Transcript

Transcript

Good evening. It is now 7.30 and I would like to welcome you to this meeting of the Planning Committee and I would like to thank all members and members of the public for attending the meeting tonight. As you are aware, we are now in a pre-election period in respect of the general election which takes place on Thursday 4 July. Guidance has been issued by the monitoring officer to members and to officers. Please be mindful of this when taking part in Council meetings during this period of heightened sensitivity. It is important to ensure that Councillor conduct during Council meetings is not perceived by the public as election campaigning and that the political impartiality of officers is maintained. I would like to remind members when presenting reports or asking questions to please refrain from endorsing or referencing any candidates or political parties standing in the election and any controversial political campaigns or policies related to the election. Members of the public are able to watch this meeting live on the Council's website this evening. The slides for each planning application that will be considered are available for members to view on our website. The meeting is being recorded and the recording will be available on the website in the next few days. All of the microphones are currently muted and members you will be aware that in order to request to speak, you need to raise your hand so that I can see it and make sure that you have made visual contact with me and I will make sure you note your name and make sure that I call you at an appropriate time. When I call you to speak, would you please unmute the microphone and address the committee by speaking clearly into the microphone. Do remember, please, that you may be able to have a booming voice but people at home can't hear unless you are speaking into the microphone. You are in control of the microphone during this evening's meeting. Could you try and make sure that mobile phones and other devices are silenced? Please pay attention to this meeting and try not to use social media or in fact don't use social media while the meeting is in progress. Members of the committee, you are aware, of course, of the points about committee meeting etiquette. Please follow those points in order to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly. When we come to voting, we will be voting using a show of hands and you are only able to vote if you have been present in the meeting for the duration of the item that we are considering. If you have got a declaration of interest to make in respect to that item, could you raise your hand when we get to agenda item number 3 so that we can note that and you may need to leave the room during that agenda item. If I have to adjourn the meeting at any time, I will advise that the meeting is being adjourned and state the time that we will reconvene. Everyone should remain in the meeting with their mics muted. That is of course unless there is an emergency in which case we just get out of the building. As you will note from the agenda, we have quite a few items to consider this evening. If the meeting continues until 1030, in accordance with the constitution, the committee must decide whether to determine items without debate, continue the meeting to complete all or part of the outstanding business, refer the business to the next ordinary meeting or to adjourn to a specific date. Last time, we didn't finish until 11 o'clock. I am sure you wouldn't want to repeat that. It is preferable if we could complete all business this evening. I would like to introduce the officers who we have present with us. To my right is Andrew Benson, the head of planning. Online, we have James Hitchcock, our solicitor. To my left, Matthew Sheeran. To his left, Matthew Holdsworth. To my left is Leanne Dell, the clerk for this evening's meeting. I point out that Leanne will be doing the counting when we count the hands. Please make sure you make your intention very clear to her. Members, we turn to agenda item one, the minutes of the last meeting. Do members agree to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 5th June as a correct record? Thank you. Item number two, apologies for absence. Leanne, do we have any apologies? We have an apology from Councillor Mckenna. We have an apology from Councillor Orchard. Any other apologies? We now turn to agenda item three, which is the declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest in respect of the matters to be considered by the planning committee this evening? Councillor Blacker. Thank you, Chairman. On item eight, which is an application from my office. I have no interest to declare item five, but I would like to make a statement before you start on that application. Thank you. The addendum to this evening's meeting -- you should have had an addendum to this evening's meeting. It was mailed to you. If you would like a physical copy, there are copies at the end there. If anyone doesn't have one, please don't be shy. Let's get them distributed now. You have all got them. Can I ask you to note the addendum to this evening's meeting? Thank you very much. Therefore, I now turn to agenda item five, which is 22/02353F. Councillor Blacker, you said you wanted to make a statement before you leave. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, Chairman. As you are aware, I spent a considerable amount of time and trouble to get re-elected to represent the borough's residents and in particular my Rygate ward residents. So when this application came to us, I had two sets of residents -- two sets of Rygate residents who were in disagreement. I asked for the application at our last meeting to be deferred, as the committee did not have all the information relating noise tests before them. I have read both reports, one produced for the residents and one produced for the tennis club. To me it appears they were different and the conclusions certainly were. I therefore asked for a meeting with Andrew Benson, our chairman and my other ward councillors. I wanted to grant a temporary licence to have the paddle courts opened so we could take our own noise test and therefore there would be no arguments. However, Andrew Benson explained he had asked the tennis club to reduce the playing hours on Sunday and stop playing after 5 p.m., as after 5 p.m. the additional noise was substantial. A meeting was arranged with representative of the residents, with Councillor Lewinsky and myself, with Councillor Fairhurst being on holiday. I explained Andrew Benson's solution. I also noted that I had been asked by the tennis club to look and listen to the noise reduction to the metal mesh railings now that one court has been fitted with resilient fittings. The difference was great and you will be able to hear my video recordings later. This was last Saturday. By arrangement I then went to see a resident and sat in their garden and I explained what was going on and what was going to be presented to the committee. We agreed that if the courts were approved I could come again and sit in the garden to hear any difference. On Monday I received an email from our legal department saying that there had been a complaint made against me by a resident and by a Councillor. I was sent a copy of both emails. The Councillor did not bother to copy me in. I have been totally open handed over this matter, trying to find an amicable agreement between two sets of Rygate residents. I have kept no secrets and to be frank I have not made my mind up yet. I was going to listen to the debate first. I am totally insulted by this complaint. However, I shall not embarrass you Chairman or my beloved Council, so I shall leave this chamber and leave the decision in the capable hands of my peers. Thank you Chairman. Thank you Councillor. We will send somebody to get you probably from the old Council chamber. We are going to listen to a presentation on this by Matthew Sheehan. Thank you Chairman. This application was deferred at the 5th of June planning committee because members had concerns about noise impacts associated with the proposal and wanted to consider what acoustic fencing might look like and to better understand the in-play noise impacts associated with paddle tennis. The relevant noise reports instructed by the applicant, the residents and the Council were all emailed to members after the last committee meeting. With regards to the potential for an acoustic fence, it can be confirmed that this is a hypothetical suggestion with there being no plans included within the application and so we cannot provide details of its height, appearance or location. A neighbour today has written suggesting such a fence ought to enclose two and a half sides of the paddle courts. The applicant remains unwilling to volunteer such a solution given that it would significantly impact the immediate character and experience of the playing on the court and surrounding courts. They also maintain that such an acoustic barrier is not necessary and have instead made other concessions in relation to playing times, noise reporting protocols and dampeners for the courts fencing. With regard to the dampeners, these have been partially installed and an additional condition is recommended to secure them and this is condition 5 as set out within the addendum. The club has also agreed to finish play on the paddle courts at 5pm on Sundays and bank holidays. This is a change from 6pm proposed at the last meeting, 10pm as originally submitted and 9pm as previously accepted by officers in a decision which was quashed at the High Court. As members are aware, the application was submitted with a noise assessment which was challenged by a second noise assessment instructed by neighbouring residents. Both noise assessments were then reviewed by independent noise consultants instructed by the council to obtain an impartial and objective assessment. The 5pm cut off on Sundays and bank holidays is proposed in direct response to the noise report instructed by residents as it brings noise beneath any substantial impacts even when considered against the scenarios they set out in tables 6.2 and 6.3 which are currently showing on the screen. Table 6.2 shows the predicted noise impact of the worst affected property 15A Manor Road. Although there are substantial impacts with an increase of up to 13.7 decibels as shown, this is only after 9pm on Sundays. This is only after 9pm on Sunday. With the 5pm cut off in playing times, the worst noise impact is during Sundays where there is a moderate impact of 4.1 decibels and that's shown on this line here. At the next affected property, the worst impact is now brought down to 3 decibels during the proposed playing times which is the very lowest threshold of a moderate impact. For all other days of the week within the proposed playing hours, the impact has not reached moderate but is not significant and you can see that shown here for the remainder of the week. It is important to note that the residents consultants have acknowledged that their noise monitoring took place when there were no trains operating on the Sunday due to engineering works, hence the lower ambient noise levels than other days. If the modelling had factored in the usual Sunday trains passing, then the Sunday impacts would likely be more similar to other days of the week and therefore not significant. The impact of the absence of trains passing on Sunday is evident from the resident's noise report which shows the baseline monitoring data. The orange dots represent the maximum noise impact of a 15-minute period which is consistently up in the mid-70s decibels for Thursday, Friday and Saturday which you can see here before dropping down to the lower level for Sunday given the lack of train passes, before rising up again to the consistent level on Monday. This subdues the equivalent continuous noise impact shown by the continuous line. This subdues the equivalent continuous noise impact shown by the continuous line from around 50 decibels Thursday, Saturday and Monday to a few decibels less on Sunday which is critical to whether the impact is not significant or verges into moderate. The resident's consultants argue that the intermittent nature of train noise means it should be excluded from monitoring but that is not what the Council's own consultants advise. Aside from the absence of Sunday trains, the baseline of the report also doesn't take account of the previous junior courts and practice wall that existed there and the noise monitoring was undertaken in March with the Sunday being a rainy day in March, both of which would have subdued the noise associated from tennis activities ongoing over the monitoring period. On this basis, it is considered there is no justification for an acoustic fence with the hours now proposed and the other mitigation now secured. Officer's view as informed by our independent acoustic consultants is that such conditions would be unnecessary and unreasonable, so failing the legal test for conditions. Please see in the addendum the latest comments from our consultants on this. Should members continue to consider an acoustic fence to be necessary, then a condition requiring this could be applied which the applicant could then appeal. The application therefore remains recommended for approval with amended conditions to restrict playing times to 5pm on Sundays and the other mitigation measures set out. Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you. Mr Benson, do you want to add anything on the stage? Thank you, Chairman. It might just be helpful to explain that for the members that were on the accompanied site visit to the club, I think there were concerns about the rattling of the fence, and we were hoping to show you the video which demonstrated the subdued noise associated with the dampeners that have been fitted to the fence around the padel courts. The condition requires that to be continued around the whole of the fencing of the courts, which significantly reduces the rattle sound that you did hear on the site visit. So I think, you know, excluding that rattling noise from your minds, if you like, because the condition overcomes that, we're back this evening with the reduced playing hours in front of us which have been reduced to 5pm on Sundays and bank holidays, and that's really in response to the resident's own noise report which only demonstrated a substantial noise impact beyond 5pm on Sundays and bank holidays. At the last meeting there was obviously discussion around why the difference between the applicant's own noise assessment and the resident's noise assessment. Both follow accepted methodology, one being the applicants considered the known sort of noise impacts associated with padel tennis and compared that to known impacts around general tennis, so you're comparing padel to normal tennis. The Bureau of Veritas, the resident's noise methodology, set up actual noise monitoring and then sought to compare the predicted noise impact of padel against the baseline surveyed noise that that had undertaken. That was done in March and on the Sunday in March during the course of that playing there was no trains running, so the Sunday noise that we are considering that was shown in table 5.2, I don't know if it might be helpful to display again, sorry 6.2, it's only on the cusp before 5pm, it's only on the cusp of sort of moderate, it's 4.1, you can see Sunday 8 till 5, 4.1 at one of the neighbours and then table 6.3, 3.0 at the other neighbour, which is on the very cusp of being a moderate impact rather than not significant impact. That is in the context of there being no trains running on that Sunday and therefore the baseline being that much lower or subdued than would ordinarily be the case. We've also got to consider the fact that this Sunday was a rainy Sunday in March and therefore the dominant noise associated with the sound recordings that were undertaken was not comparing padel with tennis, it was comparing padel to whatever noise was occurring on that wet Sunday in March and obviously that being a wet Sunday in March there wasn't much tennis being played. So that's the reason why the two reports have a different basis of which they've come to their conclusions. However, when you actually draw down into the conclusions, even with the cut off at 5pm on Sundays and bank holidays now, there is no substantial impact even by the resident's own noise assessment. So that's the exercise that we've undertaken since the last meeting. It's obviously fairly technical, the latest comments from the council's own noise consultants are included in the addendum but obviously happy to take any questions they might have. Thank you very much. So we now open the meeting up to members, comments and questions on this particular application. Councillor Tora. You're not first, who was first? Councillor Fairhurst. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Andrew, for that explanation. It feels, when you just laid out the work that's been undertaken since the 5th of June meeting, it's, unless I've misunderstood, it sounded like a reiteration of information we already knew. It would be helpful just to confirm to the committee if we as in the council have undertaken any additional measurements on noise impact and/or an acoustic fence since the 5th of June meeting. No, I think there were a number of questions that arose at the 5th of June planning committee which didn't have answers to them. One of the questions was do we have a plan of the acoustic fence, do we have details of the acoustic fence, what would that look like, where would it go, to which we can confirm that there is no plan submitted, it is a theoretical acoustic fence only. The residents have suggested that, the objecting residents have suggested that it cover two and a half of the courts so it enclose the paddle courts themselves and be at a height of four metres. But that's not on the table in front of us in terms of the application. Obviously we're here to consider the application. It would need a condition securing details of that but it's not proposed by the application and that was one of the queries that obviously came previously. I would obviously say that the applicants are resistant to such a condition and the important test for you as members is whether or not such a condition would meet the relevant tests of them being reasonable and necessary. With regards to the sort of understanding of the noise impacts, a change that has occurred since the last meeting is a reduction in hours from 6pm as proposed at the last meeting on Sundays and bank holidays to 5pm as now proposed tonight. And that is significant insofar as even by the resident's own noise assessment it brings it within the degrees of tolerance that would normally be acceptable. So there hasn't been any additional noise monitoring. There's practical issues associated with how that may be undertaken and obviously the significant change I would contend is that the noise has been reduced by virtue of the reduction in hours and the other mitigation proposed rather than there being a need to go out for any further noise assessment. The dampeners and the inclusion within the management plan of communication sort of protocol between the club and the residents. Thanks Andrew. What are the practical implications for those further noise tests? Because presumably after the 5th of June meeting when the committee talks for about 90 minutes about worries about noise and it was agreed that we needed to further understand the impacts on noise, presuming then the council went away and thought about what those noise tests could look like, what are the practical issues? Well, there's certainly practical issues in terms of who would instruct the noise assessment. As a planning committee we don't have the powers to instruct noise assessments but it could be instructed. Where would the noise receptors be located? Would there be means of tampering with them? If they were present at the moment would it be argued that on a sunny day in June with Wimbledon around the corner that actually the noise impacts were much, much higher than would normally be the case as was the case in March? And it's just about, you know, you have to sort of see through the evidence that you are presented with and obviously the expert advice that's presented to us and form a view on the basis of that. It's never going to be possible to get an agreed point between everybody because everyone's going to have a different view. Those that would argue for an acoustic fence would argue that the noise assessment was not acceptable if it wasn't in their favour. The club would argue the other way if the noise assessment went against them. So you're never going to be in a situation where you have anything better than what you've got now essentially. One was done on a theoretical model considering the known impacts of PEDEL versus the known impacts of tennis and obviously within the context of the surrounding tennis courts and so on that was a perfectly acceptable way forward. The other was done on the basis of a baseline sound recording and comparing the known impacts of PEDEL against that and obviously that had with it the issues of there being no trains running on a Sunday and there being no tennis played or very little tennis played which may also result in, you know, there not being much PEDEL played at a similar sort of time and whether or not that's an appropriate background against which to make an assessment. Either way, officers have sought through the reduction in the operating hours to 5pm to demonstrate that even in the Bureau Veritas report with the mitigations outlined that the proposal would be acceptable. Thanks. I'll just make a few further comments then I'll let other members come in. Thank you for that explanation. Where I'm struggling is that that would have been really helpful relevant information on the 5th of June when we were talking about the deferral itself because we had a very long dialogue as a committee about our concerns about impacts. If those tests were not possible or viable we needed to know at that point before we made the decision in my view and it is democratically problematic that a deferral was made and we can't fulfil, as I see it, the promise of that. Now I feel personally incredibly sorry for the tennis club because there are many people out there, hundreds of people out there who want to get on with playing PEDEL and I would love to see that happen and then you have residents who have frankly encountered quite a frustrating transparent process as well. And it just feels inadequate that we've got to this stage and it's a real shame but I'll leave it there and let other members come in. Thank you, Councillor Fairhurst. Councillor Tora. Thank you, Chair. I totally agree with Councillor Fairhurst. I feel I'm sat here and it's dejavu that we haven't been given any more information than what we requested on the 5th of June. I was on the understanding that I know I mentioned my Guinness then of what I used to do. Yes, it's two contrasting reports. One seems to have been done by a computer, one's done in the middle and live so to speak and that was the problem that we couldn't compare the two and as you just said, people could tamper those things. Even those particular noise assessments could have been tampered. We don't know. Having an assessment done in March, there's less leaves on the trees. Keep referring to trains. Trains are a kind of a constant noise and people get used to them. It's like if you live next to a field of cows, you get used to the cows mooing and they don't wake you up in the night when they're going off to milk. You get used to the trains coming past. With a noise such as football, tennis, it suddenly appears. It's not something that you can get used to because you don't know and people jeering and all the association with what happens with sports. I agree, if you did an assessment this time of year where they're actually being busy, yes, it wouldn't be the same as if you were doing it at the end of November but you need to have that information and it needs to be a fair assessment. I feel that we've been given nothing new. The fact that it's changing to 5pm on a Sunday, great, but it's the rest of the days of the week. It's the noise then. You have background noise of traffic, aeroplanes going over, all of that that can happen, a fire engine going past. That could all be picked up by the monitoring system. I just feel this is rushed and I'm not happy with how it lies. I don't think that the residents or the tennis club are being fairly treated by us as a committee because we, as members, are not being given all the relevant information that we requested at the last meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Snags. Thank you. I think the points raised here have been very, very good and strong. I struggle with the fact that we've been asked to vote or have remarks on a report back in March. One report wasn't even there. They didn't go. And I do think that we should look at, which has already been referred to, the worst case scenario, in June when they are -- it's hot, people want to go out, they want to play and that's the time to do the, I think, to go look at the sound and address that sound and see what it is in June and July and August. Because it's going to be higher than a damp day in March with no trains and nobody playing on court. And however difficult it is to get those results, then at least we'll have something then to discuss and chat about. At the moment, like a number here, I do feel a little bit in the dark. >> That's Councillor Walsh and then we'll have some comments from Mr. Benson. >> Thank you, Chairman. It's very useful to hear what members have said. And I was here last time. And members may recall what I said. And I undertake sound acoustic testing for developments for clients that I'm involved in. And a lot of it is very subjective. And taking on the point what Councillor Suggs has said and Councillor Fairhurst and Councillor Torre has said, it's very difficult to consider -- and you will always get -- if you had two lawyers in a room, they would always find a different answer. But if you have the same as acoustic consultants, you will have usually three answers from two of them. And it is very difficult, it's very subjective and it's a relative matter. Again, it's subjective. It's very harsh to say. And I concur with the points made but not the principle that Councillor Suggs said. It's about -- if we go down the process of let's take it that time, let's take it this time, we would never get anything done. And as I said last time, this application is only here because there was an administrative error made. And actually it had been passed and squashed. And therefore this -- it is the only reason it has actually come to the committee. So the officers had determined and previously determined what was presented last time round was a satisfactory solution. And I acknowledge that the local members of RIGIT have struggled with the I'll call them competing factions. That's probably the safest bet to say. Is that two groups can't agree. But it is very -- it is a very difficult thing to agree when something is as motive as noise. And Councillor Tora is absolutely right. You do get used to animals and you do get used to things. But when you're actually doing measurements, it is those background noises and the noises of the trains do have to be taken into consideration. And the basis under which the studies are carried out that have to be taken into