Transcript

Transcript

Cottombeating, but I will not prevent us from being cursed as a respect for each other. This is between counselors and officers, and when we have external visitors as we do today, members of the public, I expect to be shown at all times. Questions and comments to be made through me, please. Thank you. So apologies for absence, please, Tim. Yes, thank you, Chair. We apologize for absence from Councillors Moroney and Richardson. Their substitutes are Councillors. I have no idea what it is for me, but I am going to do it. Councillors, Collins and Burton respectively, and also from Councillors Evans and Harland. Thank you, Tim. Declarations of interest, please. Councillor DIN. Thank you, Chair. I am being a bit cheeky because it isn't really declaration, but can I just say how brilliant it is to see the public gallery so full, which I am assuming is because we are now holding these meetings at five o'clock, and I am sure the Chair will agree with me that the two Councillors who suggested this must be absolute geniuses. Thank you, Councillor DIN. Councillor DIN. Thank you, Chair. Item number 9, I have several conversations with the—that is at number 5, the Gables, and also visited myself on Saturday. Thank you, Councillor DIN. Any other declarations? Everyone has had the supplementary report received today? Yes. We will have that. Okay, so we can move on to item number 4 in the agenda, which is London Road, and that's spirit is full. Thank you, through you, Chair. The officers' report starts at page 3 of the main reports back. Members' attention is drawn to the supplementary report for this item. This site is on the southern side of Longon Road, and is occupied by a terrorist building comprising commercial use for ground floor residential above. There is a garage court of the back, you can see at the back of the site and here. The rear part of the site is currently open and uses parking access by its local lawns, the neighbouring building. You can see the access here and some further photographs of the rear part of the site. On London Road, there are other terrorist buildings in mixed use, with commercial use of ground floor and with some residential use of bulb. To the west, there is a supermarket, as you can see on the left-hand side picture. To the south tennis courts, south tennis courts, you can see on the aerial picture here, and to the south there are lots of detached residential buildings. The site is not within a conservation area or subject to any site-specific planning policy designations. Planning permission is also to demolish the existing building, as you can see here on Longon Road, and erect one block of 14 flats up to 5 stores high, with commercial and ground floor to replace the existing building, and one four storey block of 11 flats to the rear. You can see that front block here, with floor plans. The dwelling mix would include 13/1 bed, 10/2 bed and 2/3 bed units. Three units at first and second floor of the rear building would be wheelchair accessible. You can see those markets are wheelchair accessible with the wheelchair user here, and over the left-hand side of the screen. The remaining 32 units will be adaptable, which means that they will be compliant with building regulation M42. All 25 units will have access to private amenities space, cycle and refuge storage will be provided at ground floor level, for each block, with separate cycle and refuge storage for the commercial unit. You can see on the screen here. An Oxford pedestrian and emergency vehicle is proposed as the western part of Longon Road front-ats of the site. The access will be here to the left part of the plan. The 34 unallocated parking spaces will be provided and shared between the 25 proposed flats of this development and the 24 approved flats, a total launch, a ratio of 0.71 spaces per flat. Access for this will be taken by the existing undercroft and will be controlled by a sensor operated green red light system at both ends of the undercroft. You can see an example of that system on the screen. The presentations from two interested parties have been received. One interested party rejecting one supporting the application. The comments have summarized in section 4 and page 6 and 7 of the report. As explained in detail, in paragraphs 8.1 to 8.18 of the officer's report, the proposal is considered acceptable by officers in principle as it will provide much needed additional housing within the city. The viability of the proposal was independently tested. Whilst on site contribution was not viable, a financial contribution in the late stage viability review mechanism have been agreed in principle with the applicant and the relevant heads of terms are section 9.1 paragraph A of the officer's report. The officers consider that the proposal will have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area as discussed in paragraph 8.19 to 8.31. Subject to conditions and existing mature tree, mature oak tree will be protected during the construction works and will be retained at the site. You can see the tree, the location of the tree in the visual on the screen. The proposed floods would meet or exceed the required minimum status. The accessibility standard and the main provision proposed are in line with policy requirements. Subject to the mitigation measures proposed within the submitted noise impact assessment, the acoustic environment for future residence is considered to be acceptable. Overall, for the reason stated in paragraph 8.32 to 8.47 of the report officers consider that the living conditions of future occupiers will be acceptable. Given the significant separation distances between the proposed neighboring residence of buildings and the communal nature of the nearest amenity areas, officers consider the proposal will have an acceptable impact on the residence amenity of nearby neighboring occupiers. This is discussed in detail in paragraph 8.48 to 8.55. Officers consider the proposal subject to conditions will have an acceptable impact on the highway network, highway safety and parking conditions in the area. The application is supported by a transport statement, which was considered by the Council's highway team and there is no objection to the proposal. The suggested conditions would assure that the proposed development would be acceptable in relation to waste management, drainage, energy and water sustainability and biodiversity. The head of stems which have been agreed with the developer are summarizing paragraph 9.1a in page 25 of the report. Having taken all material planning constraints into account, officers consider that the proposed development would be acceptable and compliant with the objectives of the relevant planning policies and guidance. The Council has a significant deficit in housing and supply, so the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development must be applied when determining this application. The test set out in the National Planning Policy Framework is whether any adverse impacts of planning permissions would significantly and be mostably outweigh the benefits when going to stay against the policies of the framework taken as a whole. The proposal will make a significant contribution to housing needs of the city. No adverse impacts would outweigh these benefits that have been identified. The officers therefore recommend that planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions in section 9.1, paragraph B from page 25 onwards of the report and the completion of the relevant section on six agreement in line with heads of stems in the section above that. Thank you Chair. Thank you. Mr. Webb, you have three minutes when you're ready to address the committee. Thank you. Thank you everybody. The reasons why I'm objecting to this is one, it looks like there is no parking for commercial staff and this will put parking pressure on West borough roads which are already overpopulated with houses and flats and parking. Many large flats developed on Westborough side and also along Chockel side London road, many commercial units have not been left and also been left to be unused. Number two, no development shell commence until details of traffic calming and associated signature signage has been submitted to an agreed in writing by the local planning authority until be installed prior to occupation of the residential and commercial premises. The agreed details shall be permanently retained. The reason for this is the interest and pedestrian safety to ensure the crossing is clear of objections, i.e. cars parked on pavements by the crossing lights and also there is a bus stop near Chockelorns by the discount store and this will block vision of oncoming cars coming in or out of the lawns. Number three, prior to the commence of development, a renewable energy assessment shall be submitted to an agreed in writing with the Council to demonstrate how at least 10% of the energy needs of the development will come from onsite renewable or low carbon energy sources. This scheme as a probe, probe shall be implemented and brought into use before the first occupants of the flats unless agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Four, the social housing, it seems that none of the flats are for social housing. This means first time buyers cannot afford these. It will be interesting to know from the developer if he is going to sell the flats and how much for or if he is going to select them and how much for. Number five, to carry out a vehicle risk assessment along London Road prior to starting the development and when the flats build to see if the impact of roads are decreased in traffic volume. As you can see past Chockelorns which is agreed more flats with the proposal. House is next door with the four flats of the business which is called Social House. Next door you've got a very very busy popular LD supermarket which is open Monday to Saturday, 8am to 10pm and Sunday 10am to 4pm which is a very busy road. Finally, it's six out of character. The left is Chockelorns, no roof or balconies. Next to the development on the left is House with four businesses and no balconies. I do feel like this is over development of the area. Finally, recycle storage is four bins but it does not say what size are bins and they need to provide waste and recycle food recycling and provide a... I did well. Thank you Mr Webb. Time to perfection. This muddy world you have. You also have three minutes when you're ready. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I am the planning consultant from Sphere 25 representing the applicant, Dove Jeffrey Holmes for the proposed development. The existing building was built in the 1920s and is of low quality internally and externally through decades of use. The proposal is a residential-led mixed use scheme which seeks to provide two buildings that will increase the number of residential units on site. Building A which faces London Road and serves as in-field development will provide 14 residential units whilst retaining 57.53 square metres of high quality commercial floor space on the ground floor. Building B which is located to the rear of the site will provide 11 residential units. Both buildings will provide private community space for all the residential units with larger homes enjoying larger balconies. The site is within a highly sustainable area for transport infrastructure. It is within walking distance of retail units, cafes, restaurants, supermarkets and community health and education facilities. The site is linked to the neighbouring mixed use building at Chalkwell lawns through ownership. Future residents will use the existing access arrangement via the undercroft of Chalkwell lawns. A total of 34 car parking spaces will be provided for the development including three accessible. It is proposed that traffic using the existing access will be regulated by a signage and lighting system that will be secured via condition. 25 cycle parking spaces will be provided with two cycle parking spaces assigned to the commercial unit. The scheme offers high quality housing and a mix of dwellings providing single, couple and family accommodation. The proposed buildings are designed to be sympathetic to the surrounding area with building A matching the eaves of the neighbouring buildings along London Road. The top floors of both buildings have been set back. Through collaboration with offices, the massing facade and materiality of the buildings has been refined to ensure that neighbours and future residents enjoy a visually appealing development. The sustainability and energy proposals include the installation of air source heat pumps and PV's. The total renewable contribution represents 50.4% of the estimated annual energy usage for the development as far exceeds the policy requirement of 10%. In summary, the proposal will deliver 25 new homes as well as a commercial unit facing London Road. These will provide a varied housing mix of much needed family homes and the site is located in a highly sustainable area and presents high quality design which serves a positive addition to the surrounding context. I hope that you can support the office's recommendation to approve the application. Thank you. Thank you. So we can move on to questions. Councillor JONES. Thank you Chair. I note that in 4.2 highways have no objection but one of the speakers did point out that there may be an issue with blocking of the bus lane or etc. Can we go back to one of the diagrams to look at where the location of the bus stop is and if highways could add some context to their statement that they have no objection and it being in a robust transport statement but speak just to cover the points raised by one of the speakers, thank you. I thank you through you Chair and while while we're getting the correct line up so as per as touched on its commentary this in existing access. The access is suitably wired and visibility sprays are acceptable and that's why I've not raised an objection. The object also reference the commercial parking. It's in a very sustainable location with good links. 34 spaces have been provided. There is a traffic light system that we've negotiated with the applicant to ensure that traffic gives away when an accident and in that regard there's no objections so to confirm the visibility spades are acceptable and they are existing and we've taken into consideration the pedestrian crossing as well. Councillor JOHNSTON, second question. Thank you. It is to do with coming back to the commercial parking because there is a lot of mixed use developments there. Is the information to hand about the parking regulations on that side of London Road whether it's one hour, two hour etc and there is the capacity to sustain commercial vehicles dropping off deliveries etc at that point and that visibility remains the same given the existing use and timings of parking on that side of London Road. Thank you. Thank you through you, Chairman. I will just double check the traffic regulation order and the timings. Yes, we are comfortable, as I said, with a visibility spades. With regard to the commercial element because it is such a sustainable location and there are other commercial properties that are operating without that level of parking and that would be done on a short-term basis in terms of people visiting, walking ships mainly in that location in our view that there is adequate on-street parking availability for that commercial use. I think to add, Chair, is that there are existing commercial uses on the ground floor of the building and the floor space for commercial, although remaining of an acceptable size, will actually reduce as a result of the proposal. London Road has got waiting restrictions on it and there's been careful regard for how this will impact onto it. You will have heard in the presentation what we've particularly done and the applicants have agreed to this. Although there wasn't necessarily an issue, we've gone to the pains of having a traffic light local system so that when vehicles are entering the site from London Road, vehicles exiting from the other side of the undercroft have to give way so that ensures that vehicles are always leaving London Road as a priority rather than the vehicle conflicts in a tailback. The proximity to the Aldi, for example, where traffic road changes were made in order that there was better free flow there, no highway objections have been raised to any of the traffic safety or network issues raised. It's a one-hour restriction in no-returning for the TLA. Thank you, Martin. Any further questions? Councilor Norman. It's the 0.9.1 and you have to forgive me because I'm coming back after a long period of not being on this committee. I think the contributions seem somewhat low and the late stage viability review mechanism regard to affordable housing at the cap of $391,699. It just seems that this is going to be high quality housing which will obviously come at a price and that seems rather low. Even the secondary education contribution I think is very very low. But this cap, how can we maintain that or will they be able to the people that are building the flats? Will they be able to guarantee that amount of money? I mean, it just seems very very low to me. There we are. Thank you. Through you, Tim. So, to start with the last question, whether these amounts will be guaranteed, for the council, if members go with the officers accommodation and delegate the grant of planning permission to officers, the planning permission will not be until we have a signed section on a six legal agreement. That section on a six legal agreement, what it does is it makes the developer end the council up sleep because the council needs to keep up its end of the deal. So, for example, the money that we will get for the secondary education are invested appropriately to educational facilities. But what it does for the developers, it makes them pay for this amount of money at the appropriate states. So, normally for most of these contributions, the trigger for the payment is before the commencement of the development. So, before they can start doing any works on the site, they need to pay for these contributions. The way we've gone about calculating the amount for each of those contributions is in line with our policy documents. So, the education contribution has been we consulted the education department, they have a formula with which they calculate the amount on the base of the number of units, the occupancy profile of the units proposed and so on. The affordable housing contribution, as you have heard in the presentation, has been tested independently as we always do for major development. The policy compliance position would have been to provide at the site three, sorry, four units of affordable housing. But because this was not viable at this state, the alternative option that is given to us through the policy is to calculate the financial contribution. Even that was not something that could be viably sustained to be provided by the developer as it was confirmed independently by our own consultants, viability consultants. Therefore, what we've done is we secured the amount of money that we could viably secure these states and that's the first figure you read in the affordable housing contribution. And we've also gone above and beyond that and agreed to a lay state's viability review, which would allow us if the market tends and there's more profit to be made by this development, it would allow us to capture more of that profit and provide it towards affordable housing within the city. And the affordable housing contribution, the financial contribution is calculated on the basis of the cost providing the affordable housing elsewhere in the city. Thank you, sir. Sorry, can I come back? The viability of affordable housing, you said it wasn't viable. Can you just tell me why it wasn't viable in this particular? You went to Swam, sorry, I've got the notes somewhere, to actually find out whether it was viable or not, you went to another company to test that. So, could you just tell me why it wasn't viable? Because it's got, you know, the required is five units and I don't really think that 391,000 is equating to the five units. It's probably maybe one unit, really. Through you, sir. So, again, starting from the later part of the question there, the affordable housing financial contribution again is not calculated on the base of how much it would cost to buy a unit in the open market. It is calculated on the fact that how much it would cost the council to construct a unit, to build a unit. So, he calculates the building cost of building a affordable housing unit and that's why the amount of affordable housing equates that financial contribution, that level of financial contribution. The reason why this development was found to be financially viable to sustain a larger contribution, the way that viability is calculated generally, is they look at all the potential costs for the development. They look at all the potential incomes for the development. So, they're looking at ground rent, renting out the parking space for selling the parking spaces, selling the flat and so on. And these subtract one from the other. If the value is not there, then it is not deemed to be viable. If the value is there, then obviously it's considered to be viable. The way that this calculate is quite standard, there's excessive guidance by the government on the subject and the RICS, they used to for surveyors who are regulating the viability consultants. And it's quite standard practice how they go on about calculating the viability. And it seems to me quite some of the practice nowadays that viability review mechanisms are imposed through legal agreements to allow the council to capture any opportunity in the market conditions if those things. Thank you, Chair. Chair, could I just add, for those in the room who don't, the viability assessments can be very very technical pieces of work, but essentially they're like a cake. So you have the cost of the land, the cost of building the things and so forth. Essentially, one of the main things in that cake that's changed over a recent period has been building costs caused by things like the supply resources and so forth. So the moment costs of building something are particularly weighing heavily when these viability assessments are done, we have them done rigorously and independently of the applicant applying for planning permission and they are looking at the methodology of the viability assessment and where necessary they then put it out to a cost consultant to check that the costs are being valid in terms of what the estimates are. That's the reason we have the late stage viability review mechanism so that when any of the elements of that cake, particularly things like the costs, my altar over the next couple of years, we're able to claw that back into the ingredients, if you like, and that's to the benefit of the Council. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Norm. So the 17.5 profit as such, that's also taken into account, is it? We don't lower that at all. Yes, Chair. What happens is, depending on how the scheme is financed, the release of the units and so forth, that process of the viability statement and its review identifies for each case what a reasonable level of developer profit would be and the 17.5% has emerged from that as being a reasonable profit in this instance. And that's, yes, it's in line with national guidance as well. