actually in the form of an extension, as you can see on the on the floor plans, but would be attached to the barn. There is an opening to the barn. I believe it's in the form of an extension, not internally, as the majority of the internal of the barn will be used as pans. And therefore, a separate extension has been proposed in this case. But yeah, it forms part of the barn. It's not a separate detached building. It's an extension with an open and to go into the barn as the John Barnes. Yes, I think we looked at this in some detail and the case surely is made in 744. This is in some measure a replacement for an existing building. The. The officer has negotiated reduction in the sides, which I think is appropriate, the most troubling thing about this to my mind, but the modern largest is not that obtrusive on the landscape. It is the introduction of a septic tank, and that clearly is an important condition to put in. I may have my suspicions, but at the end of the day, we can only go on what is here. And we have put a very, very firm condition for it, which is agricultural uses only. In other words, any change of use would have to come back to us. So I think those safeguards, we really can't see this as anything other than a quite reasonable change to the existing planning commission. I have my notes, but I think on the balance of the conditions we ought to support this. Thank you, Councillor Mary Barnes. Well, actually, I can continue in the same vein, because I do remember this as well. It's a very small site. It's only nine acres. And I think that they are breeding and selling unusual, rare breeds. But at the end of the day, that's what they're doing and they're hoping to expand the business. So I hear what the one letter of objection says, which is, you know, it might be all right, but it might not be all right. I do have my doubts. I also don't quite understand why they do need this. I mean, is rearing 16 animals necessary to have a wet room? I really don't know. I'm not sure. Thank you. Anyone else would like to add anything to the debate? I can well see the need for a wet room if you've been up to your ears in what's it called? Manure? Then you want a shower and a wet room is ideal for it. Yeah, I fully agree. I really feel strongly that these agricultural, little agricultural businesses need our support. And we should be falling all over ourselves to help them. That is not to say we are what we do not apply planning rules and policies and regulations. But nevertheless, that is my feeling about agricultural council around him and his approval. Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Councilor John Barnes. Any more debate or we're going to move to the vote. So the vote is to accept recommendations by the officer. Proposed proposal. Councillor Andrew Meyer, a seconder. Councillor John Barnes. All those in favour. All those against. An abstention. That is 94 and one abstention. No against. Thank you. Item 10 of the agenda. To note the time of the date of future site inspections is Tuesday, the 16th of July at 930 to pass in a town hall. Thank you very much. We are now concluded this month's planning meeting.