consideration. If you read the addendum that has been proffered round, our independent acoustic consultant has said actually the basis under which it has been taken is not applicable. It is to do with commercial industrial space rather than sports facilities. And you have to take it into context. It's a difficult call. But it is something that we as Councillors have to take. We're not here to be popular. We're not here to be liked. We're here to actually do the service to our residents which actually considers the matters on material planning grounds. It isn't about whether I like it or whether it is right, whether it is wrong. It's actually whether it is right in planning terms. And I think that's the most important thing that we need to hear. It's not a popularity contest. It's a reality contest. Thank you, Jim. Thank you. I did promise Mr Bensley he could come back. I think he wants to specifically address some of the things you raised, Councillor Toro. It was particularly a point that Councillor Snuggs made around the current sort of noise monitoring, if it were to be undertaken at the moment, that that would present a worse case scenario than in March. So there would be more tennis played at the club at the moment if you were to serve a noise this week, next week, week after, because there's more tennis being played. But that is the baseline. That's not the impact of the PEDEL. That's the baseline against which the PEDEL must be considered and measured. And it's the increase, if there is an increase above that baseline, what that increase is, as to whether it's substantial. Now, the impact of PEDEL against a quiet period in March was considered acceptable. Against a noisy period, when there's tennis being played at the moment, it's going to be less significant. And that's a very important thing to understand, because the -- if you have trains running and tennis being played in the background, it's only going to improve the impact associated with what might arise from the PEDEL courts. Just on the train front, can you pull up the table 6.4 and 6.5? Yeah. Can you put that on the big tele? Big tele. I'll flip my screen. The screen. The screen. Sorry, the screen. Yeah, so I might usefully zoom in on it, because could I ask that you turn the telephones off, please? It's very important. Thank you. So the reason that I ask for this to be brought up is one of the things that I have struggled with, with reading through the many pages of all of these many reports that we have, is it's noted that on a Sunday, the trains were not running on the Sunday within the thing. And obviously, that's when we had the substantial noise. So obviously, there was a greater difference, because there was less train noise. The thing that is really bothering me about this is that the train noise appears to have been averaged out. The trains only go through four times an hour for ten seconds, so you have a spike. That isn't a fair representation of an average. So this report, I believe, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, takes out the train noise, just so that we can consider that for 40 seconds in an hour, there is a train noise. But for 59 minutes and 20 seconds, there isn't. So putting that spike into an average, which then pulls it up to not substantial or whatever the term is, feels very unfair. So when we now consider against in between the train noise, it's moderate at all times, which is significant in noise, you know, these decibel ratings. I think we need to ask the officers to explain, because you're asking, you're posing a question, really. Am I meant to be posing a question? Well, you're supposed to be, yeah, so you're making a statement, but actually you're asking a question about how they account for this periodic noise, and I think it's worth asking. Well, I'm kind of making a point, to be honest with you, that's stuck in my head and I'm struggling to overcome, because that is significant. That noise level is significant, 4.8 decibels, that's nearly a doubling in sound to the residents at all times. So I'm not sure how you combat that by saying, but it's okay, because for 40 seconds there's some trains, so let's spread that out. So I'd like to understand more about that, please. Yeah, that's it, yeah. Let's ask the officers that question. It is a good point, and I think it does come down to, we have a number of tables, 6.2 and 6.3, consider the recorded ambient noise, and it is averaged out, as you say, and then 6.4 and 6.5 consider a scenario where there's no trains running. Standard noise assessments would include intermittent noise, and within the addendum the council's noise consultants advise on that issue in terms of it being normal and usual to consider short bursts of noise, including trains running past. So I think it would be wrong just to discount them. They are short, so they have a less impact on the average than a longer noise would have, if you like. So if it were a train running past every five minutes rather than every 15 minutes, it's going to have less impact in terms of suppressing the noise environment than would be the case if it were a less regular train. So it is all factored in there, and that's all part of the standard sort of noise recording methodology, is how long is the noise, how frequent is the noise, and what calculation does that give you in terms of averaging out the overall noise environment. Obviously this table in front of you demonstrates that without the trains running there would be a moderate impact. Below 5 decibels is not at a level where development should normally be refused. Policy states that within that sort of area you'd be looking at mitigation rather than refusal, whether that's acoustic fence or hours or dampeners, it's obviously a decision for the committee. But I would argue that this doesn't consider the impacts of tennis being played, and obviously that's another aspect to consider, a March day when there's not much tennis being played versus the hypothetical of lots of padel being played. And it's comparing apples and pears and trying to come up with a result accordingly. So all these things are at play, and that's why it's very difficult to do another noise assessment everyone's going to agree is absolutely fair and reasonable and is a true kind of reflection of the reality because there are so many variables that you can throw into the mix. But all we should be doing is trying to see through that, trying to understand why there's those differences, and when you understand those differences and what the significance of those is, whether or not we feel it's acceptable or unacceptable, obviously taking our expert advice on board. I've seen you, Councillor Hudson. Councillor Tory, you had your hand up and you wanted to come back. And then I've got Councillor Baker and then Councillor Hudson. Do you want to come in now? Yeah, sorry, Councillor Hudson. It was only on what Councillor Walsh had said, and now I can't have a baby-brain moment with everything that was going on. I think it was more to do by the sound level and saying something taken in March when there's no leaves on the tree, the direction of the wind, all of that has to be taken into account. And so if it was a rainy day, you know, that escalates the sound. And, yeah, and I have read the report and I also wanted to say that it was almost like we were being threatened that if they go to an appeal, if we turn it down and I think what was the thing that might go to it could appeal, you know, I always feel like we're being threatened. Fine. But again, it's the fact that from the last meeting, we haven't been given the information that we requested and so, yeah, that's back on that. Let's move on, can we? Councillor Baker. Thank you, Chairman. I'm still no further on those last meeting. My comments at the last planning meeting sort of still stand. I'm going to go on what's in front of me. I have the delights of being next to the A23, two minutes from Gatwick Airport, about five minutes from a football ground, a few minutes from a tennis club and the M23 is not far away. Over the last 15 years I've lived there, there's been hundreds and hundreds of, you know, of tests being done on sound levels at different times. I've seen myriads of different ones according to who's actually looking at them. I can't possibly, I'm not an acoustic expert, I'm here to look at the material planning stuff in front of me. I think we're getting caught up in a subjective rabbit hole that frankly, I don't think many of us understand properly and I'm not being patronising, I just think we're getting hooked up on something. We're supposed to be looking at what we've got in front of us here and looking at, it's there, it's in front of us, it's a subjective thing. The residents there and I feel for them are going to, you know, they're not going to agree with this test. They're going to say the moderate effect on that board is more, because it affects them differently. But all I can go on is what we've been told by our consultants and what our officers are saying. It's reinforced to us every single time and I really don't understand how we're going to get anywhere if members aren't actually looking at what's in front of them at the time and taking the advice. Because otherwise it will get, unless somebody puts a refusal in, it's going to get deferred again and it's going to go on and on and on. I don't see an end to it at the moment. So I don't know how we carry on from this, if this is the way it's going to carry on. Thank you very much. Councillor Hudson. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, so this is a survey to see what difference the paddle ball noises make. Nothing really to do with trains which have been there since the Victorian times, but the tennis court's been there for a long, long time. Paddle ball is a new game that's going to be very popular. I've got a suggestion perhaps that we give permission for paddle ball to go ahead for a year and you get the sound acoustic surveyors or whatever to go there again in autumn when the leaves aren't on the trees and spring when they are and summer and can hear real paddle ball going on in real life. And tennis and everything else. So they get a real sound. So it's not surmising this and surmising that. It's an actual, the real sound of the real game. And then decide whether an acoustic fence is required or not. Thank you. Councillor Caulk. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I've listened very carefully to what a lot of the members have been talking about. And I do agree with some of the factual stuff that's come through. Councillor Walsh, Councillor Baker have said we're here to implement planning legislation at the end of the day. And we hope that will be fair. The issue I'm still mulling over and I don't seem to be able to come to a decision in my own mind is I left the last meeting thinking that we had two, as Councillor Walsh says competing groups. Each doing their own thing. And I thought we were actually going to do something that did a test that would be fair to both parties. So that the residents and the members of the club could see justice being done. So it was done fairly and we'd be able to do that. Now, I've never seen those tables before. I'm not saying I would have been able to understand them either. But I wasn't given the chance. So I don't know where the, what we've been talking about here. In fact, what we were supposed to have done before we came here and what we've been talking about here has really helped. It seems like we've still got the same problem that we had at the last meeting. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman. I think the problem here is that the nub of the issue that we have to solve is actually a subjective one. Whereas we are trying to use objective tests. I live, I've spent my whole life living next to a very busy A road. And the only time the noise bothers me is when it stops and I notice the quiet. And yet if I go into a garden of a friend 100 yards away, they live next to an infant school and the noise of the delightful little children screaming their heads off in break would completely do my head in and yet they think it's delightful. So just looking at noise levels or the intermittency of noise, the problem we have is this is a subjective problem, not an objective one. The sound of a tennis ball hitting a tennis court to me, I think, probably is quite pleasant. You're listening to Wimbledon, it's quite pleasing. The sound of say a paddle board court hitting a more noisy sort of rattly fence could be quite irritating. So the tests we have probably are a little bit of a red herring. It's the subjective impact, not the objective tests which we need to think about, I think. Thank you. So just to -- before going to Councillor Thorne, Councillor Walsh is right. We have to make a -- we have to make tests. We have to make an assessment based on the facts before us and we have to take advice from experts. So we are not sound experts. And we have to make an assessment based on the evidence that the Council has and our officers have produced here. So that is what we have to do in accordance with policy. You're absolutely right about that. If we are considering the sound of one thing versus another, then we are perhaps missing the point. We have to take into account the evidence before us. It's a shame that Mr. Benson is unable to play the two recordings. That were, I think, to my way, quite interesting. Councillor Thorne is next. So I will come to you. Councillor Thorne. Thank you, Chairman. I don't feel as if the tests that have been done have given us any decent information. Old, inconclusive. The paddle courts are there in situ. I just don't understand why we haven't been playing paddle and someone being there and taking a