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilor Galston, your question, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking at 8.8, the 25 units. I'm a little surprised to see the mix that they're doing because one bedroom flats are the least popular and yet we've got 52% there, 13. Two bedroom flats, which I know are very popular, only 40%, but three bedroom flats, which we really need, only two, and no four bedroom flats at all. And I would have thought that the mix, I know that the report says, Oh, well, don't worry about that. You know, we think it's okay, but seriously, it's well away from policy. I just wanted, and if I could be very happy on this point. Through you, Chair. So the fact of the matter is that we need housing, this city needs housing. And if we try to resist development for housing on the base of the dwelling mix, unfortunately, our chances of supporting that argument are very, very weak because the overriding concern is about the amount of housing that we need. At the moment, we need all sorts of housing. And the mix that it is proposed was not ideal and in line with the preferred policy mix. It is a mix that is appropriate for the allocation that is proposed. The type of units come with the immunity provisions that we will expect to see for those types of units. They come with acceptable standards, acceptable future occupied immunity and so on. So to go down the route of trying to renegotiate the mix would be very tricky to do so. Thank you, Chair. Okay, Councillor Gossner. I'm just wondering, in that case, what's the point of having policy TM7? If we need housing, of course we need housing, but we don't need as many one-bedroom flats percentage-wise as we do two and three-bedroom flats. Yeah, Chair, I think through you, the policy is a guide and we've obviously got, we're in a state of play of the local plan coming up, the review and so forth, which is when there's an opportunity to look at the sort of future provision across the city. The key thing is there is a need across the city for all sizes of units and that's the key thing. That's the main driver. The other thing as well is if we look at this site and it's got opportunities because of the spaciousness of the land at the rear, but it also, from a practical point of view, has constraints because of its proximity to London Road, the forms of access, the way the immunity is provided within the development and when that's looked at in the round, we come to a balanced view, taking account of what the preferred mix is that that achieves sustainable development in terms of what the national planning framework is looking for. So that's the reason for Sperios' very practical answer to you, that if we were to push the mix on this one, we would likely lose the scheme and the things we're seeking as the benefits from it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Garson, Councillor DENT, your question, please. Thank you, Chair. I'm following the site from Councillor Norman's question to the apologies that this has already been covered, but I guess when I put it to my satisfaction, I understand the situation legally speaking regarding viability tests, but I note that the recommendation here is to delegate to the executive director to make the decision. Patrick Abel explained that in the circumstances where it becomes sort of more viable, we mix that back in. Unfortunately, we've seen many times before the dial moving the other way, and we've had people, developers coming back saying sorry, we can't give you these affordable units, or like in this case, we can't give you the money. In such a circumstance in relation to this, would it come back to this committee to make that decision or are we delegating that decision to be made by officers? Through you, Chair. So, the short answer is that it will come back to you because the way to reduce the agreed heads of terms would be through, if a decision is granted through a due to variation, like you'll see in a similar application later on, it's an application which you can call in and because it's a major application, it will come to the committee almost automatically. If there's an effort to renegotiate the amount, excuse me, before the decision is issued, we just haven't got the delegate authority to deal with it, apart from what it says on the section 9, so we cannot change it without members' agreement. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Speras, that's a very clear answer. I therefore look to my friends from chalk well to pay close attention to anything coming forward on the applications list in relation to this, so that I'm sure we'd all want to look at any attempt to reduce the amount of money, which I agree with Councillor Norman is not what I'd like to see, but I certainly wouldn't want to see this getting less. Thank you, Councillor Dint. Councillor Berry, your question, please. Okay, thank you. Councillor Haberman, please. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Dint, for advising us to keep an eye on. I hope you'll do the same with his ward as well. Just like to say, in terms of the parking arrangements in 2.5, it's been touched on by Mr Webb and also Councillor Jones. Let's be able to just clarify that again for us, please, how that's going to work with the arrangement with the lawns. Thank you, through you, Chair. Let me get the correct plan up. If it would work, Mr Webb doesn't work. Can you find the block plan, please? So, effectively, that's the one. You can see that there are 34 parking spaces within the area edge thread in this plant. Actually, this one is not very clear because it shows some of them are below the buildings, the ground floor of the buildings. So, these 34 spaces would not be allocated to a particular flat. They would be available for parking only by residents of the proposed blocks and the residents of the approved flats at the circle lawns. Circle lawns is the building within the area edge blue, which is under the same ownership as the application side, and it has prior approval to be converted from commercial, from only commercial to commercial plus 2024, 24 flats. So, all of these units will be able to park, but they will not have an allocated space within the application side, within the 34 spaces of the application side. The only exception we're making are the disabled parking spaces, which are the only three spaces, which are allocated to three units that are effort-free compliant. They will serve accessible units. Thank you, sir. Yes, thank you for that. Can I come back, Chair? Yeah. No, I appreciate that. The reason that I ask is I couldn't pick up the extra spaces which you've confirmed under the undercroft. Through you, sir, this plant actually shows it better because some of them, as you can see, are below the martinis showing that. Some of those spaces are below the first floor of the buildings. If I may, one other question. We've talked a lot about the building at the front, but building at the rear. Obviously, an assessment was done on the impact of the gardens and things in Imperial Avenue. Could you comment on that for give us some assurance? Through you, sir. So, the development as a whole, so both buildings have been assessed for all the matters that I pass on my presentation. So, in terms of the character and piece of the area, in terms of impact on neighbouring immunity, in terms of future occupied immunity, both buildings that the whole development has been assessed. As a mention in my presentation, officers consider that the impact is acceptable. The separation distance between the rear block from the rear elevation of the nearest buildings is something in the region of 55 and 65 metres, so that's a quite significant distance. I can show again the picture that captures that, the distance between the proposed location of the building is around here, the existing parking and the distance from the neighbouring buildings. The rear building will be close to the immunity space for one of the care homes, but obviously, that immunity space is not a private immunity space, a communal immunity space, and it's quite deep and wide. Therefore, we found that there will not be a significantly harmful impact on that immunity space in terms of overlooking or over an overbearing effect and so on. So, all around, we found that the development is acceptable. Thank you, sir. Yeah, thank you, but that's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Burton, your question, please. Thank you. The money for the affordable housing, is that ring fence to be spent on the affordable housing, or does it just go into the general budget? Thank you, sir. It will be part of the terms of the section of six agreement, that the money that we receive have to be spent only for the things that are stated in the section of six agreement. Therefore, the education money goes for the education facilities, affordable housing goes for affordable housing only, and so on. So, we cannot spend the money on other bits, only affordable housing. And of similar developments, what portion of them are still doing affordable housing, or what portion of them are just doing this and just giving us the money? Is this quite rare, is this what everything is going to be like? Through your tears. So, I'm sorry, do you want to take this? Yeah. Each application is considered on its own individual merits, and the viability assessments vary from one to another. As I said earlier on, we're finding that achieving policy compliant affordable housing depends from site to site. It depends where it is, what its land values are, and so forth. Increasingly, what we're finding at the moment is the development industry is finding that the factors of costs and so forth are different from what they've been over recent years. And for that reason, two things are occurring more frequently. That is that we are not necessarily achieving a policy compliant, a level of affordable housing, but that's justified. And in some cases, affordable housing contributions are being made, where that is considered acceptable to our housing department. And the second thing we're doing is we do not, in our local, in our current plan, have a strict mechanism for doing this. But what we're doing when we are engaging and negotiating with developers is we are pushing for the late stage viability review mechanism. And that's based on something that's used in London. And that's that means of recouping that the monies should the factors change in the future. So if members are asking a question about financial contributions being more of a norm at the moment, they are part of a package of response to what's happening in the market. Costs are quite different at the moment. They might change, they could go up again. But this is one of the key things that's affecting the development industry viability at the moment. Councilperson, have you got another question? Okay. Councilor Bolton. Thank you. Like others, I'm disappointed in the affordable housing contribution. Just going on to the late stage viability, this has come up in previous applications. I just wondered, has it ever been today? Has it been triggered? Has it been a late stage viability review been triggered? And what was the outcome? Through you, Chairman, so just in response to that specific question, yes, late stage review mechanisms have been triggered. Yes, we have received additional sums. So there's at least one instance of that. But what I would say, in addition to some of the points that have been raised more globally around this, around costs, is there is a separate but no less important issue, which is that on the whole, affordable housing providers, registered social land or to the site who may in the past have taken these types of sites, don't now, in many instances actually want these sites where they're getting four, five, six units. And that is why it is increasingly common for us to get these financial contributions. But although we're here strictly to speak about this application and most certainly only about planning matters, it's probably worth highlighting that this is where projects and like the Council's pipeline scheme of housing comes in. And what this allows is the Council through its own sites to use this money to deliver affordable housing of the type we most need within the city in a way that it's designed and programming at a pace that it thinks is appropriate. And that's where these monies go. And actually, one might argue that that's more useful than the alternative outcome. And even if onsite contributions were a possible viable, although unfortunately it's not been the case here, it is the case. Sadly, that affordable housing providers are saying we just don't want these types of, we don't want these types of units in these types of schemes. So there is a kind of viability challenge, but there's a practical management challenge that the affordable housing providers, the people who potentially would get these units don't want the types of units in this place. So this is why we increasingly see on this scale of projects, it would be different conversation if it was 500 units, but for this scale of projects, we're increasingly seeing it coming back to a contribution which the Council will use. Fortunately, we have that pipeline of Council owned sites that we're looking to develop that it can contribute to deliver affordable housing that we need most in the city in that way. So I hope that's held forward a bit of reassurance in that regard. Thank you. Just turning to the housing mix, and I can appreciate that Patrick says that we need you know, need housing across the city. But at 8.3, it does say that we have a great proportion of one bedroom units and smaller properties. So by this development here, we're just going to add to that. And it says, and it does say as a consequence, there is a low percentage of accommodation suitable for families. So I just like to highlight that that, you know, we've already got a certain, I wouldn't say a surplus, but a greater proportion of these, and then we're just going to be adding to it. So yeah, I understand the point of that regard, but as my colleagues have outlined, we have such a level of need for housing of all types within the city at the moment. Any argument that there is not a need for the type that we've got here, and any, I know it's not been suggested, but any kind of move in a direction of finding the scheme unacceptable on that basis would fall flat extremely quickly when challenged because of that overall level of need we have. I understand that taking very literally the wording that is set out in the reports, or we seek to be transparent and set the reports out very clearly for people could be interpreted in that regard to a third degree. But that is a guiding policy, and only ever has been used in that way. It simply is not going to form a meaningful basis for saying we don't want or need one big units because the up-to-date evidence is so clearly pointing to the country. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Follke, you're a real question. Thank you, Chair. Good officers, tell me if there's a facility for recharging electric cars. Through you, Chair, firstly, as Kevin whispered, it's a building regulation requirement for this type of development anyway, but we also, following the adoption of the relevant supplementary planning document, we have imposed a condition about electric housing infrastructure for all parking spaces to be provided before the occupation of the development. Thank you. And how many will that be? All 34, so you, Chair. All 34, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Follke. Councillor long staff, your question. Thank you, Chair. I apologize that I was late. Sorry, I apologize for you, Chair. As you came to meeting late, I don't hold this actual item late, so I don't believe you're allowed to participate in it. Yeah, sure. I'd like to apologise for my lateness. I was at a funeral. It's not criticism. No, I know. I'm just making a point that apologies for my lateness, Chair. Okay, fair enough. Because I'm late, I'm not allowed to comment or question if made that clear. Thank you. Yeah, because you haven't heard the full briefing, you have to wait until the next item. Okay, thank you. Okay, Councillor long staff, thank you. Any other questions from the committee, please? So we can move on to comments. Councillor Jones. I think some of the concern was about the mix of development and, you know, sort of and how that fits with policy. The policy is really, really old and does need to be reviewed. I'm not saying that it would actually change, though. I mean, there is still, I take Councillor Garson's point, that there is a need for four bedroom and larger properties in the city. I'm not entirely comfortable with a three bedroom property in this development, to be absolutely honest, even though I understand the need for three bedroom properties. So, you know, and I suppose it's about on merits. So that's basically the comment that we really need to review and understand probably through a local plan. Sorry, everyone even hear that from me a lot. The housing need and the mix across the city. However, the viability, it's always a concern. And I understand the work that's gone on with regard to that. But, you know, we all want it to be higher in order that our own housing revenue account can benefit and we can build as a local authority. I think that we haven't actually mentioned parking much, so I think I might mention it a bit and actually say that I think I'm satisfied around the highways offer. I don't think, you know, with the lack of allocation to properties that that's going to be an easy run for people living in that area. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jones. Councillor Burton. I do live near here just over there and I do kind of kind of tell you, it's quite scruffy this area. So I think it's actually quite a really nice development. I think most of the shops there are already empty. They used to be that lovely pasta place. I don't remember that, but now it's just not much going on. So I think this will, so the new facade, I think, will really bring up the area. So it seems like quite a sensible development to me. Thank you, Councillor Burton. Any further comments? Okay, Councillor Garston. Yes, I mean, very briefly, just following on what Councillor Jones has said, I don't think you'll ever get perfection. Quite rightly, this committee, we have been asking questions. I think at the end of the day, we do need housing, as Sir Sparrow said before, we need housing and this is going to provide a bit of a need for the city. I'll say a bit of a need because we need a lot more, really. But however, I think we would struggle and appeal anyway, but that's not the main point. The main point is, I think, as Councillor Burton said, it will improve the area. So I'm happy to support Sir and the officers' recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Garston. Without any further comments, we can move the vote, please, Tim. Thank you, Chair, through you. So the recommendation before you is that subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement that the Planning Commission be delegated to the Executive Director for Environment in Place or the Group Manager for Development Control, please, can I have your hands? All those in favour, please. 13, you don't know, Mr Chair. Thank you. You know, I'm going to say that that's Sir passed. So we move on to item number five, and that's Charlotte to present, please. Thank you, Chairman. This is 314 Station Road on page 95 of the agenda. The application site lies on the southern side of Station Road, close to the junction with Penbury Road. The four-storey building is currently vacant but has been used as a launderet. Sorry, I'm not just having some trouble with there. The area is characterised by residential development, some with some commercial uses at ground floor level. The lease conservation area boundary lies to the south of the site. Planning Commission is sought for change of use of the building to assisted living accommodation. Class C3B. This is defined as up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care. This includes, for example, supported housing schemes such as those for people with learning disabilities. There would be five bedrooms which are annotated on the plans as flat over the basement, ground, first and second floors, and to the rear, a separate three-bedroom, four-person dwelling over the ground and first floors. Details of the units are set out for Paragraph 2.1 of the agenda. The application states that the proposed assisted living dwelling would be designed to provide independence and social inclusion for individuals with learning disabilities or on the autism spectrum over the age of 18. The service will be managed by staff working in shifts 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Staff would not sleep at the site. External alterations are proposed and include replacement of the shop front with brick infill and new windows, and at the rear a small infill flat roof extension which is hidden here behind the rear outrigger. Finestration alterations, an additional fenestration, additional roof lights to the rear and demolition of an existing rear lean-to also proposed. The three-bedroom, four-person dwelling proposed to the rear of the building would have pedestrian access from Pembroe Road, apologies. That's the front elevation proposed and that's a picture of the application site and this is to the rear of the site. There is no off-street parking at present and none is proposed. Cycle parking and waste storage would be provided to the rear of the building, a miniature space to serve each dwelling is proposed to the rear. The application is a resubmission following a refused application referenced 23, 0053 FUL which proposed a seven-room assisted living development class to C2 residential institution use as set out a paragraph 3.1 of the main report. The application was refused because it failed to demonstrably meet an identified local need and would have led to the loss of her family dwelling. The resubmission addresses the reason of refusal by providing a family-sized dwelling, a family-sized three-bed dwelling and five assisted living rooms in a shared dwelling. The assisted living accommodation has been considered as a C3B dwelling use and not as it was previously assessed based on the information supplied with the 2023 application, a C2 use which is a residential institution. Whereas the previously refused application did not sufficiently demonstrate a need for the development and was set against the loss of a family-sized unit of accommodation, the current proposal is for a different use, a dwelling house use and includes a family-sized dwelling to the rear. Taking into account the need for additional dwellings within the borough, officers are satisfied that a need has therefore been demonstrated. There is no objection in principle to the loss of the commercial unit. There is no objection in principle to the proposed development. It's considered that the development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the site, the street scene and the wider surrounding area in this area is acceptable and policy compliant in these regards. As set out a paragraph 8.15 of the report onwards, the proposed dwellings would meet or exceed the national technical standards. All habitable rooms would have satisfactory levels of outlook and daylight and adequate amenity spaces provided. There exists a degree of interlocking between premises at present. Just show you the photographs which illustrate that to the rear. You can see there's already ability to look out from the existing dwelling and that would not be heavily increased by the proposal. In all other regards, the impact of the development on neighbouring occupiers is found acceptable and policy compliant. There is no existing parking on site to serve the lawn direct and the residential use and none are proposed. The development would not result in a loss of parking or a significantly increased demand for parking and is in a sustainable location. Cycle parking is proposed and will be subject to condition. Waste storage is proposed to be provided to the rear and collected from adjacent to the highway as is the case with the current use. Subject to conditions there would be no significant harm to parking traffic or highway safety in the area. So having taken all material planning considerations into account, it's found that subject compliance with the suggested conditions for proposed development which provides a family sized dwelling together with supported living facilities for people with learning disabilities or a new autism spectrum within a shared dwelling house would be acceptable and compliant with the objectives or the relevant development plan policies and guidance. Our members are therefore recommended to grant planning permission subject to condition set out page 108 of the agenda. Thank you. Thank you Charlotte. We can move straight to questions. Councillor Jones. Thank you Chair. My first question is with regard to the main building rather than the family sized dwelling and the use that it's intended for. Is there any sort of, you know, is it fully disability compliant or, you know, adaptable to disability needs, otherwise, you know, excluding large amounts of the population it's saying it's going to serve? Through you, Chair. Because the proposal is a conversion, it's not required to comply with M4-2, but notwithstanding that there is a lift proposed at the ground floor level which would assess people with less able people. Thank you. Yeah, with regard back to 4.3 on page 98 adults and communities and their comments, with the explanation that's been given that it's adults rather than 16 up, etc. And they've said that there wasn't a specific need. Are they happier or have they come back and responded now that things have been clarified? Thank you, Chair. What we've done is consulted adult social care. They, where they are involved with premises, they have certain requirements. And in certain circumstances where there is a need is different, differently identified, then we might need to take account more of the specific circumstances that our social care people are requiring if they're looking to be involved with the premises. In this case, there is a need for this facility generally. So the fact that our own adult social care might not decide to place people there because of their own strategies and programs doesn't mean that there isn't a need for this facility to meet other requirements. And we haven't identified that this would have an adverse effect on the provision of care within the borough in that sense, which sometimes we do with children's homes. So all things considered, there isn't an update to that comment from social care. They probably won't get to a point where they'll say this is fine. It now meets our own individual requirements, but that's not part of the test in us recommending that this particular scheme be granted planning permission. Thank you, Chair. Councillor JOHNSTON. Thank you. And sort of in terms of policy compliance and our own policies, albeit that Councillor DENT was in preschool the last time we reviewed some of them. Well, that was yesterday. The family size dwelling, can you explain to me why that isn't backyard development and which is something that we're quite strong on in this Council? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. It's a conversion of an existing part of the building and it's not considered in that respect to be a backland development. Thank you, Councillors. Thank you, Charlotte. Councillor COLLINS, your question, please. Thank you, Chair. I want to drill into that wheelchair accessibility of this property, and I'm looking at the diagram on page 115 of the pack, the whole pack, and we have a wheelchair left being shown to us from the ground floor down to the basement area, which is looking to be a kitchen-century room recreational room. But nothing going upwards to the other flats of the higher buildings. I'm concerned about accessibility, really. It looks like we can only access it from the front door because there's steps up to from the middle of the building up to that lift, as we discussed, the road has gone and got double lines outside, so I'm just wondering what the accessibility actually is for those people in the wheelchair, and I'm a bit concerned that we're not really doing enough for this plant. Thank you. Thank you. Through you, Chairman. The lift is intended, according to the submission by the applicant, to allow the ground floor room to the front of the facility here to be accessed by a wheelchair user, and you can see that's slightly larger than the other rooms. As I said, because the development is a conversion, it would not normally be required to be M42 compliant. So this is seen as a benefit. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Any other questions? Councillor Habermeau? Yes, thank you, Chair. From memory, with this previous application, one before this, I think as a committee, we took into account a few other considerations as well, and one was the highest crime rate within the area. The murder had gone on at the line and land further along the road, and I think at the time someone commented, I don't know if it was recorded, in terms of overdevelopment, and the impact on the character of the neighbourhood. I think, Chair, in this area, we have had some HMO-related applications in some of the roads that go down towards the seafront. This application previously didn't come to the committee, it was dealt with under-delegated powers, so it wouldn't have been discussed. It's the first time this premises has come to this committee for consideration, so it must have been a different side, Chair. My apologies, thank you for that. What I was going to touch on as well, in terms the weight applied to the Councillors' benefit team and the ACS, what sort of weights were applied, were they applied equally or what? We consulted the adults' team, and we've taken on board their comments. We have very careful regard to what they come forward with, because what we're trying to do within reason, and we have to stay very focused on the planning application, but where something is okay, it doesn't have to demonstrate a need, it can be okay. Where something has got issues about it, then the question of need comes into play, and when we've dealt with some children's home proposals in the borough, the way that children, and this isn't a children's home proposal, this is for adults over 18 and above, what can sometimes happen is planning decisions can affect the strategy with which children's home provision is made within the city. Nothing like that has been identified in this particular instance. There is an operator of this kind of facility, they operate other facilities as well, this proposal on its face is acceptable as submitted. The issue of the replacement dwelling house at the back is the applicant's response taking on board the previous refusal that they needed to demonstrate that they are not on a net basis losing a family unit, and that's why there's a family unit being incorporated. The reference to the benefits which we've put in the report is purely something that came at the instigation of the applicant as a piece of information. We hadn't specifically gone to the benefits team, and actually what that comment is saying doesn't really weigh that significantly in terms of the planning decision that you need to make as a committee. So all those other consultation areas have not identified any material harm in you making a planning decision to support this proposal. Thank you Chair. Thank you. Further questions? Councillor VELTON. Thank you. Can I just ask two questions? One on the 8.2 row, it mentions the amenity space, which the report acknowledges is small. But then at 8.35 it mentions refuge and recycling and that the bins will be in the garden. I did notice there was one of the slides showed the refuge and I just wondered where would that be in relation to the garden, which the amenity space, which is small anyway. Thank you. I'm showing the slide in front of you now and that indicates the amenity space for the reedwelling and then some additional amenity space for the frontage unit and bike stores and bin stores are proposed within those gardens. So there is space within those gardens to accommodate bikes and bin stores adequately. We consider. Thank you. More questions? One on Outlook. We saw some pictures there but I'm just wondering, there's a picture on page 130 and I just wondered, is that a habitable room because it just looks out onto a roof? Sorry, through you, Chairman. I think probably the easiest way to illustrate that is the plans that you can see at the bottom of the screen in front of you are showing the proposed development and we're satisfied that I show you the layouts that each of the rooms does have adequate outlook and light to each habitable room. So the photographs show the proposal, illustrated proposal as existing and additional windows and the one there. So that is looking out, I believe, to the side of the building and you can see the rear outrigger that is this element on the right-hand side. So I think, again, if I illustrate this on the left-hand side there, you can see this is existing building and this is a neighbouring property there and there are windows in the side of the existing building that you can see highlighted there on windows at the rear. So together with the additional roof lights that are proposed and additional windows, we, over the view that there will be satisfactory light and outlook to those residential rooms. I said earlier on there is the element of the jigsaw here is that there is a family unit in that building at the moment and if you can compare the standard of the family unit that is being created at the back of the property. Again, just a personal observation some, you know, if you ask somebody in the street, what do houses like? Well, they are houses with gardens and gardens and another house. This area of the city actually has got sort of houses sitting in backland positions. If you go down Grogan Road and you go down the Muse roads and so forth, you'll find surprising, as you probably know, surprising family dwellings tucked at the back. Some people enjoy that sort of the grain that there is to that extent. So the net effect of this, as well as the benefits of meeting the needs of people with learning disabilities and on the autism spectrum, it creates a family dwelling which is probably significantly better than one that is in there at the moment. So on balance, it tips strongly in favour of an approval. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Patrick. Do we have any further questions? So we can move to comments. Any comments? No, so we can move to the vote, please, Tim. Thank you, Chair. So the recommendation before we use to grant plan permissions subject to the condition set out of the report, please, can I have your hands or those in favour? Thirteen, any against? None. It's carried, Chair. Thank you, Tim. So we're on item number six, the agenda. And that's for Charlotte, what to present, I'd like. Thank you, Charlotte. Thank you, Chairman. Firstly, I draw members' attention to the supplementary agenda, which includes clarification and additional condition and details of additional representations that have been received. So the application site is backland site to the rear or broadway, which is accessed from West Street, which you can see on this slide. It's occupied by a two-story building with rooms in the roof. The building currently comprises of five self-contained flats over the three levels. Surrounding areas mixed with two, three and four-story buildings along Broadway. Immediately to the south of the site is the boundary of the Lee conservation area, and there are two locally listed buildings to the south of the site, which are highlighted on this plan. The site is outside of, but adjacent to the primary shopping frontage and the Lee district centre. The application seeks permission for the conversion and alteration of the building from a two-story building with rooms in the roof, containing five flats into a three-story building with four self-contained flats, and one ground floor commercial unit to be used for financial and professional office use. So these are the existing floors, existing floor plans, the flats over the three levels, existing elevations and the existing site plan, and that's what's being proposed. So the roof of the building would be changed from a pitch roof with dormers, as we've just seen to a flat roof, and the maximum height of the building would be increased by 0.2 metres, so from 9.3 metres to 9.5 metres. The proposal would have five parking spaces, as you can see here, so it's one per flat and one space for the commercial unit, refuse recycling and cycle storage provided. The site currently has no amenity space and none is proposed as part of this application. As set out in the agenda, two rounds of consultation were undertaken, six letters of objection were initially received from three addresses, and a further two representations were received as a result of the amended plans consultation. As set out in the supplementary agenda, additional representations have been received since the publication of the DCC agenda. In terms of the principle of the development, the existing development comprises five flats, four of these existing flats fail to meet the minimum size requirements of the NASHU-described space standards, and the two existing ground full flats have a poor quality environment as they've limited outlook into the existing parking and vehicle access. Whereas the proposed development would provide four fully compliant flats, we've improved outlooks and improved standard of accommodation overall. As such, the proposal to provide four good quality dwellings, as well as the commercial unit adjacent to the district centre in place of the five cramped dwellings, is acceptable in principle and will not have a harmful impact on the overall dwelling supplier in the city. The proposed class e-unit would have an active frontage face in the service road and is to the rear of a primary shopping parade and the district centre. It would generate some employment and will contribute to local economy and help maintain the vitality of the district centre whilst retaining residential provision adjacent to the district centre too. So the principle of development is acceptable. The existing building was originally a brick warehouse style building which has been substantially altered with gable extensions, dormers, render and irregular arrangement of windows. Its current appearance is poor and it does not make a positive contribution to the conservation area or the nearby locally listed buildings. The proposal seeks to expose the original brickwork and extend upwards at eaves level to form a flat parapet roof with more considered fenestration. The new brickwork at the upper level will include pattern bonding and new brickwork will be painted white to ensure the development is cohesive and the brick texture patterning is maintained throughout. Overall the development is not out of character or scale and will uplift the character of the area overall having a positive impact on the character setting of the nearby designated and non-designated heritage assets. The report considers the impact of the proposal and residential meanity in detail. To summarise, given the separation distances to the dwellings to the east in west street and subject to a condition requiring the full details of obscure glazing and openings on the east and windows, the development would not significantly harm the occupiers in west street. The development is removed from the nearest residential boundary in El Rode to the west and would therefore not harm their amineity in any regard. The building is 6.1 metres from the First World Terrace, as you can see on this plant at the rear of 9 to 11 Broadway and 9.3 from its habitable room windows. But the relationship between the buildings is angled, there are existing windows on the building and similar position in a similar position and existing dormers such that the development is effectively maintaining the existing relationship is therefore acceptable. Unlike the existing arrangement, all of the proposed flats would meet the minimum requirements of the national space standards and would receive acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight and have acceptable outlook. No private amineity space is provided for the proposed flats, however, no private amineity space is provided for the existing flats. There is no scope for amineity to be added at ground floor level but all of the proposed flats would have julep balconies which is positive. Overall the residential environment would be improved. The ground floor commercial use is in class EC, financial and professional services and does not include any plant which is compatible with residential development and would not result in undue noise and disturbance. The proposal provides policy compliant off-street parking with one space per flat and one space for the commercial use provided and highways are raised no objections. As such, subject to conditions on pages 148-153, the gender is recommended that planning permission is granted. Thank you. Thank you, Charlotte. Mr Green. Hello sir. You have three minutes when you're ready. Thank you. We object to this application on the grounds of overdevelopment in this particular area, especially with its only access for a very narrow alleyway off-west street. Also we object to the replacement of a residential unit with a commercial one in an area already overcrowded with commercial activity. As everybody here no doubt agrees, the country is in desperate need of residential accommodation with planning departments up and down the land converting commercial properties into much needed residential accommodation. This application does exactly the reverse which we find quite astounding and thus we feel is a totally unacceptable proposal. Also with another commercial operation in this unsuitably confined area, it will add more overdevelopment to the area making it even more unsafe of an environment. The only one, the one and only narrow access passage from west street which is totally unsuitable for the already high level of commercial and residential usage by well over 24 vehicles a day would render an ongoing serious environmental issue even worse. To sum up, the change of use is totally and environmentally unacceptable. Really this is probably one of the most important things. There is only one extremely narrow access to this block with no access for the fire and rescue services. It's basically landlocked in the event of a serious fire. It is important to note that the applicant has no right of way across the adjoining private land to North Street to allow any access. The abutting land has been legitimately used as a car park with its entrance in North Street for many years. The gates from that land to the site of 3A remain shut and locked insisted upon by its landowner. Consequently these gates cannot represent any reliable emergency fire access. I would also add that the increasing the height of the building will decrease the amount of sunshine that the neighbours get all the way along west street. The sun sets and the time that we have in the sun is very precious to us and that extra height will take away a good hour of sunlight is simply not fair. I would also, I think nearly out of time, the potential building work involved with the many vans and the many vans required attempting to navigate the only very narrow passageway running up the side of our house will inevitably result in much stress and damage to our property. Thank you, Mr Graham. Thank you. So I can move straight to questions from the committee questions, Councillor Jones. I haven't found where I want to be in conditions because it was just the speaker's last comment about is there a development management, oh I just think I have just found a development management plan. Is the development management plan construction method statement robust enough in the office's opinion to allow the concerns that have just been raised? Thank you. Thank you for you, Chairman. Yes, so the construction management plan that's been imposed as condition 11 is far away and we consider that to be adequate to ensure that development is undertaken in an acceptable way. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jones. Councillor Colleins. Thank you, Chair. I need to bring to the committee and ask the question of officers that Lee Town Council's objection on 4.2 on page 139 of the PAC. They're raising objection as the local town council on the objection on the proposal would result in a loss of residential housing in an area that's already under high demand. This was by the way the local resident was mentioning does not protect the immunity site for future occupiers and would have an adverse effect on the immunity of the meeting neighbours, the meeting neighbours number five and number seven West Street. I'd like to know from the offices that how they thought that they can accept this proposal and recommend it for our acceptance on the basis of this objection and also the officer mentioned about the there'd be no industrial noises or such like I mean air conditioning units as we're enjoying here today. There must be some sort of thought about that that we may see on that building which would be a detrimental to the neighbouring residential properties. For you, Chairman, thank you. So the commercial use that's proposed at Grand Floor is quite restrictive as to what they've proposed. It's for sort of professional services or office type services and they do not want any plan included as part of that and we have put a condition on in that regard. Just to note as well that the lead council actions that you've got in the agenda before you are in relation to the initial scheme which was amended slightly during the course of the application and we didn't get any second comments. Did that cover all the questions? Sorry, thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Councilor Bolton. Thank you. It's just the object mentions about the fire you know access by the fire service but I know at 4.4 that they've got no objection but they want more details to be considered when the building control regulations have consulted at that stage. I can't see anything about waste collection. I don't know if it's narrow. How would that access that? Thank you for you, Chairman. So the information that's been submitted within the design and access statement indicates that there's an existing private waste management contract that serves existing five units and that's proposed to continue as part of the development. So the residential commercial waste is collected by private contractors twice a week collection of the residential waste is from the external refuge store of the building's eastern facade and the commercial waste is from the collection from the commercial unit. The information is that the loading will be run west street or adjacent to the building depending on which vehicle type is used but what we've done is we've put a condition on which requires a waste management plan to be submitted. So what that does is it makes sure that we will get full details of how that will work and make sure that that's acceptable in consultation with the highways as well. Thank you, Councillor Bolton. I have a question. Just the matter of the height and the difference in the heights between this building, the existing building and the new building going up, please. Thank you, Chairman. So this is, if you can see what's on the screen now, quite a good plan to show this scale comparison. So the overall height isn't increasing considerably. It's only 0.2 metres higher. What this development does is it infills from the eaves so it brings the eaves up so there reads more scale within the roof but the overall height is only 0.2 metres higher. Thank you, Councillor. I just wanted to clarify that. Councillor Longstar, if you have a question. Thank you, through you, Chair. My question was going to be on a similar vein regarding height because we don't have that comparison, scale comparison in the report pack. So that's very useful. What would be useful also is if we had an imprint of the existing outline, of the existing building drawn over the proposed elevations, that would help everybody read the drawings more clearly. Just picking up on the point of Mr Green's commentary regarding daylight, I know that you mentioned daylighting and habitable windows surrounding the site, but it's not in the report pack. So I just wanted to confirm that the officers are satisfied that the habitable windows are receiving adequate daylight and that perhaps Mr Green's concerns were relative to garden amenity, which I don't think is applicable in this case if that could be confirmed. Thank you. For you, Chairman, thank you. So the plan that's on the screen now shows the distances of the building to the neighbours, and we consider those distances to be acceptable in terms of the residential amenity. And we do consider that the development itself will have an improved outlook, daylight, sunlight, compared to what is existing. So the existing plans, if I could pull them up, the existing unit, so for example, this unit here on the ground floor only has two new facing windows, so one in the bedroom, one in the quite deep open plan living space, which isn't ideal. This new development of the revised... Apologies. I think Mr Green's commenting on the effect of the daylighting to existing properties. Okay, two existing properties. Nothing to do with the proposed development. It was the daylighting to existing amenity space. This understood what you meant, sorry. Yeah, so this is the best plan then to look at. I think because of the separation distances and the extent of the existing building, we consider that to be acceptable. Could I just say there's no sections showing the proposed development in relation to those dwellings, so we can't appreciate the juxtaposition, the contrast between what's proposed and what's already there. There's no section through that, and I think that's quite misleading, because we can't see the relationship in scale between the proposed block and the massing and the existing residential dwellings, and I think that's really misleading, and it would really be helpful to see that, because of course, daylighting is calculated through the sky angle, you know, the amount of sky that's available to those habitable rooms, and that's done through angles, and we cannot see that on any of the drawings presented to us. Just to take up those points, Chair, and fully understand them, this is an application that results in four flats, and a planning application, our requirements on somebody