valid test. I think it's quite clear from the various comments that a large number of us don't feel as if we've got all the relevant information that we should have had. Not apportioning any blame here, but we just feel as if we are lacking the right information to make a fair decision. So when you say, Chair, that we have this information presented before us, we're telling you we don't think we do have the right information to make a fair decision. Thank you. >> Thank you. Who is next? Did you have your hand up, Jerry? No. Councillor Newton. >> Thank you. One of the, I understand, sorry, and I'm just to everyone, I'm new to planning. This is my first planning committee meeting. So I spent a long time going through a lot of this stuff and I actually did call the companies that did the noise reports because I felt very much that I didn't understand decibels. And I was on the phone for a significant amount of time trying to understand it so that I felt like I could make a decision on it. And one of the things that really bothers me is that we're being told that we have to trust that people know what they're talking about. But when the report from the council's person says that the kids' tennis court that was there before is considered noisier than the paddle courts, I mean, that's absolutely unbelievable. It was used for three hours a week and it was, from everything that I've read, it was children under ten years old who were playing tennis on it. And for that to be, I actually drove to Ashstead. >> I think we have to take in, we have to take before us with the evidence that's given to us by the consultants. But somebody believes that three hours of children under ten playing tennis is noisier than the paddle courts. >> Let's go to the offices on this. You have to be very careful here. >> I think you have to be very careful believing either side of the noise consultants. I would normally advise against making such cause to the applicant or the objectors consultants because they will portray their own side of the story. And one can well imagine that three hours a week, which is being disputed by the members of the tennis club, is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. So that's the importance of undertaking our own objective assessment that reads across both the applicant's version of events and the objector's version of events in order that we can draw a conclusion. Now I think it's very, very difficult to say that additional monitoring is going to come up with anything that's any different to that. We've sought to set out that there's no more noise impact than moderate, even by the resident's version of events, objecting to the scheme, let alone the applicant's version of events, which is obviously much more in favour and obviously demonstrating that it wouldn't be an adverse impact. So I don't think we can hope to achieve an impartial objective assessment undertaken by the council itself. The planning committee isn't in the business of instructing noise assessments to be undertaken. It sets a very dangerous precedent. I don't know where we find the budget to be going out and paying for all these assessments. We have two assessments that have been undertaken by both parties. We've paid consultants to review that evidence and come up with advice for us. Whether you take that advice or not is entirely up to you. Up to you. But what we cannot do is then go and try and provide other evidence that's not within our remit. Sorry, just to clarify, I wanted to understand how decibels work, not -- [inaudible] Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Mr Benson, for that. That's important points of fact. When you look at the addendum and I think most of us received it through the system in a paper copy this evening, it's actually consultants regulatory support services actually given sound advice based upon the reality of the testing regime that has been proffered by one side versus the other. Actually that is an important thing to put into perspective. It's about how you deal with ambient noise and how you deal with the position of the railway, et cetera. I actually think that we just have to be very careful that we don't -- unfortunately I do get involved in noise assessments with my work, but it's actually you get engaged specialists to give you advice. As I said earlier, you're probably never going to get them to agree. But it depends on the instructions they were given. You will always get the brief from whatever on the basis of the instructions that they have been given by the respective clients. So all officers, quite rightly, and as Mr. Benson said, we're not there to commission X, Y and Z for the benefit of X, Y and Z, but it's actually there to provide a balanced view on the information that's been presented to us. Actually if you think about -- and I go back to what I said earlier, is that this application is only here because of an administrative error. An administrative error caused this application to come to committee. It is not a matter of what was presented previously was flawed. It was actually on the basis of what was considered at the time as a fair application that was considered and balanced on the merits it was given. I tend not to agree with the proposal last time to defer to get -- because we don't actually have being fair to both residents and the applicant sufficient time to unpick the necessary bits in the committees to do further studies of this instead further studies for that. It is a very difficult thing to do. So I actually do go back to the point about -- and I agree with counselor Harp's point, it's a subjective matter based upon a technical thing. But we have to consider it in the round of what material planning matters. It's not about whether you like it. I don't play tennis so I didn't have to declare an interest. I don't even know how to play tennis. But I recognize the point made about the children's play area -- sorry, children's tennis area or play area. And actually the point is you're never going to be happy to everything. And I agree with counselor Harp's analogy of living in a busy area and then going to where the children's. Some people like children, some people don't like roads. And it's actually a matter of an opinion. But we are looking at this in the terms of what is a material planning matter. Officers tell us that the balance from the view and the recommendation is with the addendum on the hours and with what has been put together is a fair and reasoned case for this application. I haven't made my mind up. But it is a fair and reasoned case. Thank you, Jim. >> I think it's worth noting that there were two issues that I think the officers raised. There was the hours and there was the -- what was it called? Resilient strips. And the management plan, yeah. Thank you, Chairman. I want to make two points. One very minor one and one more substantial one. I believe first of all, as we see in the applicant's noise assessment, we see that correct me if I'm wrong, there was previously a wooden hitting wall on those mini tennis courts. And it is my opinion that a ball hitting that wooden hitting wall would be extremely obnoxious compared to the noises we hear from paddle courts. But besides that, I actually want to echo the words of Councillor Hudson and Councillor Thorne and make a proposal that we vote on the temporary approval of this plan for one year while we do noise assessments and then reconvene after those noise assessments are conducted. Can you just confer with me? My thoughts on the situation are that we have two robust reports, both of which accord with industry guidance. They're not very far apart. There's no substantial impact. It's a question of moderate and the significance of that moderate impact. And therefore, I don't see that there's going to be any benefit, and I'll say it again, from conducting further noise assessments. I think the issue for the committee is if you are so persuaded by the argument that the noise is going to be unacceptable, then propose a motion that requires a condition requiring an acoustic fence. If you are persuaded by the argument that it is acceptable, agree with the recommendation that doesn't require the acoustic fence. Kicking the can down the road, I don't think it's going to help anyone, let alone the residents. Councillor Caulker first. >> I can see or can feel an air of desperation creeping into this. The details that have come out of this as far as I am able to understand the nontechnical stuff is this is the third time this application has come, the first time due to an admin mistake. Had officers' recommendation to approve it, and these are impartial people that have access to all the technical understanding that they provide us. It came back again, again with independent officers' recommendation to approve, but members here didn't feel that they actually understood the details of the noise analysis and assessments, and we decided that we would not make a decision then, and basically asked the officers to review that data once again, and now we're back again with another independent officer's review saying we've reviewed all that data and we still approve or recommended that this application should be granted. I'm really not sure what else we can do. Okay. Thank you very much. Councillor Newton. Sorry. I just want to go back to the is it called the noise policy statement, the NPS. In the NPS, it says that moderate sound must be mitigated. Without the train noise for the every ten seconds, there is moderate sound all of the time as a minimum. I understand mitigating the substantial sound. So I believe that we it feels like we should put mitigation in. >> Let's ask the officers to clarify that. Yes. Up to five decibels, between sort of three and five decibels, there is recommendation that mitigation should be considered, but it also has to consider the planning balance in that, and the planning balance is set out in the addendum in terms of the national planning policy framework and policy guidance and case law, which specifies that the residents have been taken into account in the reduction of the hours to 5 p.m., and that's an acceptable approach to mitigation of the noise impacts, which is what's required by the noise policy statement. So it's not mitigation to zero at all costs. It's mitigation within what's reasonable and considering the economic, community, planning, other benefits that might arise from the proposal. So you've got to consider it all in the round. I just -- >> Come back. Yeah. I just feel like moderate is a lot the whole time. I don't know how best to portray this. It just feels to me like quite a lot of noise is going to be made. So I think it is something that we should be considering, putting in something. Yeah, well -- okay. Please, could you -- could we turn these phones off, please? Please could you turn the phone off, please? Councillor -- Councillor Hudson, yeah. Thank you, Chairman. As I said earlier, I think the logical solution to this is grant permission and let the residents and the tennis club work together to get another sound assessment done if they wish to the actual sound that's going on in the place or will be going on with paddle ball, tennis, trains. You know, so that seems to be the way forward. And if they don't wish to get another sound thing done, that's up to them. But that's it, really. Give permission. >> Let me just pick up something that Councillor Newton has said. So she's talking about mitigation. So the mitigation measure that officers have talked about and you've talked about at the last meeting was the acoustic fence. So if you want to give permission on the basis of there being an acoustic fence which would provide attenuation, then that is something that you can do. And Andrew Benson explained that to us tonight. So we can do that. But then again, you've got to consider if you want to specify that condition or whether you don't. That's very much a pivotal point here. Councillor Walsh. >> Thank you, Chairman. And I concur with Councillor Hudson. The point with regard to mitigation is actually within the addendum there is the mitigation measures that are proposed, which is both the -- I'll call it the wobbly bobs and the hours. Putting an acoustic fence is what are you trying to achieve? An acoustic fence would have a definition of how many DBs you are going to reduce it by. You have to define that. Is that satisfied? Is that satisfied? How is that satisfied? It's satisfied by design and measure. But what the officers have said as a reasonable position that they've taken through discussions and reflection upon the last meeting is that these mitigation deals with the noise as it is perceived. And as it was noted earlier, both are -- not both. The reports are fairly close. But it's actually somebody's perception is it's over here and the others' perception is over there. But in reality, they're close together. And the officers have put together is that it deals with the issue of if you curb the hours and actually you -- and I'll call them the wibbly bobs. If you put the technical detail in terms of the reduction in the noise, that deals with it. And officers are telling us it is a reasonable position to take. And again, none of us are technical here -- sorry, not none of us are technical here. We are not acousticians. And therefore, by definition, it's an interpretation of reports. And as officers have said to us, they are not too far apart. I'm not seeing any other members wishing to speak at this point. So -- oh, Councillor Torrell. If we say about having the acoustic wall, as Councillor Walsh said, we then need a level to say what puddle boarding noise is. And as Councillor Hudson said, we haven't got that level because they haven't played it at that venue. So we haven't got that