to provide information in order for the local planning authority to make a reason judgment as to whether or not it's acceptable has to be proportionate to the scale and the nature of what's coming forward. As you can see on that drawing, it shows two things, and I completely appreciate Mr Green lives there, and has an appreciation of what the things are that he enjoys about living there. I'm not looking take away from that. It is already what we would call a quite a tight urban grain, it's not unusual in the district centre to see this sort of arrangement of buildings, and the green areas, I'm not, I won't point out necessarily where I think Mr Green lives, but the green areas of the gardens, given that the building is already in the position where the building will be with these improved four flats in it, we've not identified in any of the assessment that that's going to cause any significant harm to daylight and sunlight. The south point is towards the bottom of the screen, and as the sun moves around, there will be some impact on shadowing into the garden, but this isn't a situation where, first of all, it would be reasonable and proportionate for us to insist on daylights, although Councilor Longstaff wasn't saying that, a daylight sunlight impact study or sections, what we would normally be able to achieve is something like a street scene drawing, which shows where you've got an infill going in between two buildings, how's it going to sit in an immediate juxtaposition with them, but this isn't the situation where that sort of material would be required. So I fully appreciate what Councilor Longstaff is saying, and also the points raised by Mr Green, but proportionately they're not things that we could reasonably ask for in this particular planning application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Patrick. Any further questions? No. So we move on to comments. Councilor Bursen. Thank you, Chair. I'm a bit torn on this one. On the positive, I mean, old building does look really odd, and the windows are really wonky, and one side, and obviously any windows copy that grade, and so it's a big improvement. But I do think Mr Green has a point about it becomes very different proposition, having houses closed, having business as well, because, okay, you could say that business goes there, but you don't know what kind of business it is. It might be someone where you've got people coming in and out, if it's client facing, and that does change the dynamic of that place. I don't really know why it can't just be just flats. I don't know why it does seem a bit odd to me, that we're losing, we should be trying to increase the number of houses and flats and properties in the town. This is going the opposite direction. I also worry about the, obviously you're replacing properties that aren't great to live in with nicer ones. It's obviously a more luxury offer. My concern about that, though, is the people that are there currently are probably only priced out of there, and then it's going to increase pressure on the, you might end up with a situation, people moving out of London to these more luxury places, and the people who are living there locally, then need somewhere to live as well. So it's not really helpless in that respect. So those are my thoughts on this. Thanks. I'm just going to bring Kevin in on a point of order. Thank you, Chairman. So through you, in terms of the first point about the potential concern around the introduction of a commercial use, I suppose it might be helpful in addition to the points that were said in the presentation to highlight, that the classification of commercial use proposed in this instance is one that by definition under the planning system is all about being compatible with neighbouring residential uses. So we're looking at a type of use which by its very definition. So there's not saying exactly what would go in there, but it's a type of use that by definition is compatible with being in very close proximity to residential. It's probably also worth highlighting that local national policy has for a long, long time encouraged and promoted those type of mixed uses. So officers didn't ask for this to be a mixed use scheme that had a commercial element on the ground floor, but there is every possibility, although I can't read into their mind, that the applicant simply looked at local and national policy and said, well, that's what it's expecting me to do in a location like this. So there's that element to it. So I hope that's helpful just in terms of your thinking around that. In terms of that final point that you've made, whilst as a human being, I very much sympathise and understand the type of points that you were making there. As the local planning authority and the decision that we're making at this committee, that's not something that falls within the remit of this committee. So just as a bit of direction there, there are some points obviously of really important for this committee to consider and those have been set out. That one though I would encourage you to perhaps move away from in your thinking around a decision on this due course, as I'm sure you will. Thank you. Thank you Kerwin. Councillor Collins, your comment please. Thank you very much indeed. I'm not comfortable either, but listening to the officers' explanations is very important. I think the access down the narrow side of the number three, I believe it is. West Street is going to be an issue. We have a commercial operation there that's going to be operating at different times now. I know residential properties could also be having new moving at different times, but not to the number that this business could have. So I'm just concerned about we are actually giving ourselves a problem for the future. Under planning are we allowed to consider narrow access like this for a business? Is it something where the business doesn't actually currently exist? Are we putting ourselves as an issue where we are making life very difficult for those residential properties that have to be accessed beside? I mean it's just one of those issues where we're making a change to the way that back land is going to be used. And is it appropriate for us to accept it that it's actually not very accessible? Through you, Chairman, I could bring Marcie to him for any comment he may want to make. Well, Australia, of course, you will have to pass the mic across to do so. But not withstanding that, I think that in planning terms, is it something that can be considered yes, but we do need to be very careful about the amount of weight we place on things, particularly in existing scenarios such as this, where the significant majority of what we are talking about is already largely in existence. And identifying harm from that level of change, I would suggest is going to be extremely difficult to justify in terms of any kind of challenge against the application. But I'll bring Marcie to him for anything he might want to say around it from a kind of technical highway's perspective. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, through you, Chairman. So, you know, Kevin sort of covered that in this and existing access, and what we would look at is how that existing access would be, you know, the new use of the commercial unit would have a detrimental impact. And because they've provided one space, it's an existing access, you know, we would view that as that would. And if that was the commercial use that's been restricted, you'd probably get more bookings rather than people coming to park. And there are public and public car parks within the vicinity here. So, we would look at if it, you know, if you'd have a detrimental impact. And in this case, we would not come to that conclusion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor CUNS. Council have a little comment, please. So, I didn't indicate. Okay. Council long staff. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Chair, through you. Yeah, I just feel like I ought to comment because it is my ward and my children go to North Street School. So, I'm familiar with the, as the officer described, the tight urban grain. And it is true that there are many businesses actually off the side streets down narrow alleys and accessible, sometimes only by foot. So, it is the kind of the nature of that part of Leon City. It's quite high density and quite tight urban grain. And also, although I do sympathise with Mr. Green being one of my constituents, I do accept the officer's rationale that the bulk and the mass is already there. And it's increasing the apex height by just 200 millimetres, which is eight inches in old money. And looking at the existing photographs and elevations, I don't think anybody could deny a little bit of a mishmash of a project, a development. And it's quite dour with its render. And I think the proposals do seek to address the aesthetic nature of that block and that massing. So, I think on balance and listening to both sides of the argument and rationale, I think that the due diligence of the day lighting has been carried out. And I would be recommending it for approval because of the nature of existing businesses in areas like this within Lee. So, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Long stuff. Councillor Jones, you're coming, please. Thank you, Chair. I understand the difficulties of changing buildings of this type in this location. And it's really important that we've said there's a mishmash in the street scene. It's very vivid and parts of it are dense and some of it are backyard or back land, as I should say. But I think there's merit in changing the material that's in use currently. And I would hope that bearing in mind the location of this property, close to listed buildings as well, that some improvement could be made to the character and amenity of the area. To whose benefit that is, I don't know. But, you know, the most. But I just hope that the planning team can sort of like do a really good job with the submission of materials. I hope it's not like the picture that was actually submitted of. I know not to take those in terms of the colour and style quite literally. But I think that it's owed to residents to improve the character and amenity and really be meaningful about that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jones. Any further comments? Councillor Burton. Yeah, of course. I'm just making next one. Just to come back on what, Councillor, I think your point, if it was a new development, then absolutely. We see a lot of them where they do the ground floor is commercial and it's housing upstairs. And yeah, we see that quite often. I think what's different for this is it's not a new development. It's replacing something that's only housing and changing it to commercial. And that's where it's a bit of a question mark for me, because we see a lot of things where it goes the other way around town. On London Road, there's quite a few properties that were ex-commercial going to housing. And that I'd assumed that that's more policy compliant. It just seems very odd for it to be going the other way. Thank you, Councillor Burton. Any other comments, please? Councillor Gosten. I wasn't going to comment, actually, but I must come back to Councillor Burton, because the whole concept on planning now, if you look at the city centre, where you've got commercial on the ground floor and residential above, it actually works very well. And that's the whole point, the commercial on the ground floor. My only concern on this one, really, is the activities that will go on during the day for the commercial unit with only one parking space. And those roads are so congested around there that people coming to the commercial unit, whatever it may be, are going to have a job with that. But I've got absolutely no problems with commercial on the ground floor, because I think that's the way it should be going. Thank you, Councillor Gosten. Councillor Norman. Thank you. A question is just wondering, I'm freezing here. I just wondered if we could turn the aircon down. We'll look at that in a minute. That's a normal thank you. I think we're all done with comments, though, here. We can move to the vote, please, Tim. Thank you, Chair. Through you. So the matter before you is to grant planning permission subject to the condition set out and report, and the amended condition set out in the supplementary report, please, can I have sharp hands? All those in favour, please? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 10, Chair, any against? 1, 2, 3, 4. That motion is carried, Chair. Thank you, Tim. If we could look into that. We'll just take a five minute break, shall we? We'll take a five minute break just to get that rectified. Thank you. Dense units on the site for up to seven units was not objected to in principle by either local planning authority or the planning inspectorate in relation to planning and previous planning applications. Also, no objections have been raised by any of the inspectors for various appeals to the loss of a single family dwelling. With regards to designing character, the current proposal has based its form and design on the allowed extent 2019 scheme, although it's now seeking demolition and rebuild, rather than extension remodeling and conversion. There are clear similarities in style, except at the footprint, not including balconies, it sets some 300 metres forward to the front and the gable is 2.4 metres closer to the corner junction. The current proposal has a more consistent side building line at 6.5 metres from the western boundary and there is an enlarged single storey element at the rear next to 134 marine parade. The extant 2019 scheme introduced included introduction of large frame dormers within a large hip tree form, a feature glazed gable to the corner as well as various extensions to the built form in filling space at the corners and the current application is based on that design, but is a new build rather than conversion. The proposal is 2.5 stories and the proposed number of flats is 4, whereas the approved conversion and remodeling creates 6 flats. In terms of design detail, the proposal is also similar to the extant proposal, including the feature framing to the corner gable, front and rear dormers and glass balconies to the front. The key difference is between the extant conversion scheme and the current proposal are that the proposal is some 3.3 metres wider, but still maintains a decent 6.4 metres set back to the Thames Drive frontage and it has a deeper ground floor plan, which is the result of the building stepping forward, some 65 centimetres from an existing front building line. In absolute terms, the proposal is larger than the approved development in some respects, but the comparative increase is involved on marginal. The inspector said that a variation in design can provide visual interest that adds rather than the cracks from the appearance of the street scene. Remodeling of the building to give it a more contemporary appearance was in the 2019 scheme, was significant, such that the development would appear as a new building in the street scene. In the circumstances and attaching due weight to the 2019 appeal decision, staff consider it would be difficult to sustain an argument that a new building of comparative form, size and appearance to the extant development would harm local character. The proposal is also satisfactorily addressed all the concerns raised by the inspector when dismissing the separate 2021 appeal, which is summarised at Paragraph 2.5 in the report. This includes amending the scale and form of the development from three stories to 2.5 stories with a better proportioned roof form, including aligning the eaves with neighbours, significantly reducing the width of the proposal and providing a generous setback to Thames Drive to better reflect the openness of the junction and building line in the street. The general scale and proportions of the development are more comfortable and comparable with the surrounding development and the right relatively minor variations and building lines on both frontages are now within accepting acceptable tolerances. Overall it's considered the proposal as satisfactorily taken on board comments from the inspectors on previous appeals and the resulting development is now acceptable in its scale, form and detail design and will comfortably integrate into the street scenes of marine parade and Thames Drive. The proposal has satisfactorily overcome the previous reason for refusal and the inspector's concern. In regard to neighbour amenity, in relation to the northern boundary of the site with 104 Thames Drive, the proposed development would be some 14 metres from the boundary at ground floor, some 17.9 metres at first floor and 19 metres at second floor. The neighbouring dwelling has what appears to be a secondary window and small obscure window in this southern flank at first floor. It's considered there is sufficient separation distance to ensure the proposal would not result in an overbearing relationship sense of enclosure, loss of light or privacy for this neighbour. The parking for the new flats is located to the rear of the building with eight spaces adjacent to the shared boundary with 104 Thames Drive. This is a similar arrangement to the extant 2019 scheme and this relationship has not been raised as a concern in the previous appeals. The element of this impact on the neighbours is considered to be satisfactory. The proposal is set to 1 metres from the eastern flank and 4.2 metres from the flank wall of 134 marine parade. Marine parade has four secondary windows in the western elevation facing the site. The proposal would extend approximately 1.6 metres forward at the front building line of this neighbour at a separation distance of about 4.2 to 4.7 metres. The proposal does not extend past this neighbour to the rear. It's therefore considered that the separation distance is sufficiently mitigated the impact of the proposal on that neighbouring dwelling and the impact on the amenities of the neighbour is therefore considered to be acceptable. The site is located on the corner and no other neighbour's neighbours' amenity would be materially harmed in any relevant regard. In respect to occupy amenity, details of the development are set out at Paragraph 8.27 onwards of the report. The flats are generous in size and well in excess of the national technical standards. All the habitable rooms have adequate light and outlook and the proposal was therefore acceptable and policy compliant in this regard. Cabbin-style platform lifts are proposed in the entrance to the upper floor flats and the agent has confirmed that all units are M4-2 compliant. Whilst no rear garden or shared private amenity space is proposed, all flats would have access to their own private terrace or balcony. The flats are also opposite an extensive area of open space and considering around this provision is considered acceptable. Occupies would be protected from noise by the use of acoustic glazing and this is considered acceptable and can be controlled by condition. Overall therefore it's considered the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers and is acceptable and policy compliant in this regard. The site is at the junction of marine preyed and Thames Drive which is controlled by traffic lights and is on a bus route and within walking distance of lease station. To access to parking, the proposal would require formation of a new double access onto Thames Drive. The agent has advised that the new crossover onto Thames Drive has commenced as part of the previous application approval under application 19 01471 FUL. Eighteen parking spaces are proposed and space for turning of vehicles. Each flat without access to electric vehicle charging. Space is also allocated for cycle and refuse storage to the rear and the council's highways officer has not raised any objections about the parking or access to the scheme. Subject to the conditions therefore is considered acceptable and policy compliant in relation to traffic parking and highway safety issue. The provision of housing meets the housing delivery test and the five-year housing land supply way in favour of the principal of the residential use and the net gain of three residential units should be given increased weight in the balance. It's noted that no objections have been raised by any of the inspectors at the various appeals to the loss of the single family dwelling in this instance. So taking all material planning considerations into account, it's found that subject compliance with the attached condition, the proposed development would be acceptable and compliance with the objectives of the relevant development plan policies and guidance. The application has satisfactorily overcome both reasons for which the previous 2023 application was refused and dismissed the appeal and the application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions set out at page 201 of the agenda. Thank you. Thank you, Charlotte. We'll be straight on to questions. Councillor CASTON. I hope you don't mind me sort of asking this question with a little bit of a comment. We've been here before on this one and we've been here before on memory house as well and I've felt on memory house that we eventually got it right and the building going up now is okay with the street scene. My question is, and I do thank Charlotte for that very good introduction, most of which I think is absolutely right. But what are the officers for you on the actual street scene? Because looking at the photograph that we've got, I think it's much uglier than what's being replaced. And I know there's a lot of sentimental views about the building, who owned it and who's been there. But I think what we've got to look at is a building that's probably going to be there for the next 100 years. And I think for that corner, the picture that we're looking at is quite ugly. So I just wondered if the officers would just comment on the street scene for me. Please. Yeah, first of all, Chair, we don't normally tell you who the case officers are, particularly. But the case officers have been dealing with this is the Design and Conservation Officer. She's been personally involved and has achieved amendments to the submitted proposal, which is in front of you now. What we're finding from both our own policies, but also the way the planning system is operating at the moment. And that's often articulated through appeal decisions that we receive. There is a general sense that when you have something like a conservation area, where there is a clear, clear need to consider the role that the existing fabric of the building makes to that area. We hope, for example, just now about the 3A West Street one, some of the, we've had proposals along the Broadway, for example, in the conservation area, where the fabric of what's there at the moment is really key to the heritage field of the area. If somewhere's not in a conservation area, the general sense of the planning frameworks is that unless you can really, really say that there's a uniformity to that street, and there are some roads in the city that are like that, some of the residential roads, where you can say, if you took the person on the omnibus and said, What's the character of this area? It is so, so consistent that a new development would not fit in and would cause significant harm. The thing that we're getting is that you really should be using the planning system to enable good new development. Design, obviously, is a matter of opinion and taste, and what you've said they're about to fill in its ugly. I can understand why a person would think that that is an ugly building, depending on their point of view of design and architecture. Other people would look at it and think it's a nice, crisp design, it's lightweight balconies and so forth. The view we've reached is that that is a corner site. We've looked at the passage of the past refusals, and particularly the past permissions on the site, and as Charlotte explained, when you look at what the inspector it found to be acceptable as the conversion scheme, although there are differences between them, when you look at the slide on the drawing now and you look at the middle one versus the bottom one, so these two images here, it really does show that there are differences between them, and if you stood up close to it, yes, you can see that probably the one on the bottom is that bit more contemporary the one in the middle, but really those two designs are so similar in an area where there is mixed development. The photograph on the screen at the moment shows this one, for example, which is that hooded gable, which you see along marine parade. There's two of these houses up near memory house. They introduce a variety into the street scene, and really the planning inspector are saying that unless that's significantly harmful, it's taking away the things that we're familiar with, but the planning system is about the future and moving things on, and we are giving that a strong recommendation both as acceptable because of addressing the design issues, and also we think as a culmination of what's been happening on the site with the various decisions that have been given. I don't know if Charlotte showed some of the schemes that we've had, which they are refusals, but if you look at that one, for example, that is a contemporary design which anybody would look at that and say, well, that just doesn't fit the street. We think now it's the other side. It's now achieving a design that does fit in that street scene. It's only four units now as opposed to seven units in the conversion, so there's a lot going for this, and obviously it's for the committee to make its decision, but if we were to take that as a refusal saying that it's, to use your words, Councillor Garson, which is an opinion you hold, which I completely respect, it's ugly, we would have to demonstrate to the inspectorate what exactly about it is ugly simply because it's contemporary in style. There's nothing wrong with contemporary style architecture. It's like going into an art gallery. You like certain forms of art and others you don't. You've got to show significant harm, so I fully respect your opinion about it. What you have to do as a member of this committee, as you know, is to look at the planning basis of a decision, and if you feel that that is causing significant harm to local character immunity, as this committee's found previously, then you could form a basis of refusal on that, but staff have not reached that conclusion. I hope that helps you. Could I just say yes, thank you very much. That's a brilliant answer, yes, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Garson. Councillor Jones, your question, please. Thank you, Chair. Just quickly, the 19 refused a loud on appeal, O1, and I think I might have written this down, O1, 4, 7, 1, or 1, 7, I think. Charlotte mentioned that it was extant, so is that because the works to the crossover has begun because, you know, just trying to understand, if I'm correct in that thinking. It's a crossover and there have been some other works as well, which have commenced for development. A couple on that point to help Councillors, such as Councillor Garson, is sort of toying with where they might balance this. That's a fallback position, a viable fallback position, so to, when you look at the scheme and think, well, we judge things on their merits, so I'm looking at this afresh, you have to have in your minds as a committee the fact that they could tomorrow continue building the conversion scheme, and is that really that different from the scheme that's in front of you now, which is a new build? So that's a key issue for you this evening when you make your decision. Thank you. Councillor JAN, you've got another question. I do, and it is kind of along the point of a new build versus a conversion. In the comments on the original report, it was raised about, you know, sort of like release carbon impact, and the report later refers to a new build having a more positive impact. I just wonder if, if I could, you know, get the balance between those two, please. Yeah, these are submissions that are made by the applicants which are what they'll do in any planning application, which is the quite right thing to do, is list all the positives about the proposal. You wouldn't have a policy as a planning authority that would say you have to favour a conversion over a new build because a conversion is inherently better than a new build. It makes sense, obviously, to keep fabric, but as you've heard, for example, Councillor Longstaff's previous meetings as a practitioner, a new build project will inherently achieve thermal qualities and so forth at a conversion building won't. There also will be the limitations of the interior of the conversion. Altogether, a new build scheme would satisfy your policies as regard, the sustainability and so forth, with the conditions that we're suggesting being posed. Thank you, Chair. And I suppose it's just that I was going through the objections, and I think we've gone through objections in a number of times, and people raise very, very valid comments, and it also does speak a little to what Councillor Gasteron was raising. One of them raised about an issue about the positioning of refuse and the impact on the street scene is that covered by condition, effectively, to allay those sorts of fears. Thank you. Through you, Chairman, if I can bring up the plan before you, the proposed waste storage is in this location here, so it is set well back from the highway and the cycle storage there. So it's also covered by a condition, so that matter we feel can be acceptable. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Charlotte. Councillor Berry, your question, please. Thank you, Chair. I think it's a shame that lovely old building is going to get demolished although I have to say that I don't think that the proposed new one, going by the artist's impression, is ugly. I think it looks quite good. When I was wondering, and this might seem quite petty, but as somebody has put in their submission, the original house was built by Eric Cole, who ran the radio manufacturers, very well-known local company. Would it be possible to put in condition or that there's a plaque or something put on the location to commemorate that? I might have to say a bit pasty, but I think it'd be nice. Yeah, I'd completely understand that, and that's been a kind of current theme in some of the representations we made. What the local planning authority can sometimes do, like on Nazareth House, for example, where there was a historic fabric, we try and work with the museum service, that if there are artifacts in the building that can be put in a museum or something, we would certainly do that. We normally do it with a much larger scale development, so subject to what Kevin may jump in with, I think this is something that we would just, you know, raise with the developers. I don't think we have enough cause as a local planning authority to put a planning condition on for that because, as you know, as a committee through the training, you've got six very precise tests about reasonableness, and you could be going into the cost, yeah, cost territory, so I think we'll take it away and just raise it with the developers, probably listening on the webcast anyway now. Thank you. Thank you, happy with that. Great, thank you, Councillor Berry. Councillor Longstar first, I don't know. Yeah, just one quick question from me is the provision of cycle parking. I heard it mentioned, but it's difficult to see where it is on the plan because bikes do take up quite a lot of space, and it may be that it's, I've missed that on the plan, on our drawings, the writings, not really legible digitally, so I may have missed it, thank you. Thank you, through you, Chairman, it's shown in this location here, but there is also a condition which requires full details to be submitted and approved, so that would cover that issue as with the waste storage. Thank you, through you, Chairman. Yeah, thank you for that. Yeah, I mean, just at a glance, it doesn't look large enough to be both a waste storage for that many flats and also for that many cycles, so we're approving a scheme where we can't see the space standards for both the refuse and the bike park. Yeah, Chair, take on both the points. If members were concerned that that particular space is not, it looks slightly on the side, which we haven't identified that, but if we can put a condition on, I think that might be the word in condition anyway, irrespective of the detail shown on the drawing, we want details showing exactly how it works to meet the standard, so it's not simply what they want to give us, it's to meet that cycle provision standard. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Is that acceptable? Yeah, could I just clarify that this just to clarify is seven, proposed seven flats? No, four. Four, four, and there's eight parking spaces, so there's ample space there for a reconfiguration of that space, so yeah, that's fine, sorry. Thank you, thank you. Councillor Norman, no question. Yeah, just I live quite near there and most of the marine parade houses, I've got this sort of tan roof and that sort of colourisation. Looking at the actual design, it looked like we seem to have a fashion now for grey buildings. Is that a grey because it's a black and white, obviously. Is the colours of the, it's right, thank you. Through you, Chairman, condition three, that's a CGI of the proposed development, but notwithstanding that, condition three does require full details and product details to be submitted and approved before construction of the development, so the issue of the impact on the street scene is something that will be needed during that process as well. Thank you. Yeah, as I said, you know, most roofs are tie-on coloured, you know, all the way along and some have been demolished and some have been replaced and they've always been replaced in that sort of colouring, so okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Norman. Councillor Hababell. Yeah, thank you, Chair. So what we're faced with really is, I mean, the conversion with the seven units has already been approved. We've got this new build, which reduces it to four units. Obviously, the flats will be more spacious and there's more parking. There's obviously a trade-off for those people with a keen sort of design element that would like to retain some of the old building, but as Councillor—that Councillor down there has just said, you know, there's this trade-off in terms of the efficiency of the building as well. If we were minded to go with the new build, is there any way that we can, you know, add weight to the committee's decision in favour of this new build with a reduction of four units and more spaciousness and the parking? Because I think it would be disappointing if we approved that and they came back for a new build with seven. Through you, Chairman, they would have to come back for a revised planning application, which would be considered on its merit. We're looking at the application for four flats at this stage and that's what's before us for consideration today. Yeah, I just wondered if we could put somewhere in, you know, in the recording in the minutes that we were minded to go along with it, because these were definite benefits. Completely understand what, especially when there's been a kind of history of a saga of planning applications and the committee reaches a point where you feel, okay, well, this is sufficient for us to approve, but we don't want any further out. You can't do that. You simply can't do that. And to do that would be unreasonable to put condition on. You can't better the ability for somebody to come forward with another planning application because you have the power to determine that further planning application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Admiral. Thank you, Patrick. Any further questions? Council on staff? Yeah, thank you through you, Chair. Just picking up on commentary around the appearance and the materiality. Whilst I agree with Councillor JONES, it is preferable to keep existing fabric from an environmental perspective because the carbon's already emitted with that fabric, but sometimes it's just not possible. You end up demolishing so much of the building. There's not much of the existing left, and it's complex to deal with existing structures when designing. But I would like to pick up on the materiality. And I know everybody has an opinion on design and particularly this development. I'd like to kind of praise the officers for a really considered report. This has been presented to Council on numerous occasions with outlandish schemes and quite rightly so it's been rejected. There's now a strong body of evidence to keep this, to prove this, and I appreciate that. But I will pick up on the materiality because it's one of the things I pick up at University of my architectural students. It's the issue of weathering. And the CGI, I think, do look good. It looks contemporary. We should be building of our time. That's been a mantra for over a thousand years. And things do evolve. But what I would be concerned about is the materiality and all that lovely whiteness that we see. It's very easy to do that on a digital CGI. It's very, very challenging to achieve that materialistically in reality. And I'm concerned about the amount of rendering. And so I'd be keen to see that the durability of the proposed materials are as such that we're not going to be seeing a building with staining and weathering. Because we know brick works. It's durable. It lasts over a hundred plus years. I'd be concerned that in five years' time, once built, all these white elements will have really poor staining and it will become quite an eyesore on the streets and irrespective of the aesthetics of the form and design. We are on questions but I'll take that as your comment gets a long stop because it's more of a common base. So if that's okay. With that, I think we're moved to comments because I haven't got any indication of any more questions. So any further comments? Councillor Collins. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity. As coming into this committee and seeing this item for the first time in my position, because obviously it's got a tortured history. And I think as a committee member, I'd have to have a very good reason to refuse this, having been bared by what the inspector said in previous applications. Two comments about the history of the building from the Chair, E.K. Cole, it is important to the city and the wonderful exhibition we saw down the road from us here at the museum. I'm looking at the pictures of the actual back of the building and intrigued on page 224 of the pack, those over windows, bearing in mind, talk about design, as the Councillor long stopped it, about design. The design of those radios is very important and got in notice and got in success. And I would be very interested if we could indeed make sure that our museum staff had an opportunity to look at those windows and any of those that may be available, because we have a wonderful history of E.K. Cole materials in our possession, and we'd hate to lose something like that. That's the actual 229, the picture of the 229, the actual building that's presented on the screen. I am quite comfortable with that presentation. I think it's in keeping. It's certainly not outlandish to make me feel that I'd want to reject that. So as a comment, Chair, I have no objection to this. I think we'd have a very good reason to find against it, and I don't think we have that. But I do want to make sure that E.K. Cole's history is not lost. I mean, I'd choose to look at that rear of that building, particularly, I think, is there something there that we should be taking hold of with the Council for the city? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor COYs. Councillor Burdon. I think we should not conflate houses that are big with houses that are beautiful, and I think this is the current one. It's like a big house, but it doesn't look particularly nice. There are further down the road. I'm not on Google Maps. There are multiple beautiful houses, which are a bit smaller. So I think, actually, I quite like the new proposal. I think, actually, further down the road, there's other similar properties in that newer style. I think, actually, rather than having a slightly a big dilapidated, or not dilapidated, but one that's a bit past its best, actually, I think having that newer building, I think will really bring something to the area. There's already other ones in the road, so I don't think it's like a road that's all old buildings. So, yeah, that's where I am. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Burdon. Any further comments? Nice. We can move to the vote, please, Tim. Thank you, Chair. It's for you. The motion before you used to grant plan permissions subject to the condition set out in the report, and an additional condition about how the cycle and waste storage facilities will be, the provision will be met. Is that an existing one? So it's just the condition set out in the report and that case, Chair. Please come up, Chair. I'll pass all those in favour. 13, Chair. Any against? That's a carried, Chair. Thank you, Tim. So, we move on to the item of rating on the agenda, and that is for Charlotte to present. Thank you, Charlotte. Thank you, Chairman. Firstly, you draw most attention to the supplementary agenda, which includes summaries of further representations that have been received since the publication of the DCC agenda. This application was previously deferred at last month's electoral committee for more information and clarification to be provided on the existing use of the garages that are proposed to be demolished. The report has been updated in this respect. The garages are owned by the Council and are managed by South Essex Homes. The applicant has confirmed that all of the garages are vacant with the last two tenants served notice in February 2024 for necessary asbestos surveys with possessions secured in March 2024. The applicant has confirmed that there has been no interest in recent years from local residents to occupy the garages on the site with their occupancy reducing from 2012. A record of the occupancy of these garages has been included at paragraph 2.11 of the agenda. So, the application site contains two garage blocks and is on the eastern side of Bradfordbury. The garages are undersized for modern cars and are utilitarian in appearance. The surrounding area contains a mixture of houses and flats. Planning permission is sought to demolish the garages and erect two two-story semi-detached dwellings which would be two bedroom free person units. There would be two turned and parking spaces per dwelling to the western side of the dwellings which would be accessed via the existing crossover with two electrical vehicle charging points provided. The proposed housing would be part of the Council's affordable housing stock and the project aims to provide two passive house plus certified houses or passive house institute low energy standard houses to exemplify sustainable and energy efficient housing solutions as a pioneering project. As set out in the agenda, two representations from one address have been received and a representation from Councillor Aylin has also been received. These are summarised that paragraph 4.1, 4.2 the agenda and as said, the supplementary agenda also summarises further representations received since the publication of the agenda. There's no objection to the principal development which would provide highly sustainable and affordable housing in the city for which there is an identified need. In design terms, the development would replace the existing utilitarian garage blocks and would introduce more active frontage and natural surveillance to the pedestrian path to the south which is positive. The design of the units reflects the character of the surrounding development. The design and materials of these affordable and highly sustainable houses provides a modern day and contemporary interpretation of the surrounding context and would not appear significantly out of keeping or unusual and would suitably integrate into the surroundings in accordance with policy. As set out in detail in the agenda, given the location of the proposed development and its design and separations from the neighbouring dwellings, subject to condition requiring the first floor eastern side windows to be of skew glaze with limited openings. The development would not result in any significant harm to the residential meanity of nearby or adjoining residents. The development exceeds the minimum requirements of the nationally described space standards and his M42 compliant and provides acceptable private rear amenity areas to both Aylins. A condition is recommended requiring submission of a noise impact assessment to ensure acceptable noise levels are provided for future occupiers. In terms of parking, two tandem off-street parking spaces are provided. Pedwelling and two electrical vehicle charging points are provided and that's in accordance with policy. Cycle parking is also provided. Third party concerns have been raised regarding the loss of the parking and the use of the garages. The garages are undersized and are therefore unsuitable for parking modern cars. It's been confirmed that there's been no interest in recent years from local residents to occupy the garages and their occupancy has been reduced since August

1. In early 2023 only two of the four garages had tenants. The site is in poor condition and significant works would be required to bring the entirety of the block into use. The site has also been subject to interstitial behaviour with flight tip in instance and been reported. Highways have raised no objection to the proposal and therefore the development is considered acceptable in parking and highways terms. So in summary the proposal creates two new affordable low-energy houses which would exemplify sustainable and energy efficient housing solutions which would be a significant benefit to the community and which would significantly outweigh the loss of the underutilised garages in this location. Therefore members are recommended to grant planning permission and are subject to the conditions which are on pages 248-256 of the agenda. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Charlotte. Mr Russell. When you're ready you have three minutes, sir. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good evening. I am John Russell. I'm a tenant of 40 Bradfordbury. Having spoken to many residents of Bradfordbury there and my own feelings on this development are filled with angst. As the parking issue is worth more to them rather than two different looking buildings compared to other 1970 blocks. I myself as a project manager and constructing Royal Navy ammunition depots in foreign government service know that I have raised a formal submission outline in the change of allocation whereby allowing a like-for-like facility for a resident's parking area not utilised by progress road workers. My block 36-42 are directly next to this development site and we do not want this in that location. As written in my submission, an area is available and books a file for the residents are happy with this. Also should this development go ahead, a new fence and pathway would have to be funded for the rear of access to a work. I hope that you will embrace my submittal if not then the Secretary of State will be asked to sanction this development and local media will be informed. My self and residents do not want this development. I'd like to remind you that you work on behalf of the residents of South End so start listening to what we are asking and saying thank you. Thank you Mr Russell. We have Tim Pollard. You also have three minutes Tim thank you. Good evening all. It feels strange saying that at DCC but I'm Tim Holland head of housing supply at the Council. Following the presentation may today and also at the last committee, I thought it would be useful to provide some further information on this Council housing application at Bradfordbury and provide some context to our plans. South End face is increasingly unprecedented housing pressures with over 300 households in temporary accommodation and over 1,400 households on the homesseeker's register waiting for a council house. To help address this need, my team has been building council homes on underutilized garage sites for over 10 years and in February 2023, full council agreed that the strategic housing team would progress to develop two further sites for this much needed council homes, one in Denton and one in Bradfordbury. The two council homes proposed for Bradfordbury are not only providing much needed council housing but are also piloting sustainable building standards. They will be built to passive house standards meaning that there will be low energy buildings that are highly insulated and airtight to ensure that energy usage and associated energy costs are low for attendance. The proposed homes are with the most energy efficient council homes that we have and some of the most energy efficient homes in the city. In terms of design, passive house homes require thicker walls, more sensitive positioning and sizing of windows and careful orientation to take advantage of the sun's energy. Air source heat pumps are used as a low carbon option for heating and domestic hot water. The homes are proposed to be timber framing construction, clad in traditional brick bricks, the roof pitch mimics that of the surrounding buildings whilst the proportion of windows matched that of the neighbouring properties. Reference has been made previously regarding the use of reconstituted stone for window steels, however it's felt that these elements add interest to the elevation last longer and function better than plastic seals. Regarding the existing garages that have been referenced today and discussed at the last committee, I can confirm none of these garages in Bradfordbury are rented out. Council owned garages are advertised in the south of this home's website with details and locations and application form for interested parties. Unfortunately, many other garage sites across the city require significant capital works to bring them up to standard due to vandalism, misuse and natural wear and tear. Repairs, maintenance and clearance also represent high revenue costs for the council. Regarding the Bradfordbury site since 2017, usage of the site has diminished to the point at the start of the year two of the 14 garage site. Their garages were in use as surveys required that the remaining two garage tenants were offered to move to alternative garage sites but chose to make other arrangements. In summary, this application represents good use of the underutilised garage site and will provide much needed energy efficient council homes for families on the housing waiting list. Councillor interjecting. You have five minutes when you're ready, it's time. The planning application was referred as there are so many concerns over supporting evidence. It was strongly suggested from the Senior Councillor. I should not oppose the application and this is needed as social housing. It was stated that these garages are not suitable for modern cars and are then being taken out of use. I'll challenge this misleading assumption. The response existing garages measure 5.1 by 2.4 which is below the current minimum size requirements. Existing garages are considered to be undersized for modern cars and therefore underused an incorrect statement with no evidence. Whilst garages may be able to house some modern cars, this is a council response. It will preclude some modern cars as well. It may be difficult to park them comfortably. That was the point that's been making at last DCC. But however note, only 6% of modern cars would not be able to fit and that's allowing for door opening as well. Residents were evicted from the garages. Quote, this is from the Council. Existing renters with no issues are not being evicted. The Council planning and redevelopment of the site of a much needed council housing and they were served NTQs and offered alternative garage accommodation instead, not correct. The letter actually sent was, I've got a copy of it here. It just says that you have to vacate the garage by noon on the 7th of March 2024. No other option. The report states the tenants were served notice by South Essex homes in February 2024 to facilitate necessary asbestos surveys. No evidence of that survey has been found. The hiring report was challenged at the last meeting. The report still states no issues. Council Deere is sitting here. Council Warren who's sitting behind me and myself over a number of years have picked up this parking problem at this location, which is a real problem. And we've highlighted repeatedly highlighted parking issues. The comment that I should not oppose the south of the city is desperately, as it's in desperately the housing, 55 feet from the east of this land earmark for is earmark for a police station. Next to is the Bandon Council Carpar, a site for 10 houses. Croft close gouges were cleared for housing 18 years ago. Currently, it's been used to waste transfer station without a licence. The development employs designs of false windows, non-stop colours, roof tiles that are not approved, they're grey and we don't approve grey roof tiles, and clearly not intended to even attempt to match the surrounding buildings. This is intended for social housing? No parking. No parking. The parking is shown on public land of South Oakwood Park, as are the electric charging points, so they can't exist. The birch tree that is noticed as diseased and to be removed is a healthy birch. I had it checked this morning. Access to public water tap, that the council states the owner of the land has to make raise objections to and to there, the council owned the land. Although a report, all through the report, there are questionable issues, contradiction facts and incorrect information. No justification to remove serviceable in demand gouges. The deplorable eviction of tenants and clear cover-up excuses. Residents applying for gouges are constantly ignored. No thought about the residents of the area. I request the application is removed from development control committee and an inquiry set up to investigate the application, or that the application be deferred to allow further investigation. I aimed it there. Thank you, Councillor interjecting. So you can move to questions. Councillor BERRY, please. Thank you, Chair. I find myself in an unusual position here. Normally, I'll support anything in favour of Council houses. I think that the objectives have made some very, very persuasive points. I'm inclined towards what Councillor ALIN has just suggested and deferring it so we can get some proper clarification. I know we have this before us and we've deferred it to this time. But I, for one, I'm not altogether convinced by the comeback on the questions we had, particularly over the circumstances regarding the garages being empty, the tenants, the people who rented them were evicted. They were given notices to quit, and so it seems. And yeah, that's been denied. And the excuse about the garages was not being big enough for modern cars. That can't be right. Back in those days, people drove massive things like Cortinas and Zodiacs and Zephyrs. Modern cars are loads smaller than those. So I'm wondering if we ought to put forward a proposed to deferring so we can get proper information and proof. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Berry. Councillor BUTTON has indicated he wants to talk so I'm going to let I'll write a question. Did you have a question? Councillor LUNSTUFF, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask, what's there? These are clearly designed to be family homes and we need family homes in South and it's just two homes at the expense of the garages. But if they are family homes, I just wondered whether what consideration there was because the South and Council owned all the land around that what we were called the residential curtillage which is shown in red. Was there any discussion or consideration for the amenity space, the garden space, because it seems to me that they are a bit of a squash and a squeeze and I heard it mentioned that the spatial standards were above the national guidelines. But there's not even space for people to see. There's no dining space for example. There's what looks to be like a breakfast space and there's hardly any amenity garden space. I just wondered whether that had been taken into consideration and whether the actual residential curtillage could be increased to make the proposal more suitable. As a general observation, Chair, what we have to do is consider the planning application in front of us. It happens that it's come from a department within the Council, but we have to consider the planning application exactly the same as the last one we considered. It's not really for this committee in planning terms to give lots of investigation as to how something has come about for a submission to be in front of you. What you have to do is consider the submission that's now in front of you, not to try and use planning powers even for the right reasons, to try and interfere in the history of how something's come in front of you. So to answer Councillor Long-Star's question, and it might be a recurrent theme as we answer questions if there are further questions, the application in front of you has evolved by the applicant and it's for the applicant to decide why they've chosen to submit the proposal as they have with the internal accommodation they have, the amenity space and so forth. As a committee, if you come to a view that the development is cramped and you feel it's an overdevelopment and they're perfectly reasonable bases to form a view that you might oppose an application on its planning merits, but what we can't do if something is acceptable is to say, well, something different might have been better and we might prefer that. And in this instance, as Charlotte might dip in and talk about, the internal accommodation meets our requirements and the external accommodation, given this is an infill development, and the fact that when we have, again, I keep coming back to appeals, but they're a very, very good touchstone for what the planning framework nationally is regarding is the key things it's trying to drive forward. Amenity standards, time and again, we don't have amenity standards in this authority, what we do is we judge them on whether they're satisfying the needs of the development. Are they reasonable? Time and again, inspectors will take a view that external amenity space is often not as precious as we have been in planning a long, long time. And I remember, you know, 30, 40 years ago being involved in schemes where, not in this authority, but a different one, where we had a standard and we applied it. And that was it. And you ended up with a three-story block on a site and they all look the same because they all had exactly the same standards. That was then the policies have changed now. And again, as Charlotte can explain in detail, if required, staff have formed the view that the amenity provision for these houses, given their scale and nature, is not harmful. And we've formed an overall view and as Councillor Long's staff are suggesting there that you are achieving here two well-designed family units that meet a significant need in the city. And our balance on weighing up those factors is if you form the view that the accommodation could be different or the external amenity space is smaller than you might consider desirable in any circumstance, you then have to weigh that against the fact that there are two houses. And I've reiterated that comment. It really in planning terms has nothing to do with the fact that you've just heard from the Council's head of housing there. That could be a private developer and your decision would have to be on exactly the same sort of factors that you take into account. So I'm sorry, I'll get a little bit preachy in that. I'm just what I'm trying to do is you've got very emotive things that have been said here for exactly very, very genuine reasons. But you need as a planning committee to keep focused on what your role is for the local planning authority is to look at the material planning considerations of this particular proposal in front of you. And that's what your charge we're doing is considering whether or not that's acceptable. So about the long answer to the Councillor Long's staff's question but a sense that that's in your minds about where that balance lies about taking account of all the factors you're hearing this evening. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Patrick. I think that's the long stuff. I've got Councillor D and next with a question. Thank you, Chair. Could we have some clarification on the eviction letter? It wasn't raised at last meeting when this item was deferred. Can someone clarify exactly the wording? We've got some copy of it. Thank you. Through you, Chair, but it's not a material planning consideration. I don't think it's pertinent to the decision that we're making tonight as the local planning authority. So I understand that there is wider context around this that sits outside of the planning process. As is always the case, there are factors beyond planning that people have in their minds. But when making a decision on this, the exact wording of that letter, it should not have any bearing on the committee's decision this evening on this application. The other point I would highlight is that obviously you hear an awful lot about housing need within this city. And my view, and it's not suggesting that the committee wouldn't be entitled to follow a different view if it wished to do so, but my view would be that even if these garages were in use currently, the delivery of housing of the nature that we're having before us would, irrespective of the council's involvement in this, outweigh in a positive what manner the loss of those garages, even if they were in use, even if they were considered to be of current size requirements for a garage. So there's a really key decision here, other than whether the garages outweigh the loss of the housing. And the fact that the housing department of sales, they're not in use, obviously it does need to be bought in mind, but how we've arrived there, I would suggest, is not a material planning consideration. And even if a view were taken, that they were in use, I would personally say that the delivery of the housing outweighs that hope. So I've got a little bit beyond the actual question you asked there. But again, it's quite clear that there's a sense in the room around some of this, but I think it's just really important that the committee is able to focus in on the bits of the discussion that it's appropriate to do so this evening when making a decision. Thank you. Thank you. I'll come up with a comment. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Bursen. Thank you, Chair. The table on page 237, because it's been copy and pasted, I can't tell what all the columns mean. So could you explain to me, obviously, the thing, garage, other, what are the ends and the whys? For you, Chairman, the copy and paste that you've got is what we were provided with. I'm not sure I've got full details, what the ends and the whys are. The key thing with this table is the void and the date. So void obviously means that it's not being occupied and the date on the end column is how long it's been empty for. I know that's clear. It's just the other two columns. I don't know what they mean, the ends and the whys. I'll have another look or submit it, but I don't think the headings, I'm not sure they'll have a look. Thank you, yeah. Secondly, so obviously when this first came, we were told they're all empty, and I took that to mean no one wanted them, they're all empty, and actually that's a very different situation to, they weren't empty, but two people have just been, the last two people have been told to leave. It doesn't feel like we've been given the full picture, first time round, it feels as if we withhold the information. I agree with you, it's not the material planning whatever, but in which case you should be honest with us. We could have said okay, that's the context, that's the full context, that's not a material planning consideration, so we won't consider it. So given it's not a material planning consideration, why weren't we given the full context first time round? We simply provided the information that we were given by the applicant, so I appreciate this is slightly odd because you're talking to one council department or another council department, but it is really important, I suppose it goes to the heart of a lot of the guidance that the officers have given tonight, and I do appreciate this is a difficult one for members, but it's that whole business of you're wearing one hat, we have treated this application no differently to any other applicant, and we present the information we get, and that's how we've treated it. So as a local planning authority and as the planning department, we certainly haven't sought to hide anything, we were presented with a position and following the questions by members, we've been quiet further with the applicant, we've got some further information, so we've presented that, but that is simply that process that has been gone through here, so I hope that helps clarify at least, but for what it's worth, I do understand where you're coming from in that regard. OK, Councillor Berry proposed that we defer this for more information, and I'm minded to sing that as well at the moment because I don't think we've got the questions answered that we wanted answered last time, so with that I'm going to come back to that, I'm just going to second Councillor Berry's motion in a minute, but we will hear what other people are going to say first, so Councillor Collins and then Councillor DIN. Thank you, Chair, so I'd like to ask a question. I'm very intrigued by the parking and the nature of that. I want to know from the officers, please, do we expect to see some sort of fencing around the red line, and does that include where the cars are parked? I mean, clearly that's designed because that's the space allowed, but it's not looking great from a planning point of view and security and safety, so what is the plan for the red line where the vehicles are? Is there going to be a high fence? Thank you, for you, Chairman. So we don't have full details of all the boundary treatments at this stage, which is quite standard for applications of this nature at this point in time. What we have got is conditioning, conditioning for team, which covers all the hard and soft landscaping requirements, and one of the things that they have to provide within that is full details of the means of enclosing and subdividing the site. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Close. So we don't know from the applicant at this point what it will look like. You're saying we haven't been to come back with another application or modification on that to show us what the walls, how high they will be and what the state they'll look like? For you, Chairman, so just in terms of the means of enclosure, the fences and walls, whatever it might be that encloses the site, we don't have details of that and we have conditions that. But that is very standard. We do that on applications of this nature all the time. It's quite often the case I don't have that detail at this stage of the planning process. Councillor Dint. Yeah, building on your own seconding of the motion to defer this because we want more information, can I ask that if we are going to consider deferring this, we'd be very specific about the information that we want because whilst questions have been raised predominantly what I've heard so far is we want more information in a sort of general thing. I think what we need to do is if we're going to defer is to set out the specific questions we want answered for the applicant to come back with because, I mean, I wasn't at the last meeting but the impression I'm getting and apologies if this isn't correct is that there were some deficiencies with the report last time. It's come back and our response is, well, we just want more information still. I think we need to be precise about what we're asking for if we're going to be asking for more information and a number of the points that have been raised just don't seem like material planning concerns to me. I think that's a really helpful suggestion. Obviously you do have housing officers here who will be able to listen to that directly, aside from the fact it will be recorded in the minutes but I would just focus in really on that last point which is they need to be points about material planning considerations. If members have non-planning points they absolutely can pick those up with the applicant outside of the planning process but the points for the committee as they relate to the making of a decision really do need to be about material planning considerations but yeah I think it's a helpful suggestion. Thank you. Okay, Councillor Berry. Thank you, Chair, and very well put by Councillor Dents. Yes, we do need to say exactly what what else we want to know or what we'd like more detail of. As it goes up in material planning considerations, the entire application is a material planning consideration because if an application comes to us and doesn't give us true and up-to-date and full information then we shouldn't be saying yes or no to it and that is the consideration here and that's why I've proposed to defer it and so we have got that information and mainly the information we'd like to see is what actually happened to lead up to this. If the garages weren't vacated voluntarily then were the people forced out so the houses could be built because of a private developers can do it, can do that, we'd be up in arms with them. Well, we might be. It's as Councillor Dents was just interrupted but yeah it's not a planning consideration what you're proposing unfortunately so I was just seconding your proposal because I want to give it a fear hearing from your point of view so Councillor Dents can come back in now. Yeah I want to be clear I think questions over what's happened with these garages are valid questions and are questions certainly that I think the Wall Councillors can put to South Essex homes and expect to get answers to. That's different from being something that we in this committee consider. I mean I had to email Mr. Waters earlier today to confirm to him that I had done the training because I've not given that I missed it when it initially took place and I think members of this committee should reflect on that training and specifically what are the material planning considerations. It's not to say that these questions aren't questions that are valid and should be asked but it's about the forum in which they are being asked and certainly if the Belfast Councillors are not receiving answers to these questions from South Essex homes when they've been posed then I think you know all of us would support them in you know pursuing that but that's not what we're here to consider and to decide on. Councillor Gost and we're yeah we have gone into comments that unfortunately but this is a question Councillor Gost. It is a comment actually. Okay Councillor Deere is it a question? Okay so we're moving into comments so Councillor. Well I'd like to support what Councillor Dents is saying. I mean if we were dealing with an outside applicant it would be quite inconsiderate I think to defer the planning application for two meetings and we would probably be taken to the cleaners on appeal. What we're looking at here are two passive houses which will house two families and these passive houses are way above very often what is being done in the private sector. I mean you've only got to go to Juniper Road which is the house that we converted to see the sort of quality that we're putting in and the environmentally friendly things that are put into them. We are looking at a planning application and we ought to be considering the planning application for the two houses. I fully support the policy of actually getting rid of garages because what would you rather see? A car housed or a family housed and quite honestly I'd get rid of them all because we do be so desperately in housing and yes there may be one or two things that questions need to be answered but we shouldn't be deferring this. This is something that we need the money's in the budget to provide it and houses don't happen overnight they take a while to be built and quite honestly I'm against the deferral. I think we should accept this. Yes we possibly would want to as members to have a report on all the questions that are being asked but we've got a perfectly good design here we've got a house or two houses that will house families. I can see nothing wrong with the planning application and I'd like to propose we accept it out of the officer's recommendation. Thank you Councillor Gossen. Your mic's still on. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Deere. Thank you Chair. All about the same point, I'm quite unpopular in certain quarters but just to clarify, I'd be able to hear as Councillors we don't all disagree with that as application. I know the area quite well but if you look at the photographs you'll see those garages that I saw and I saw in my mind certainly. The right some wrongs whether people were evicted are not a consideration today so as far as I'm concerned as Councillor Gossen said we're providing two homes here which are very badly needed. The garages that on I saw, they would improve the area if we put houses there so I would completely support this application. Just make my microphone very clear. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Deere. Councillor Jones. Thank you Chair and sort of to quote somebody else I think it sounds like we're conflating three people in this marriage. We're conflating housing as a department with South Essex homes who are the operator of the site and ourselves and we're separating ourselves as members of the Council from members of the dedicated planning authority which is really important to remember who we are here today. I'd say that there's been a lot of talk about objection but it's not played out and we're out of objection and evidence and the number of objectives is not played out with evidence despite the fact that lots of evidence has been requested. There's been, we have to take what is before us as members of the planning team in the discussion about trees. If that changes, there is protections around that and I think that is within the conditions. Occupancy or non-occupancy is definitely not a material planning consideration and you know sort of if somebody decided to go into the garage and never come out again, we wouldn't be able to bring the bulldozers in, would we? When we're talking to eviction in very emotive terms and I think it was perhaps glossed over that one of the things that was said was alternatives were offered. I think that that is important. We have an absolute need for housing. I think one of the things that was said that it's in Congress within the development and we talked just in the previous application about things that might stick out like a sore thumb. So condition three refers to materials, you know, sort of like Councillor ALLAN did speak about things that we don't do. So with the sort of agreement and the involvement with Belfer's Councillors should something be passed at some time, I think that that should be something which they seem broadly able to agree with should something come forward because, you know, I kind of get that things can stick out like a sore thumb. I don't have a problem with the design. I think it's a reasonably good design equally sort of about areas that the Councillor owned and, you know, the parking, it might go into another area of Parkland. Again, you know, sort of it's difficult when it's us as the—well, the Council, who are not us today, as the applicant, talking about, you know, because we do say that land ownership, boundaries, and not a matter for planning, and we are just sort of like we're mixing our toasts as we say, sort of like in the rabbit community. And I do know the real word. But I just think that we've got to separate the things which we can do, which we should do, and which we need to do out of this. What we're here to do is decide on a planning application which is robust in its presentation to us. And that is what we should expect to have. Anything else, you know, if it wasn't the Council making this application, we would be in an awful lot of trouble. And I think Councillor Garston and Councillor Deaf are making those points. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jones. Councillor Berry. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Definitely. Councillor interjecting. Definitely. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, the very first words I said on this application were that it—I mean, in a most unusual position, I'm not coming out and out in support of building some Council houses. Well, Mr Russell said that we're here to help people in South End. Yes, we are here to help people in South End. And that includes the 1400 people on the housing waiting list, as well as the residents who use the garages and who live around there and don't want the extra housing and the extra parking and this, of course. But it—I honestly cannot feel that until I've got full information on this application and I'm confident in it being accurate and true and all the rest of it, I'm not going to be able to vote in favour of this. So, if my motion should, if no files, I'll be voting against the application for that situation that I've outlawed. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Berry. Councillor Collins, you can come back from comment. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I think the need of Council properties is very much right, but I'm looking at it purely on the planning aspect as in front of us. We are told by officers that these buildings, the actual accommodation themselves is within our permissions and our tolerances, that's fine. The aspect of it though, those vehicles sticking out onto what is open green space and I know that the officer gave an assurance that actually there had to be an adjustments to come back and inform this committee, I imagine, unless it's delegated and what those will look like because at the moment it's trying to squeeze it in and it does feel that to me that the properties themselves, it's just the properties themselves, okay, but it's not that, it's access to it, it's access from cars being parked there, which makes me feel a little bit uncomfortable about how it will look and that's where the planning aspect comes into play. So, I would want to know more information about that in your proposal and your second unit of the committee from Councillor Berry, what our questions would be. I want to know how that's going to work from the applicant, happens to be South and Council, but I don't care about that from the applicant, how would that actually work? So, my view is that I'm not minded to go ahead with this at this stage, I'd want to know more information about that, how it would actually fit within its confines, I think we've been given the building aspect at fine, okay, but not the overall picture, the immunity spaces, Councillor Longstar said and how it actually works. So, I want to know a bit more how it would actually look and ask for better clarification from the applicant to help us with that. Thank you Councillor Colleagues. Councillor Burton. Thank you. I'm planning a bit first, pleased Councillor Gaster mentioned it's in development in my ward on like Juniper and also opposite that we've got the homeless pods which are really good and that they replace garages there and I think kind of the residents near there and I would say that that's much more benefit than having the garages which certainly weren't in use there. So, I'm going to support the application I think kind of on the merit, I think the house is more important than the garages. On the point about the accuracy reports, I think something we should probably take from this, I think your answer is that was really good, is that obviously the reports come to the committee and they repair from officers. So, this officer's responsibility to make sure the accuracy is there and I think perhaps what's come from this then is if South Essex homes are giving you information, you treat that and challenge it as you would anyone else and don't just take it as red because you're right they are a different part of the Council. So, I think we should have been pushing back on that and said okay you say they're empty, what do you mean by that? Right, do you mean they always been empty or do you mean that they're only empty because of this and that we should have got that full picture person. We've got it now which is great but I think in future when we've got similar things we need to make sure the reports are really accurate so we can make the decision first time so I think really don't be afraid to push back on South Essex homes as you would any other organisation. Thanks. Any further comments from the committee? That's a long stuff. Yeah, just my final comment is that you know I'm relating back to my earlier comment but the parking arrangement could have been better you know conceived and you know configured if we'd just been able to kind of massage those site cartilage a little bit more. E-South in Council's land and I think it's a missed opportunity. Thank you Council on stuff. Any other comments? Okay. No, so we can go to the vote then please. So I'll put the first motion to defer to the committee so we can open up the show of hands all those in favour of the motion to defer to seek further for clarification about the car parking and the outside space. One, two, three, four. Are you against? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. No, I'm sure that's lost. So the motion before you now is to grant plan permission subject to the condition set out in the report. Please can I show of hands all those in favour please? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, two, twelve. And you're against? One, that's character granted. Thank you too. So we're on item number nine on the agenda and that's for Ella to support please. Thank you. Thank you, through you Chair. Firstly, I'd like to draw members' attention to the supplementary agenda which contains a summarised representation from the applicant. The officer's report starts at page 305 of the agenda. The application relates to six the gables, a two-storey detached dwelling on the north side of the gables, which is a cul-de-sac. The northern elevation of number six has an offset relationship with the rear elevation of number 530 arterial road to the north. The area is residential in nature and not subject to any planning policy designation. Panel permission is sought retrospectively to erect a single story rear extension with a flat roof, roof lantern and parapet wall. The dimensions of the proposal are contained within paragraph 2.1 of the officer's report. This application has been submitted following enforcement investigation. In 2023 prior approvals are granted for a single story rear extension which is shown by the red line on this plan here. A single story rear extension has been erected and exceeds agreed prior approval dimensions and is therefore not permitted development. An application for a single story rear extension and first floor rear extension was previously submitted and refused for the reason set out in paragraph 3.1 of the officer's report. This plan here shows the previously refused scheme. One letter of objection has been received, a summary of the comments can be found in paragraph 4.1 of the report. The development is contained within the rear of the site due to the offset relationship with five the gables as described at paragraph 4.5 unseen in this image here. It is considered that the extension causes does not cause significant harm in terms of design. Weight has also been attached to the 2023 prior approval for a similar single story rear extension. The development in place is some 0.5 metres higher to the parapet top and 0.15 metres deeper than the development given prior approval. The development is considered not to result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the site and the street seem more widely. The extension is cited along the share boundary of number 5 for gables and some 1.7 metres shallow out than the rear elevation number 5. Number 5 contains a door in the flank facing the site which unbalanced serves the kitchen and is not the sole source of light for this room. Consistent with the 2023 application, the extension does not result in significant harm to the immunity of this neighbouring property. I'm sure those photos have gone. There we go. The extension is some 2 metres from the shared boundary of number 530 arterial road and some 4 metres from the closest flank elevation. The rear wall of the extension is some 2.2 metres from the rear elevation of number 530 which you can see in this picture here. It is not considered that the extension does result in significant harm to the immunity of this neighbouring property. Having taken all material planning considerations into account, officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and compliant with relevant local and national policies. Members are recommended to approve plan and permission subject to the condition set out in section 8 of the report. Thank you Chair. Thank you, Ella. Councillor Warren, you have five minutes to address the committee when you're ready. Thank you. [inaudible] Okay. No problem. Okay. Right. Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to speak on this item this evening. I want to focus my comments on section 7.9 of the report and the significant impact this extension is having and will continue to have on number 5 the neighbouring property. I recently visited number 5 and I must say the height of the extension is incredibly overbearing and sits within just a few feet of the resident at number 5's kitchen door. The kitchen door of number 5 referenced in the report once served as the only source of direct lawn sunlight for this room. However, the height of the extension at number 6 has completely obstructed this. While the report correctly states that this door is not the sole source of light for the resident's kitchen, the direction the sun rises and the position of the property mean that the kitchen no longer receives any direct sunlight at any time of the day, any time of the year. As a result, even on the brightest of days, such as the day that I visited last week, the kitchen effectively remains in the dark due to this development and this will continue to get worse as the days become shorter. The report suggests that only very limited weight should be given to this issue and claims that development does not result in any significant harmful immunity impacts on the neighbouring property. However, on pages 319 to 328 of the report, there are numerous photographs which have just been shown taken through there. All but one are taken from within the boundary of number 6. There are no photos showing the development and its impact from the perspective of number 5, the property that's most affected by this extension. Furthermore, having had conversations with the resident at number 5, it's my understanding that no officer has visited number 5 to see the impact on this property which raises questions about how the report can conclude there is no significant harm to the immunity impact on this neighbouring property. So to summarise, I believe the extension is too high, it's incredibly overbearing on its immediate neighbour at number 5 and reduces by quite a large proportion, daylight and sunlight in this room and it therefore should be rejected. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wurren. I can move to questions. Councillor Jones. Yeah, just picking up on something Councillor Wurren said and that there may not have been a site visit to the neighbouring property. Just taking a view from planning perspective that a kitchen is not necessarily a habitable room, does anyone have any information, and I might look at Council once, see if your nod or shakes his head. I know I shouldn't, but there they go. To know that actually that is not just a kitchen but a kitchen and eating room and would that make a material difference? Through you, Chairman. The room has another window to the rear, so this is a secondary sort of light to that room and in those circumstances it's not considered to result in significant harm to a habitable room, such that it would warrant refusal of the application. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jones. Can you show up? Any other questions? Councillor Deere, sorry. Thank you, Chair. Just to stop a comment really, photo on the screen now, you can see how dark the garden is. If you go into, I visited a site last year, I made a statement in my declaration there that I did visit the site last week. I accept the fact, there was another window, but that property is not facing, as I understand it. It doesn't get the sign that secondary window, the main source of light is in fact, or was in fact, through the kitchen window. That is completely lost. I walked outside that kitchen door last week, and in front of you, it's a walled 11 and a half feet high. It stands less than one foot away from the boundary wall of that property than number five. It's a difficult one, I'd say to remember, because the property is there now, it's been built. It's retrospective, but it's not right. The person living in number five is badly affected by this property. There was a comment in the statement in the supplementary patch there about the height of that building. That's incorrect. I measured it myself. It's 3.5 metres and excessive 3.5 metres now. That wall is extremely high. When you walk out that kitchen door, you just hit by a wall. It's very imposing and very off-putting. I'm surprised that of those photographs, there's not one from within number five. If you add a photo of it, I've got one on my other phone, it's very, very high and very overbearing. So what I aren't the photos being taken in now have been properties and did somebody actually go and look at that property before the application was put for us. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. In general terms, it's not necessary for staff to presume that they need to visit an adjoining property to gain an assessment of the proposal's impact. Excuse me. It's possibly not a full factor here, but another thing for us to bear in mind as an office is although when this has come to committee with their references being made to neighbours and so forth, this is an enforcement investigation. When we have enforcement investigations, what we try to do is not to be too overt in information about where we've taken photographs from and so forth because what that can do is can actually backfire. So I'm not saying that is solely the reason why there wasn't a specific site visit here, but it is a factor that it's an enforcement investigation as well. And on the point of the impact, this is very much a judgment one because again, I'm going to revert back to the same thing again, you know, out there what happens when you refuse things like this as a committee or under delegated powers. When it's a kitchen, a kitchen is a can be classed as a non habitable room normally, unless this Council of Jones says it has a dining area, but here, although there is an impact, there's definitely will be an impact on the door and we can see that and it's really helpful what the Council has been saying about that impact and the imposing nature. Because there's a view down the garden as well, even where it's north facing, my experience as a manager is that if that were to go to appeal, it would at best be marginal and it very much at the whim of an inspector as to whether they would accept the Council's position. And here, the factors are such that the general alignment of the buildings that's shown in that picture at the moment, the imposing nature of the extension is all on the side way and that kitchen door of that neighbouring property. The extension doesn't come in a real wood of number five, which the photograph illustrates. So when we've looked at that as staff and as Councilor Deere flagged himself, the fact it's retrospective doesn't bear on our decision at all. If it's unacceptable, we will highlight it's unacceptable and we recommend a refusal. But all things considered, that balance has come down in favour of the proposal. But the points that Councilor Deere has made of personal observation at the site obviously feeds into the committee's judgement this evening. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Patrick. Councillor JARANJ, your question, please. Apologies for coming back. It was just something that was mentioned about the enforcement investigation. I'm just trying to get this all in order in my head and going back to the 23 application part retrospective refused and then enforcement. Because one of the opening comments was that this is exceeding PD, if it were built to this size, if it exceeds PD, would we find the build as is presented to us and extension over height, as well as possibly size, maybe I'm not reading this in the correct order, would we have found that acceptable? Is that what is being said here, that it would be acceptable if applied for? And does that then negate the fact that the enforcement investigation is ongoing? So I just need to understand that the parallel lines that we seem to be going down because I think I've just fallen off them because I'm not quite sure where I am. That question is really helpful actually, Councillor JANJ, because I've admitted to say something a moment ago. If this is your balance of where you're going with this and the fact that you're applying, there is a presumption that people should be able to extend their property, so it moves towards approval. Then there's the impact on the neighbour, which we've talked about. If this application were in front of you and the issue was the impact on that neighbour's secondary source of light and outlook to the kitchen, we would still be recommending to staff, to your staff, that that's an approval. That judgment would be probably tipping just over into the approval. The thing I forgot to mention is there's a prior approval has been granted for an extension that in that respect has very similar impacts to the issues that the extension is creating as regards to that secondary door. In that respect, the prior approval, this is getting very technical now, but the prior approval, the extension was not constructed in a way that negates the prior approval being in existence. Sometimes what people do, we've got a case in the city, came in the last couple of days. Somebody's got a prior approval application in, but if they started and it's the prior approval of the building, it automatically negates it. It rules it out. The sequence of events here didn't involve that, so the prior approval is a material factor to take into account when you're looking at the relative impacts. What that's done, where it was over the line anyway in terms of staff, but maybe not significantly, it has tipped it that bit further to be an approval. The answer to your question, Councillor Jones, is on its merits, yes, and added weight because of the relative impacts of the prior approval. Thank you, Chair. Councillor JOHNSTON, thank you, Patrick. Councillor Bursen. I know this is the investigation going on, but just for clarity, we're supposed to consider this as if the fact that it's been built already is not a planning consideration. We're supposed to consider it as if it hadn't been built. That's absolutely correct. It's pumped out perfectly. Thank you, Councillor Bursen. The second part of this, because obviously in the previous ones, you've asked us to consider the previous planning history and how it relates to that. Here, are we considering it relative to not having anything or relative to the previous one having already been agreed? Does that make sense? We're fighting for the mic this evening. You promised he'd hold off of it and this keeps kicking me under the table. The tension is palpable. The position is, as you say, Councillor Burton, what you have is you have to judge these impacts on their merits, but a factor when you're weighing up what significance you attach to those impacts in an overall balanced decision is the fact that there is a prior approval for an extension which isn't quite as deep as this one and isn't quite as high as this one. I've shown on the image above where the red line is shows the comparative impact of the extension. Now, the neighbour in the property is being described will take the view very possibly that that extra bit above the red line that Councillor Dier was describing makes all the difference to their sunlight. It makes it even worse than already a bad situation from their point of view. But when I was describing that that proposal in front of you is acceptable, the fact that there's a prior approval with very, very similar impacts on that kitchen window or door has to be taken into account when you come to an overall balanced assessment. So we find, I know it's a very basic way to describe it, but that's what we're doing. That weight is shifting according to what weight you attach to those individual factors. So you do take it into account. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Councillor Burton. Any further questions when we move on to comments? Okay, so Councillor Dier, you've got a comment. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just going back to the drawing on the screen there. That extra half on me to make quite a lot of difference because the number five is offset to number six. So before that that extension was built, it had a clear view of the sunrise, etc. Now they've lost that sunrise. The sunrise comes up on that kitchen door and it goes round to the front of the building. It doesn't touch the back at all. There's no sun at the back of the house at all. On the side and the front. So that extra half a meter has a big difference to that number six is sunlight and daylight. I was in that property last Saturday and you needed a lighter in the kitchen to work in there safely. That was 10.30 in the morning. So there was a big impact on that property. So I'm afraid I can't support this application. I'll be voting against it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I would say it's really unfortunate. We can't see everybody keeps talking about this kitchen window, but nobody can see it. You know, I can't see it from Google Earth or Google Street view. I don't think it's on any of the photographs that I've seen. So it's very difficult to appreciate. We've only got our good friend here who's actually taking the trouble to visit the property and to experience firsthand the negative impact and effect of that parapet. Well, it is in breach of planning and also what was approved prior approval. It's in breach of permitted development. Can we not ask the... I know this is a question as well as a comment, but can that parapet be lowered? It looks to me that it could be and we could have a classic verge situation there rather than a parapet. And I feel that that could be conveyed to the applicant so that the impacts... And I appreciate that there's not much material difference between what was approved and what's been built. But it is in contravention of permitted development and what was prior approval. And there isn't a negative impact because we're being told there is through firsthand experience. There's no other evidence to suggest that there isn't a negative impact. And a kitchen would normally have a morning room and an east facing window would have been designed in such a way that that morning room afforded morning sunlight. So I think this could be... I think what's built could be altered. And that's my comment. And I suppose it would be a question of has that been considered and conveyed to the applicant? Because there is a solution to this that would satisfy both the occupants at number five without asking the applicant to demolish it. And from my observations, or they've already been asked to demolish the re-relevation and build it back, is that correct? Sorry, Chair. Is that the end of your question? Because I'll answer the whole thing, Councillor Wong-Stuff, if I can. The proposal is the one that's in front of you. And that's what they're applying for, to retain that. I completely understand the temptation. And sometimes it's a really valid one, like the first time round with Bradfordbury, perhaps, where there appears to be perhaps something missing that's critical to your decision. And you need that information. What we don't encourage is deferrals, because what that does is in a way it prejudices the applicant, because it's for the applicant to decide what they wish to do. This is webcast. We've heard really clear articulation from members around us tonight that for those other members about what they consider to be the impacts on the kitchen environment. Planning staff aren't disagreeing with that. We are noting that there is an impact on that kitchen door. The question is simply the way that you attach to it. What suggests members is if you give a decision this evening, whether that's an approval or if it is a refusal, you will be giving very clear reasons for that refusal. And what this seems to be centering on is the impact on number five's side doorway. It's then in the gift of the applicant to decide either that they might want to appeal against that decision, or noting that appeals take a long time, they may come to the view that there is a technical solution that suits both camps. But I think we would suggest members that that's a really well-founded suggestion. It's better to give a decision so the certainty is a very clear in writing exactly what the harm is that's being identified, and then the applicant can go away and consider that, taking their own advice if they wish to as well. And it may well come in the eventual sort of outcome to the sort of solution that Councillor long staff is suggesting there. But it very much depends what they perhaps come back with. And you can consider that on its merits in a fresh application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Patrick. Councillor Bury first, for your comment, please. Thank you, very, very fun, because otherwise we're going to be here all night long enough, late enough now. Yeah, it was just to say when you were demonstrating the balance this way, leaning in favour, leaning against it, I'm going to give quite a lot of weight and a fair amount of weight to the Councillors who've actually been to these premises and had a look around for themselves and given a lot of weight to what they've said. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Bury. Councillor Bury. Thank you, Chair. I'm in two minds on this one. Part of me thinks the argument seems to be going well, it's already imposing. So what more does another half of me your ad? And then you could say, well, what more does it bit more add? What more? And at some point, it becomes too imposing. So I suppose the question is, have we reached that point? But I do think kind of taking aside that, and if I'm just viewing this from a pure application, not caring about that it's built, not caring that there was a previous one, would I say yes? I think I probably would. I think kind of, I've had similar things in my ward where people do build this, sometimes permit development, sometimes not. And it does affect people's light, but sometimes you have to be honest with people and say you don't have a right to as well lit kitchen as you might have previously, people do develop stuff. Maybe that's how I might feel about these people. So yes, it's a shame, but I do think on the balance, I'm probably going to vote for this. Thank you, Councillors. Councillor DIN. Just a very brief one. In relation to the point raised by Councillor Longstaff and others about being able to see the impact on this window, it should be nice if we still had surfaces. Councillor COLLINS. Thank you. I draw a committee's attention to page 322 of the PAC. If you want to know what the impact of the daylight shadowing of the doorway is, just look at 322 and zoom in to the right of the buildings, you look at the picture, it's very clear, the shadow cast just above the door. So the evidence that we've been provided by our committee member, fellow committee members, Councillors, has got to be taken with weight. And because in my mind, if we were being asked would be approved this height because it's bigger than we would allow, then I'd say no. And I think we would have to refuse it. My mind is refusal on the grounds that it's not what we gave prior approval for. Councillors interjecting. Any other comments, please? No. In case we can move to vote, please, Tim. So the motion is that going to be seconded? You've only had a proposal not been seconded for the refusal. You're going to second refusal. So the match me for you is to refuse planning permission on the grounds that it's not what the prior approval was agreed. Sorry, apologies, but through you, Chairman, we need to be really clear that if we're refusing this, we're doing so on material planning considerations. We're doing it nothing to do with the enforcement related aspects of this. And listening to the debate that's been had, the concerns to me seem to be around the impact on the daylight and sunlight conditions within that kitchen area. So an amenity impact on the neighbouring property. There is a factor which is that it's different to the prior approval, but that's a matter for the kind of history of the site. But the actual ground for refusal, if that is the way that members choose to go listening to the debate, centres very much in isolation around impact on daylight and sunlight conditions to the detriment of the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers. Kevin, can I ask you just to come back to a quick question. Patrick mentioned about on the refusal whether we would indicate to the developer that we might come to compromise, we'll be able to do that. I mean, I wouldn't want to see that pulled down particularly. But is it something we can do that? So through you, Chairman, I mean, should the applicant get in touch with us, because obviously this is an enforcement matter, we can make them aware that that was the cohesive view, but it wouldn't be appropriate to put that on a decision notice in some way. So that's why I was trying to, there's a very clear factor, which is the thing that members have decided to refuse it on, that's the basis of the decision and nothing else. Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm not going to keep coming round round in circles tonight. We've got to the vote, we've had, we've had, sorry, I've got my mic on. On the supplementary, there is some disparity in the height and it says the application has been assessed on the basis of submitting. Are you adding this to the refusal? Yes, thank you. Okay, unless you've got anything to add to the refusal. I think we should add to the refusal, it's really clear cut. If you're building a flank wall on a boundary, everybody knows it's maximum parapet height. Eve's height maximum is two and a half metres. This is three and a half metres, maximum parapet height is three metres. I've never broken that rule in 20 years. This is in breach of that rule. Right, that's a really long stuff. Look, we're going to go round in circles here all night. Yes, if Kevin's going to quote the reasons for refusal, leave it. Through you, Chairman, so there isn't a rule of that nature when it comes to the assessment of a planning application, which is what we're doing tonight. So just to be really clear, is it perhaps helpful for members to articulate a full reason for a refusal, which members can then perhaps take a vote on to try and draw the matter to a satisfactory conclusion? So it would be something of the nature of the proposed development by reason of this design, rearward projection, size and height is resulting in an unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, and this is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the Council's local plan policies, which will set out more fully. I can't quite drop those ones out, and also national guidance in that regard. So there's perhaps something for members to consider and take a vote on, thank you. Richard, so it has long staff. We've had it discussed. Well, I'm sorry. I'm sorry you feel this way, but we've got a recommendation before us. We can vote on it. You can have your vote, OK? [INAUDIBLE] Through you, Chairman, and if members decide to go that way for the vote to include the authorisation of enforcement action, should we not get an alternative resolution? Thank you. OK, Tim. I propose that, and can someone second it please? What was just said by Kevin? Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Finally, we've got there. So the motion for you is to refuse planning permission on the reasons given by the Director of Planning, and that's to also include the authorisation for enforcement action. Please can have a show of hands, all those in favour. Twelve, Chair, and you're against. One. Thank you, Tim. We're on to item number 10 on the agenda, and that is for Patrick, two per cent. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Chair. Oh, yeah. Let's find that, isn't you? Just being joined by a colleague from the Housing Service. I'm going to field questions on this, but just in case there's any detailed points that Housing can assist with. This application concerns the former cantile medical site in Campfield Road. It's next to the Garrison Conservation Area, but outside the Conservation Area, and it's currently being redeveloped as 58 houses and 12 flats. Planning permission was granted last year, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, and amongst other things, that covers affordable housing. That agreement for 21 affordable housing units currently requires 16 affordable rented units and five shared ownership units, and the report in front of you concerns only the affordable housing element of that agreement. What's being proposed by the applicant is to modify the agreement to keep the same number of affordable housing units overall, but to alter their tenure so that they would be all intermediate housing units, including the five shared ownership units that are already intermediate out of those 21. And the mix of houses and flats would stay the same as approved. The reasoning behind this is that since their planning permission was granted in September last year, the applicant has been seeking to partner with a registered affordable housing provider to deliver these units in line with the term set out in the legal agreement. However, the report explains that they've reported that there's been no interest from local providers in taking on these units in their current form. Most of the local registered providers considered the site too small to be viable, or were not in a position to make an offer, and that's summarised in your report. And actually, Gels have got what Kevin was saying earlier on about the some of the kind of responses that we're finding from registered providers. Varying the Section 106 will enable all of the affordable housing units to be delivered as intermediate tenure, and that's what's in front of you as the decision this evening. What that does in turn, in this instance, is to enable the developer to enter then into a contract for all 21 units with rent plus. And they only offer an affordable intermediate tenure product, and that was the only identified viable offer for the affordable housing units that came forward when the applicant did their tendering on this site. Rent plus is not a registered provider, like the Housing Association you're normally used to dealing with. They are a private company that operate in the affordable housing, affordable home sector, and their product called rent plus is an affordable rent-to-buy model. And that's explained in detail in paragraph 8.4 of your report, and in summary, rent-to-buy is an intermediate form of housing tenure. They seek to provide an alternative affordable housing product to the market, and it's designed, and I'm quoting the material that's being provided by rent plus through the applicants, is designed for aspirant homeowners who are unable to purchase a home for a variety of reasons, including lack of savings for a deposit. And what used to be called a Queen's Council, a King's Council legal opinion has determined that the rent plus model falls within the NP-PF definition of affordable housing, and that's reproduced in appendix 2 of your committee report. The report explains that so far some 38 other councils in England have reportedly recognized rent plus as an affordable housing option. The model is being supported by this Council's housing service in this particular instance, including because it's deemed preferable to securing a financial contribution instead for these units. The associated financial contribution, if that were to be sought, different from what's in front of you, wouldn't be able to provide comparable numbers of affordable rented housing compared to the proposed rent plus provision on site. So the conclusion of the report is that overall, in these specific circumstances, the approach outlined is considered to provide a practical and acceptable solution that serves the community's best interest in this particular case. So it's recommended that there's sufficient justification to allow the proposed modifications to the legal agreement. So the application is recommended for approval, subject to completion of a DEDA variation to secure the modifications in the report's recommendation. In the SUPS document, it explains that we would like extension of the period to July, it's explained in SUPS, and furthermore, in the second part of the recommendation, if I just plain language this, this proposal is to provide all units as intermediate to enable the developer to have a contract with rent plus who will then bring their model in and provide all 21 affordable housing units. If that doesn't come about the intermediate bit within six months, then it defaults to a financial contribution for the 16 affordable rented units in the current agreement. And if within the year the affordable housing in the five units hasn't been secured on site, again through a contract with a registered provider or other provider, then the remaining financial contribution would come to the Council. So there's a fallback position within this, if this is not done within a certain timeframe, we would default to that kind of secondary position that housing, regardless, less, not as good as the proposal in front of you this evening as the primary recommendation. There's a little bit of convoluted, as I've explained there, the report's probably more convoluted than that. I'll do my best to answer questions on this, and if there are specific things that are material planning considerations that cross over where housing may be able to assist, then we'll bring in Martin Berry just to assist with those as well. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Patrick. Any questions? Councillor Jones had to withdraw due to conflict, I presume, with her being portfolio holder. Okay. Councillor Berry, your question, please. Yeah, I just want to be absolutely certain on the supplementary report that we only got just before the meeting, I was emailed earlier today, because what we've got now on this is that if if Council haven't done that data variation with what they could win plus in amongst time, then the whole thing stops with the whole planning commission is withdrawn. What will happen is this, there is a planning commission in place, and that's the one that's active on the site at the moment. Those of you who've seen the cantile site, it's cleared now, all the hoarding's in place, it's now an active development site to provide those 70 dwellings overall. That planning commission sits there, and that's the one that's been implemented at the moment. The legal agreement sits there, and that's the legal agreement that the answer to Spirosk gave earlier on that governs the sort of covenant, if you like. The data variation would sit as a variant to the legal agreement, so if the recommendation results in that the data variation doesn't activate, then it just defaults to the existing position. That legal agreement is just the default position. All this can do is amend it, and it's about amending it to intermediate, and it happens to enable the contract with rent plus, so it's the only way that rent plus can do it in this way. But it doesn't mean that we lose the opportunity of affordable housing. It would be either provided on the site, or it will be provided as a financial contribution that will feed into the housing strategy. Thank you. Okay, that was a question. Good. I didn't like the lack of affordable housing in the first place, but I voted on that. I was wondering if they didn't do what they've now amended it to, which it was, if I was, and it was. It gives the whole thing to go back to the drawing board. No, it's on the compromise that we've already got. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Bury. Any other questions? Any comments? No. So it removes the vote, please, too. Thank you, Chair. The motion before you is to, that the Council enters into a planning obligation by the data variation, and that the executive director of the environment in place, the director of planning and economy, or the service manager development control, be delegated to agree the modification of the planning obligation. Can I have a show up, hands? All those in favour, please? I'll give them another one. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Seven, Chair. Any against? Eight. Sorry, can I have a show? Hands again, please. All those in favour? Two, three, four, five, six, seven. Eight, Chair. All those against? How concerned? None. Let's carry it. Thank you, too. We move on to item number 11 on the agenda, please. And that is Spiro, who can present that. Thank you. Thank you, through you, Chair. The Office of Forces at Bates 349 of the main reports back. The site is on the west and side of West Road within the primary shopping front and contains a terrace to store a building. Adorma has been erected at the rear part of the roof of the building, and that breach of planning control is not considered by staff to be harmful, and therefore it would not be expedient to attack this breach with an enforcement office. The ground floor unit has been converted to a dwelling from a shop. This is a material change of use. This change of use has been facilitated by operational development, namely the replacement of the typical shop front with domestic style, door, and window. Officers consider that the identified breach of planning control are harmful, because they significantly and demonstrably harm the character, function, and sustainability of the primary shopping front that's in this local centre. The two units to the south of the site are subject to separate enforcement investigations. The case for number 69, which is the unit with the red sign-up of, and the one to the immediately south of the unit there, was presented previously at the Development Control Committee in May. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the unauthorized residential unit will not result in significance, it has not been demonstrated, excuse me, that the unauthorized residential unit will not result in significantly harmful living conditions for the current or future occupiers of the site. Finally, the development offers no suitable mitigation for the in-combination effect of the net increase of one dwelling on harpters and species. The identified adverse impacts of chronic planning permission for the development significantly and demonstrably are the benefits of the development, taking into consideration the perception in favour of sustainable development for housing, same from the need of the city for homes. In the sense of this case, taking enforcement action for the material sense of use and the operational development for the shop front is justified and officers recommend that members authorise the service of the enforcement office has described in section 9 of the officer's report. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Any comments? No. Any comments? No, it's a good vote, please, Tim. Thank you, Chair. So, the motion before we use to authorize enforcement action, can I be sure I have hands-in favour, please. 12, as you know, Mr Chair. Thank you, Tim. So, on the last item of the agenda tonight, and that's for Sparrow to present the game, please. Thank you, number 12. Thank you, through you, Chair. The officer's report south pays 363 of the main reports back. The site is on the northern side of Marine Parade and contains a metre building, the graph floor of which is the subject of this committee item. The site is within the Clifton Conservation Area, the Southern Sea Front area and the Central Area South, as defined as the Southern Central Area Action Plan. The wider areas mixed in character, including the Southern Central primary shopping area to the north and leisure uses to the east and south. At the front of the commercial ground floor of the building, the projecting fascia box has been installed, replacing a painted timber fascia and removing or obscure the core-built tailing. This is the fascia that has been installed. There were some additional photographs I'm not sure where they've been. I'm pretty sure we have included photographs of the sub-front as it was in the report back, apologies for this issue in the presentation. The fascia that has been installed is overscaled in both its projection and height, has been impacted the original core-built tailing. It's not known if the core-built is the original, how the property looked, is at base 173 or 34 swag, apologies for this issue, and 372. You can see in those photographs there the core-built tailing on the other side of the of the fascia. It is not known if the core-built tailing has been removed or is sitting behind the projecting fascia box. This is harmful, the whole development is harmful to the conservation area, and no public benefits have been identified, which could outweigh the identified harm. In the sense of this case, taking enforcement action is justified, and officers recommend the member's authorized service of an enforcement office as described in section 9. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Any questions? Cancel them. Apologies if this should be obvious to me from the report, but has there been any engagement from the property owner in relation to communications about this? Through you, sir. As stated in the officer's report, there hasn't been any meaningful engagement from the owner of the site. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay, any comments? Okay, I couldn't move the vote, please, Tim. Thank you, Chair. Through you, the motion before I use to authorize enforcement action, please come over, shall I thank all those in favor? Twelve again, unanimous, Chair. Thank you, Tim, and that brings us to the end of the meeting. Can we stop the webcast, please? Thank you. a very good evening. I'm going to ask you to take a look at the next slide. Thank you. a very good evening. I'm going to ask you to take a look at the next slide. Thank you.