information. So if we had the mitigate -- so if I can ask the officers if we were putting that rule in and saying you can do it, but we need to put the walls in, surely we need a level and not this level that we've got in either one of these reports because they aren't of paddle board being playing. They're of trains going by and lawn tennis being played? No? So they've actually recorded -- so these reports have actually recorded paddle board being played on the site. I don't think they have. The only difference, the only significant difference between the two reports is the ambient noise level. That's the existing noise level. It's not what the sound of paddle is going to be. That's agreed between the consultants within one decibel of tolerance, imperceptible amount. So then we have a level that if we put these shields around it, these fences, then we have got a level that we'd say this is what the noise would be and then this shield would reduce it by X amount? That's what we don't have. We don't have that. We have an understanding about what the level of sound would be from paddle being played, is that correct? Without those walls, yes. So the question then is whether or not members feel that the impacts are acceptable as laid out in front of you or an acoustic fence ought to be required, which would ordinarily be a condition requiring details to be submitted of an acoustic fence. The residents have set out that that looks like it's four metres high with a massive 10 kilograms per square metres around two and a half sides of it. Another way of looking at it would be an acoustic fence which reduces the noise from the courts by five decibels. And that would obviously take it below the level of noise which is experienced at the moment under a worst case scenario. But if members felt that that was a requirement, then that ought to be a condition that you need to consider. Officers would obviously contend that it's not necessary or reasonable, which are the tests for condition that we will have to have in mind when we're imposing conditions because it's unlawful if conditions are imposed which are not reasonable or not necessary. Does that answer your question? Yes. But that's what the officer was saying was that if we suggested that it could still be appealed but then they wouldn't be put in. Yes, of course. The other thing was with what Councillor Hudson's suggestion was about doing it and doing it for a year, it's great, but knowing that it could be then let to those parties to sort it out and say, I think that's a bit wishy-washy, I think we have to then say after X amount of days. It's like us having this only after 21 days of us last discussing it and we still hadn't got the information. So I think it needs to be X amount of days that it has to be reviewed by the Council. We have the application for us. Councillor Newton. Sorry, just on the acoustic fence front, I presume that all Councillors have got this, but I've received an email at 6.29. It just seems very logical. No, no, no, no. Okay. Councillor Hudson, did you want to enter? No, he won't put your hand up there. Okay. So we're going to, let's move to the recommendation, the officer recommendation to approve this planning application. Those members who are supportive of the planning application as recommended by the officers, would you please raise your hands. Those members who approve of the officer recommendation to approve this application, would you please raise your hands. Those who are against the officer recommendation, would you please raise your hands. That application is approved. Thank you. Could someone go and rescue, yeah, Councillor Blacker. Thank you very much. Okay. So we move on now. By the way, you're very welcome to leave if you'd like to. Yeah. We'll just give it a minute for people. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, during that last vote, there were people that didn't vote, so we needed to have who voted. Oh, yes, of course. No, you're right. So that didn't get noted. Sorry. Yes. Yes. I know what you want to say, but before you leave, that's a really good point. I forgot to ask for abstentions. So those abstaining, could you please raise your hands. Thank you. And thank you, Councillor Tora for saying that. Pardon? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much indeed for that. Okay. So you're asking for a little boys' blue break. Okay. Right. Let's give you two minutes for that. Thank you very much. Okay. So we move on now to item number six. This is 23/00841, Bowen House 99 Norquay Banstead. And Matthew Sheehan, you're going to present this to us as well. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. This is an outline application for a single dwelling to the rear of 99 Norquay in Banstead shown here in red. The application seeks approval for access scale and layout only with appearance and landscaping reserve matters. The site is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling to the front of a very deep rectangular plot. The rear part of the plot is currently occupied by a range of outbuildings of various sizes, which were proposed to be demolished to accommodate the development. There are also a number of trees to the rear of the sites and along the boundaries. However, none are subject to tree preservation orders. The surrounding area is predominantly residential comprised of a mix of similar age properties with more recent residential developments and backland schemes interspersed throughout, for example, Ash Close, a short distance to the northeast, Kingfisher Close to the north, and Acorn Close to the southeast. So this is a street view of the existing building of Bowen House occupying number 99 Norquay, which is this property here. Note the side garage on the left, which is supposed to be demolished to create access to the proposed dwelling to the rear. So this is a photo from behind the donor property looking across the very rear of the rear garden to the rear boundaries of broadly in the distance there, you know, a large mature tree in the corner, which is not within the application site, but very close to the rear boundary within a neighbouring garden. This is still in the rear garden of the donor property looking towards the donor property, which is here. Again, you'll note the side garage, detached garage to be demolished, as well as the rear and side of the neighbouring property at 101 Norquay, which you can see here. So this is a photo from further within the rear garden of the donor property looking back towards its rear elevation. So you'll note that here are some of the existing outbuildings used for various purposes, primarily domestic storage and sheds, et cetera. And this is taken broadly in the same location, but looking back towards the rear boundary of the existing garden. And finally, this is a photo looking east towards the side boundary, where in the distance you can see the properties 4 and 6 Ash Close, which occupy one of the other backland developments found along Norquay. So these are the existing plans. So the existing dwelling is a typical 1930s, '50s suburban design. As I say, the rear part of the plot is occupied by a range of different outbuildings which are proposed to be demolished. And here's the detached side garage, which gives way to the access. And these are the -- this is the proposed site layout and plans and a section which shows the falling ground level as you move towards the rear of the site. The scheme has been amended during the course of the application to reduce the number of dwellings from two a pair of semi-detached dwellings to a single detached dwelling. The proposed dwelling would be appropriately spaced to the side boundaries, and there would be acceptable distance to the rear, with an ample amount of rear garden remaining for the donor property. The existing access point off Norquay will continue to be utilized, and much of the existing vegetation around the front of the property would remain. Whilst the appearance would be a reserved matter, the plans submitted illustrate a hipped roof dwelling of a two-story scale which would be lower in height than the donor property and appearing to be in keeping with the general character in this locality. The new dwelling would be well-distanced from other dwellings. And owing to such distances, it is not considered that its introduction would give rise to an unacceptable impact upon living conditions of surrounding properties. The proposed access road would run along the side boundary of the property between 99 and 101 Norquay. Whilst this may result in some increase in noise from vehicle movements, for a single dwelling these are likely to be minimal, and as such the level of disturbance would not be significant enough to warrant refusal in terms of harm to neighbouring community on noise grounds. The highway authority has reviewed the application and is satisfied that there would be sufficient space for parking of three vehicles and required manoeuvring space. Subject to details requiring pedestrian sight lines to be secured by condition, the highway authority raised no objection. Five category C trees would be removed from the site. Whilst the canopy of the Sycamore tree in the northwest corner of the site would overhang the garden, the rear garden space of the dwelling is considered to be of sufficient enough size, such that it would not increase pressure to prune the canopy of the tree. A tree protection plan and arboricultural method statement are also to be secured by condition. There are no existing issues of flooding within the site, however a condition requiring the submission of a drainage scheme would be included in the event of permission being granted. The application is considered to be acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions set out within the report. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. I was seeing Councillor Harp's hand up. So Councillor Harp, over to you first. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for allowing me to request to bring this item to the full committee. This is an outline application, therefore there are a limit to the number of things that we need to be considering this evening. I'm going to try and keep this brief. I would like to draw the committee's attention to paragraph 4.4 and 4.5, which are on page 56 of the agenda this evening, which state briefly, if I may, a design and access statement should illustrate the process that has led to the development proposal and justified the proposal in a structured way. It expects applicants to follow a four-stage design process comprising assessment, involvement, evaluation and design. You will see from the following paragraph 4.5 that none of those four criteria have been met. For assessment, it states the application does not contain an assessment of the character of the surrounding criteria. Features worthy of retention are not identified. For involvement, it is not stated that community involvement has taken place prior to the submission of the application. For evaluation, the application does not include any evidence of other development options being considered. And for design, it is not stated what has informed the proposal. So for those four criteria, there is no evidence that has been put forward by the applicant to support the design and access statement. I would like to then draw your attention to paragraph 6.16, which is on page 60, where the officers have said that similar back land schemes for single dwellings with similar access arrangements have been granted in the process. But the nearest similar application that the officers cite is actually in Shelvers' Way, which is two miles away. On the first grounds, I would say I think most of the members of this committee who have sat on this committee for some time now are aware of just how successful shall I say Shelvers' Way is turning out to be. I think most of us are very concerned about the cumulative effect of development in Shelvers' Way. And if we are arguing that this site is in character, to have to use a site which is two miles away strikes me as being as rather stretching the idea of local character. Now, Norquay was originally built as the first road of the North development in the early 1920s and was intended to be not the sort of the spine rat run that it is nowadays because it didn't connect with Reigate Road to the North, sorry, to the South. It only connected 30 years later in 1953. So when this road was first built, it was a fairly quiet road. It is now unfortunately a rat run. And although it's very clear that we cannot consider the effect of precedent because that's not a material consideration, what we can consider is whether this application is in character to what is already there. And I would argue that having to use an example two miles away for a similar development suggests that this is not in character. And if we were to allow this, the change in character that we would be permitting would then open up Norquay to considerable back garden development of a form which is tandem in style. And this is a type of back garden development that we do not currently have in Norquay. I think it would have an adverse effect on the character. And I am concerned also about the effect of the driveway on the neighbouring properties, on their amenity value. So I would be very interested to hear what other people have to say. And I would, if I can, reserve the right to come back to this later. But I would be interested to hear other people's comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Walsh. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Councillor Harp, for your history. I didn't realise that that was a smaller road when it was originally constructed and designed. I have concerns and recognising this as an outline application for the consideration of the axis, scale and layout. By those three definitions or what has been proposed to put forward, I have concerns on all three. As Councillor Harp has quite rightly said, it's a tandem development. The tandem development is not in that area in character terms but we're not being asked to consider something in character. As it is about axis, the axis off the road is very narrow and it actually picking up the point that again Councillor Harp has raised is very thorough and I think is commended for that, is that it is axis in knocking down a garage and it will directly impact on the donor building. There is going to be two or three cars going regularly up and down that little axis road. And it's actually of concern. With regard to scale, whilst it is actually the scale of the building put in as a tandem position at the back of the plot, it does seem, if you look at it and compare it to the donor property, it is of a much larger scale and therefore is that appropriate? Is that correct? Two points out of three. And actually if we then look at the layout, again, the layout is of some concern to myself. Because again, it is in a position where it is tandem development, it is inappropriate in the sense of if it is layout. And I concur wholly with what Councillor Harp has said. I am very concerned about the proposal in front of us, albeit outline. Picking up the design statement, yes, the applicant will have to provide that, but that's if we avoid the discussion now, granted outline, it will just be the reserve matters dealt with and I am concerned at this application in outline terms. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members wishing to speak? Councillor Blacker, sorry, I forgot to go to you. Thank you, Chairman. And thank Councillor Harp for his presentation. Could we have the photograph of the front of the property, please, again? Sort of the street scene. Because the view of house 101 on the ordinance survey plan and then the applicant's plan seem to be different. This one here, is that what you wanted? Is it possible to close in, particularly on the house next door? You mean the one to the left? Yes, the one next to the driveway. So that is living accommodation there, isn't it, because there is roof lights in there, not a garage. Do you know Councillor Harp? Last Matthew. I think the access is very narrow and it will have an effect on number 101. I don't think it is right. Parking is now going to be in the front of the house, probably is now already, instead of in the garage. Obviously at this stage there is no mention of refuse. But I don't know what they are going to have to do. We are not expecting our carts to go up one single road. So it means you have to wheel the bins right past two other houses. I just think it is inappropriate. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. I don't think it is being suggested in the report that the nearest example of a tandem backland development is two miles away. I think they were just given as recent examples of tandem developments that have been allowed appeal rather than that being the nearest example, if you like. I note that 132A, Norquay, is a tandem development. It looks like it has been there for many years. But certainly other forms of single dwellings sitting behind frontage dwellings on Norquay do exist. So it is not just that it is there. That being the nearest referenced in the report. Point taken. Thank you very much. If no-one else is wishing to speak, Councillor Hart, would you like to come back? Thank you very much, Chairman. We are rattling through this one. In that case, I have reasons for refusal which I would like to propose. Please do. The proposed development of a single dwelling with associated access to the rear of 99 Norquay by virtue of the isolated tandem form of development, small plot size and long access road would constitute a cramped form of overdevelopment that would be at odds with the established pattern of development in the area. The proximity of the proposed access road along the shared boundary with 101 Norquay would result in an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property due to noise disturbance generated by increased vehicle movements. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the national planning policy framework 2023, policies DES1 and DES2 of the Rygette and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 and the local character and distinctiveness design guide supplementary planning document. Thank you. Do you have a seconder? Thank you, Councillor Walsh. Would members who wish to support the reasons for refusal please raise your hands? If I counted 10. Opposed against, please raise your hands. Abstentions. That refusal is supported and therefore the application is refused. Thank you very much. So we move now to item number 7 which is land to the rear of 62 and 64 Gatton Road Rygette and Matthew Holdsworth is going to present this to us. Thank you, Chairman. This is a full application for the erection of two detached five bedroom dwellings on the rear gardens of number 62 and 64 Gatton Road in Rygette. Access will be provided through a newly created access from a private section of Gatton Road which is essentially the access drive. You can see it here on the top right hand corner. A drive to Quarry Hill, a grade 2 listed building. Other dwellings presently have access from this private road including number 58. Hopefully this aerial photo provides some additional context to the site location. The site comprises two detached dwellings set in generously long plots off Gatton Road in Rygette. A number of mature trees can be found both within the site and nearby, some of which are covered by a tree preservation order. Site levels vary across the site as is the nature in this part of Rygette. Most notably, they rise from south to north. However, they peak in the middle of these long rear gardens. Please also note that there is an addendum item which shows the site levels. I'll show that a bit later in the report. The surrounding area includes a variety of residential dwellings so generally of a detached nature and traditional in design. Buildings are generally well spaced and set back from the highway. The grade 2 listed building, Quarry Hill, is located to the northeast and whose driveway forms the private road of which access will be taken to serve the proposed dwellings. That's the building that you can just see up there. Here's some site photographs. This is a photo looking northwest from Gatton Road at the front elevations of the two donor properties, the number 62 on the right and 64 on the left. This is a view towards the rear elevations of the two donor properties from deep within the plot of the donor property number 62. And this photo is looking towards the northeast plot boundary. You can see the land level start to fall towards the rear here. This photo is looking towards the rear plot boundary of the two donor properties with properties of Hunterfield Close number 6 and 8 glimpsed through the trees. This photo is looking west towards the pool house which serves number 58 that would be removed in place of a new access road off Quarry Hill. There's a view from Quarry Hill looking northwest of the pool house where a new access is to be established. And this photo is off Gatton Road looking northwest at the junction with Quarry Hill to the northeast of the donor properties, the new access road to be established a short distance around the bend on the left hand side. So this is the proposed site layout. The proposed scheme has been amended during the course of the application to minimally alter the position of the dwellings, reduce their footprint and alter the design appearance during the course of the application. The plots to 62 and 64 would effectively be subdivided in half with half retained to the existing dwellings and the two new dwellings created to the rear. The resultant plot sizes of the proposed and the donors are considered to be of an acceptable size commensurate to surrounding examples, particularly those found on Hunterfield Close just to the northwest of the site. The site layout would include the retention of numerous mature trees and the introduction of soft landscaping around the access and parking area to the front of the proposed dwellings. The balanced and hard and soft landscaping is considered acceptable in design terms with the dwellings not appearing car dominated to the front. Full details of the landscaping can be secured by condition to ensure an acceptable balance is provided. So this is the design of House A which is set behind number 64 furthest from Quarry Hill. The design and appearance of the proposed dwellings, both of them would be of a largely traditional nature in keeping with the locale which includes some variation in design but is largely characterised by traditional good sized dwellings and reasonable plots. This is House B which would be within the existing rear plot of number 62. The two dwellings would be similar in design to one another with some variety between the two and sufficiently reflective of the nature of residential dwellings nearby and both would appear as one and a half storey dwellings to reduce the visual scale and bulk of the proposal. So I've got the floor plans here and there's also the roof plan for House A and this is for House B. The new dwellings would accord with the nationally prescribed internal space standards in each bedroom and main living rooms to have sufficient window size to allow for acceptable levels of light and outlook. And this is what you would find in the addendum. It's site section submitted in support of the application which shows the back to back relationship between House A which is the higher of the two properties and the donor property to 64 Gatton Road. Officers are satisfied that the dwellings would not hold such a level of prominence which would result in harm to the character of the area. With regard to neighbouring amenity, both host properties presently have long spacious plots and the new dwellings would therefore retain spacing of over 35 metres from their hosts and that shows that the proposed dwellings are at a lower level than the donor properties, the plan on the screen. The more easily dwelling labelled House B would be set alongside the garden number 60. However, given it would be two metres from the boundary and the separation distances to the dwelling itself, it's not considered any significant harm would arise. The only side facing windows would be to non-habitable rooms and an obscure glazing condition for these at first floor is considered sufficient to ensure no harmful overlooking. The properties occupying Hunter's Field are close to the north, Raglan Road to the west and Quarry Hill to the east are well-distanced from the proposed dwellings and owing to such separation distances and well-screened boundaries, it's not considered that there will be unacceptable impacts on their amenities. The properties would benefit from two off-road car parking spaces per dwelling together with two visitor bays and the proposal would comply with policy parking standards. The County Highways Authority confirmed no objection subject to recommended conditions. The conservation officer is satisfied the proposed development not result in unacceptable impact on the setting and approach to the listed building subject to a landscaping scheme condition. The tree officer likewise is satisfied the proposal would not result in a harmful impact on the protected trees or other mature trees found within the site and raises no objection subject to conditions. Both Surrey Wildlife Trust and Nature Space have raised no objection on ecology grounds, again subject to conditions. Surrey County Council critical drainage engineer have also reviewed the scheme. In this instance they have raised no objection subject to a condition requiring a surface water drainage scheme which would be secured by condition. Additional details with regards to issues such as provision of cycle storage, electric vehicle charging points and a construction transport management plan would also be secured by condition. The application is considered to be acceptable and therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out within the committee report. Thank you Chairman. Thank you very much Matthew. Councillor Blacker. Thank you Chairman. I have been to look at this site and I have walked right up the proposed road and if members look at the ordinance survey plan on page 101 you will see the rather strange relationship of the land where 58 sort of wraps around number 60 and then we have got the pool house that is going to demolish and presumably all that piece of land has been purchased so that it combines with 62 and 64's proposed development. There will be a degree of inconvenience to both properties and it's quite interesting that the next plan on 102 admits 58 and the boundaries so it does make it quite difficult to understand where the access road is. As you can see from the ordinance survey this is the first sort of back land development in this part of Gatton road and I really do think these houses are too large and will be an imposition on the donor, not only the donor houses but also 62 and 58 and I would like to hear what other members have got to say and I would be grateful if you could come back to me at the end. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Fairst. Thank you, Chairman. I had a specific question around the fact that the site sits nearby to two of the conservation areas. What weight does that have on policy, if anything? Good question. Matthew, please. We have to consider the setting of the conservation area. If it's within there. The conservation officer has been contacted as part of the consult as part of the scheme and has assessed it and also to do with the setting of the listed building which is just around the corner as well. So he is finds it acceptable subject to a landscaping condition which helps to screen it as well from there. The closer they get to a conservation area the more it could impact the setting of the conservation area. As a sort of transition concept. Councillor Walsh. Thank you, Chairman. Picking up the points that Councillor Blacker said, it's interesting to see the topography and understand it. But I'm probably going to say it's actually what we've got in front of us that we've got to consider. I do consider the actual size of the properties are too large. But again, what we've got to consider is what's in front of us. Had it been us we're being consulted on, we would be perhaps giving advice to make it smaller. But we're not being asked to consider it. So it's about whether the site is suitable. And thank you for Councillor Fairhurst actually picking up two valid points with regard to context of the conservation area. It's an important thing to pick up. Just on that, it seems quite a part from the size, quite a reasonable application. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to comment? So I think it's back to you, Councillor Blacker. Thank you. I do have a reason for refusal which I'd like to read, if I may. The proposed development by reason of its siting scale, footprint, form and mass fails to respect the local spacious character and would not positively reflect the prevailing spacing in the locality, causing harm to the character and appearance of the area and would result in an overbearing and unneighborly impact to neighboring properties on Gatton Road, numbers 58 to 64 inclusive. And a harmful level of overlooking towards numbers 51 and 53 Raglan Road by reasons of lower site levels to the properties contrary to policies DS1 and DES2 of the development management plan 2019 and the Rygate and Banstead local character and distinctive guide 2021 and the national planning policy framework. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have a seconder for reasons for refusal? Councillor Harp. Okay. So those members who wish to support reasons for refusal, please raise your hands. I counted five. Those against, would you please raise your hands? Seven. So that reason for refusal is abstaining. Would you please raise your hands? Two. So that reason for refusal is not sustained. We will now move to the Office of Recommendation to approve this application. Will those members who wish to support the Office of Recommendation to approve please raise your hands? Seven. Those against, please raise your hands. Three. Was it three? Four. I think it was four. And the abstentions, if you were abstaining? Three. Okay. That application is approved. Thank you very much. To the gentleman over there, I say thank you to you for waiting so long today and you also waited until the very end of the meeting last time we had. So you have done a sterling job in waiting. So thank you for coming and joining us. Okay. Now, Councillor Blacker, we need to ask you to leave the room because the next application that we are considering is one for which Councillor Blacker has responsibility. So we will come and send a party out to pick you up. So Matthew is -- sorry, Andrew is in search of a power cable for his computer. This happens to me all the time at work as well. If it starts bleeping, suddenly we know what is going on, don't we? So this is application number 8. And it is 24/00472, 22 Vogan close right gate. And Matthew is going to present this to us. And as I mentioned, this is coming to the committee because of the involvement of Councillor Blacker. So to you, Matthew. Thank you, Chairman. This is a house holder application for a single story side extension. The application site is occupied by a two story detached dwelling set within a modest corner plot off Vogan close. The surrounding area is residential in character, typified by other detached dwelling houses of similar architectural style set back from the highway. To give some further context here, you can see wood hatch park and playground to the north east and that's the old angel pub on the corner. This photo is looking towards the front of the application property from Vogan close. This photo is looking northeast along Vogan close to give an impression of the character of the street. And this photo is looking northwest along Vogan close where the road bends. This is looking towards the rear elevation and side plot boundary of the application property. And here we have a view from the rear garden of the site. And then finally this is looking back towards the rear plot boundary of the property. Now we got onto the block plan. As you can see, the property would be enlarged at its southwest flank and this would be a single story level. The scale of the enlargement would be proportionate to the scale of the existing building and other properties within the locale and it would not unduly infill its plot, retaining spacing to the side boundary. An apple tree and some shrubbery is to be removed. There are no protected trees within the site and the tree officer is satisfied that there are no trees or any other green infrastructure of any landscape significance within or adjoining this application site that needs to be preserved or protected, therefore raises no objection. Owing to its single story nature and separation distances, it's not considered the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers would be compromised by the proposed extension. And here are the elevation drawings of the existing dwelling house. The proposed extension here, we've got the proposed elevations for a new garage in keeping with the existing appearance of the host property and surrounding buildings. It would feature vertically boarded garage doors, which is referred to horizontally as a feature of this locality. It would be constructed using matching external materials, so that's the existing building, and integrates well with the appearance of its host and the street scene. The proposed solar panels would not insignificantly detract from the building's facade and the enhanced sustainability of the dwelling is supported. Here's the proposed floor plans. The enlargement would offer relatively generous open space, typical to that of a garage. The application does benefit from an extent permission for a two-storey side extension on this side of the building, as you can see here. The application was for a series of enlargements, including the rear extension. However, the two-storey side element on this side remains unimplemented at present. In support of the application, this drawing submitted showing how the enlargement subject to this application would integrate with this unimplemented enlargement illustrated in blue. It's considered the proposed single-storey side extension would integrate well with this extent permission, the unimplemented enlargement, which would sit above the flat roof part of the extension. The application is considered acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out within the committee report. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. So over to members for any comments. Councillor Walsh, do you want to make any comments? It's probably just worthwhile for new members. Obviously, this application only come here by constitutional reasons, and ordinarily this would be approved by delegated. So it's a matter of what do we think? The normal question, we used to have a member over there who, in fact, they competed to put their hands up to say, to ask officers, under normal circumstances, would you have approved this application? And the officers would have said, Matthew, yes, yes. So I'm not seeing any hands up of any others wishing to speak. So, members, for those wishing to support the officer recommendation for this application, please raise your hands.

1. Thank you. There's no against. I can't see anyone who could potentially be against, and I'm going to abstain. Pardon? Particularly for Councillor Blackett. You could put him out of his misery and bring him back in. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we will, when he returns, move to the next item, which is Item No. 9. And I know he knows this already, but I would like to say a big thank you to all those members who came for the site visit. Well, the members who came to the site visit, it was very, very, very educational, wasn't it? So thank you very much to those members. And this is going to be presented to us by Matthew Sheeran. It's worth just noting that we have two, effectively, two applications before us. One is a planning permission, and the other is listed building consent. So we're going to hear from Matthew about this. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. This is a full planning and listed building consent application for the proposed developments at Harps Oak House Merstam to create the development of ten residential dwellings with associated access, landscaping and parking. The site is occupied by a Grade II listed building, Harps Oak House, which is shown here. The main building is a two-storey detached house built in the 18th century with additional curtilage buildings to the west, which you'll note here. It is currently vacant and in a very poor state of repair. The buildings are set within very large grounds, which are extensively overgrown. The site lies to and is accessed from the west side of London Road North and is located on the corner of Harps Oak Lane. It has been within the Greenbelt and the Surrey Hills National Landscape. So this shows the existing site layout. So here's the existing Grade II listed building. It's a Brodley L-shaped building in the northwestern corner of the plot. And here you can see the smaller curtilage building to the north with some indication of the amount of vegetation that currently occupies the site. And you can see the size of the overall site shown in red. The existing access from London Road North is here. And running along the southern boundary of the site, you can see Harps Oak Lane here, which is a fairly narrow single-track access road, which comes off of London Road North. And so this shows some of the existing elevations. So you'll note that it's a sort of pitched roof building for the most part. And you'll see the smaller, sort of worn single-storey curtilage building shown here. This is looking at it from the south. And again, you can get more of an appreciation of the existing pitched roof gable design of the existing building and the smaller ancillary structures as shown here. So here's some photographs of the site. So you can see the existing building in the distance here. And you can see its current condition. It's in fairly poor state at the moment with quite extensive overgrown vegetation surrounding much of the site and much of the building. This shows the building a bit more clearly. So this is, I believe, taken from the top of the existing access road. So here you have the main listed building here. And you can see the smaller curtilage structure in the distance there. So this is looking at the rear elevation. I think it's looking north. So yeah, you can see the existing gable structure. But again, also the fairly poor state that the existing building is in. This is taken from a wider view. It's looking at the same elevation again but through the existing overgrown vegetation that surrounds much of the site. And again, just to give you an idea of the size and the amount of vegetation and overgrown nature of the site at the moment. This is looking down Harps oak Lane. And you can make out London Road north in the distance there. This is looking back up Harps oak Lane, looking west. You can note the main road running there. This is taken from the other side of London Road north. You can just about make out the top of the building there through the existing trees. So the proposed development comprises the repair, refurbishment, and conversion of the grade two listed Harps oak house to create four residential dwellings and the rebuilding, extending, and conversion of the outbuildings to create a further two dwellings. The alterations are identical to those that were approved under an earlier application from 2018. The proposal seeks to retain the original and historic fabric where possible and preserve the original plan form of the building where this can practically be achieved. The pitch roof gable ended form of the existing would be reflected throughout and the conservation officer is satisfied that the works are acceptable and recommends extensive conditions to control materials and architectural and structural detailing. So these are the proposed elevations of the top image that you can see there is looking towards the rear of the building. And you'll note again the pitch roof style of the existing buildings is reflected throughout. So much of the change on the existing buildings relates to particularly the northern wing which will be essentially rebuilt and a larger footprint and the footprint of the existing cartilage buildings will be slightly enlarged also. So the middle cross section is looking down the site in this direction and the bottom cross section is looking towards the new building which I'll come on to in a moment. And again showing the broader street scenes is looking through the whole development. So the top cross section is this one here looking towards the eastern elevation of the building. And again this is looking from the other side. So the top cross section is looking at this view looking east. And D looking back up the site looking south. So as I mentioned a moment ago in addition to the alterations to the existing buildings it is proposed to develop a further four dwellings in a new building to be constructed to the south. So that's building three shown here. This element acts as enabling development to fund the development and the restoration of the remaining buildings. Again the design seeks to reflect that of other buildings on the site and the additional built form is considered to be in the most appropriate location to minimise impact on the setting of the listed building and its height and relatively simple rural style would result in an acceptable relationship with the listed building. The conservation officer considers that the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset. So these elevations show, these are the elevations of building three and as you can see again they've tried to reflect the kind of pit roof kind of gable ended form of the main building. So this is the east elevation and the north below with the west elevation and the south elevation. So the proposed alterations to the existing building would be acceptable in terms of their impact on the green belt as they would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the existing buildings. However the new building, building three would be an inappropriate form of development for which very special circumstances are required. Additionally the building would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Surrey Hills national landscape. The key matter in support of the proposal is therefore the enabling development. The applicant has provided a marketing report and viability assessment. The site was marketed for over 33 months before the submission of the application as both an individual residence and as a development site with the benefit of planning permission. Despite interest no offers were made during this period. Officers are therefore satisfied that there is limited market interest to use the site for alternative purposes or to take on a site with an established planning permission for redevelopment. The submitted viability assessment calculates that 430 square metres of enabling development is needed to subsidise the works of the listed building. This has been reviewed by independent assessors who conclude that the scheme is only just viable and does require the enabling development. Based on the marketing and independently reviewed viability of the site and the poor condition of the listed building and therefore the urgent need to start the repair and restoration works, officers are satisfied that there is a justified need for the enabling development. The quantum of development in this case four houses is considered necessary and as stated the council's conservation officer is satisfied that subject to conditions building three would have an acceptable relationship to the listed building and surrounding area. Whilst there would be harm to the nationally protected landscape the Surrey Hills national landscape planning officer advises that if the additional development is justified as enabling development related to the listed building then the rural style building design would be appropriate. On this basis there are considered to be very special circumstances that would justify the development in the green belt and the national landscape. So with regard to highways matters the existing access from London Road north which is shown here would be closed and blocked by what's indicated as a wooden bollards approximately here and a new access created from Harps oak lane which is here. Highway officers confirm that this would be an improvement to highway safety. There is no objection on highway safety grounds subject to conditions. In terms of parking 23 spaces are required and 24 have been provided. Regarding cultural matters it is proposed to remove 14 individual trees seven groups of trees and one box hedge from the site. These are all low category C trees and their removal would be acceptable and would not harm the overall landscape setting of the site. A significant number of trees would remain on the site and details of replacement planting and additional landscaping will be secured by condition along with tree protection measures. Regarding ecology habitats within the development site they are of limited ecological value and subject to appropriate mitigation for reptiles, bats, nesting birds. There's unlikely to be any harm to protected species. Also drainage details will also be secured by condition. So therefore in view of the outline considerations the proposed development is considered acceptable and is recommended that planning permission and building consent be approved subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you very much Matthew. Your pictures by the way showed that you said it overgrown. Those who visited it would have seen it to be rather more overgrown than that. It was quite substantial. Just before we go to members there will be a question about the linking of the two parts of the project and the ensuring that the listed building is correctly restored prior to the other building being occupied. Will you talk about that? There is a condition requiring that the listed building be repaired prior to occupation of any of the other units. It is a statutory listed building so were there to be any attempt to, well, it would be criminal damage for the building to be demolished or set fire or otherwise kind of vandalised and that's an important consideration because obviously that we've seen in the news rebuilding of pubs and all the rest of it that's been required and that's because they're statutory listed buildings and it's a criminal offence to intentionally damage them. So the condition requires that the listed building be repaired prior to the occupation of the units. This is all about enabling development. This is the key argument for the acceptability of the application. It's around enabling development. Councillor Walsh, I'm quite sure Councillor Baker if you've got your hand up. No, no, you were first. I wasn't quite sure whether that was your hand up or you were scratching your head but go first. Chairman, it was very useful to see it and I think we should use drones to see things rather than trees hiding buildings. On the point of statutory listed building I find it's a criminal that it's been allowed to get into such a state without actually representation to the building owner, whether that's transitioned through periods of ownership, I don't know. It's clearly been in a bad state for a long time but I'm actually quite pleased with bringing something back into use which actually is quite commendable to the borough. We don't have that many listed buildings. I did actually ask about the enabling side of it but you actually look at the balance, the balance of actually being able to afford to actually make the listed building, can bring the best listed building back into use as it was intended. Not quite as intended breaking up into smaller units but I think it's important that we actually consider and conserve the heritage that we got within the borough. I'm somewhat surprised, no, I'm not surprised, I shouldn't say I'm surprised, that the highways authority have not really made that much of a comment on it because actually the little road I drove up is quite narrow. So it's going to be a bit of an issue there but it's, again, it links into the 23 so I don't think that's going to be a problem. It is quite narrow but I'm sure it will be able to accommodate it. People will just learn to reverse when something is coming up the other direction. Thank you, John. Thank you. I'm going to take Councillor Baker because he had his hand up all that and then Councillor Blackhill. >> Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, the site visit was really good to actually see the condition of the building. It is doing a pretty good job of demolishing itself. And I think it's a great way to bring a building back into use, going to enable it, using the enabling development, if you like, as long as the conservation officers, you know, conditions are rigidly structured because it is a really interesting building. It's got all sorts of additions and you've got the front-facing wall. It's quite an interesting building. It would be nice to see it brought back into use. Normally I would have issues about something like this but in this case I don't and I will be supporting it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Councillor Blackhill. Yes, thank you. It was certainly a fun site visit. Obviously, obviously Steven gets all the best jobs and we were scrambling around there and we got all the cars in. Just avoided Councillor Newton bringing the gate posts with her. And then we had to play musical cars to get out. If anybody watched butterflies in the dim and distant past, it was just like that getting out. The building itself is in appalling condition, so I think we're very pleased to see it being repaired and brought back into use. The ground clearance that's going to be needed there is going to be a gigantic task on its own and to get the levels right and I think the new buildings are fairly bland and they're certainly not going to overall the existing building. I think that is perfect for what we're trying to achieve. If anybody likes blackberry jam, there's enough blackberries there in about four weeks to fill a bucket before they scraped them all up. All in all, I'm very happy with the development and I think it will be an asset and certainly to see that building back in good order will be great. Just wondering the pictures. Have we got a picture of the Flint facade? That was the one thing I think I'd like members to see if you've got it. Thank you. I think it was probably once the front. The Flint was at the back, wasn't it? Yeah, I think it once was at the front but it's at the back. Yeah, it wasn't the front at all. The front was Rygate, was it Rygate Stone? Yeah, yeah. And then the back of the building there was a flint in the wall. Whilst he's looking for it, is there anything else you want to say at the moment? I was going to ask Councillor Gabriel if he wanted to say anything. I have no comment, thank you, Chairman. Thank you. So they're fiercely looking at it. Oh, Councillor Caulker, please. Yes, I always rely on me to fill in while there's a pause. It's not a major issue. I'd apologise I couldn't actually attend the site visit as I had no transport that day, but going through the details in the agenda item, I noticed that although there is a plan for secure cycle parking, probably due to the date that the application was submitted, there's no requirement, as far as I can see, for a cycle charger to be included there with a timer on, like decent modern applications do, and I was just wondering if it can't be conditioned, could we put an informative in for that, just to bring it up to date? That's a good point. Mr Benson, can we do that? Yes, so it is a good point, and thank you for raising it, and thank you especially for raising it earlier as well, in order that we could kind of consider. The current practice, current guidance from the County Council is to encourage and require through condition cycle stores with built-in electric charge points which have a switch-off timer in order to preserve batteries, et cetera. I think you'll see the next application does have such a condition, this one doesn't, so obviously there is that question as to why that was, and I think it's purely because of the timing when this application was submitted and county highways commented on it, that being a year or two ago versus much more recently with the next application. So I think on that basis it would be reasonable to incorporate that within the condition. So condition 8A requires details of secure parking for bicycles, and I think we could just adapt that to include electric charge points. That was a good spot, thank you for doing that. And just if I can draw attention to the informative, also about the actual access for construction, because construction would be here quite interesting, and the ability of the bilkers to get in maybe by the A23, but the flow of that needs to be something that the contractor takes on board. Sorry, Councillor Walsh. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr Benson. It's quite enlightening what County Council want to do. With regard to batteries and dangerous bicycles, I think we ought to be giving advice to our residents that we shouldn't be having electrical bicycles stored in properties, because they're dangerous. So I think whilst the -- it's admirable, sorry, County Council want us to convert from having vehicles that are suitable for driving up the A23, and bicycles are not, but it's actually quite good that we should give advice to ensure that the occupiers don't have the bicycles that explode in their properties. Is a separate cycle store, of course. No, but it's just encouraging them not having -- once they start pushing these -- We have the application before us. No, but it's just an informative -- we should be advising it is dangerous to put them within properties. I don't think we can include that. Councillor Chandler. Thank you, Chair. Is Councillor Walsh correct in that being current advice? I cycled up that road for 10 years on an electric bicycle, and I stored it at home. Well, we're not taking on -- I mean, Councillor Walsh is slightly trying to be funny here as well. I'm deadly serious. You're serious. Well -- I'm deadly serious, because actually the A23 is dangerous. Councillor Walsh, we cannot include an informative that suggests that people do not have bicycles. But let's move on. Anyone else wanting to make any comments on this application? Oh, you've got the photo now, have you? And we'll come to you, Councillor Slugs, in a minute. Sorry about that. I think this is probably the best one we've got. Unfortunately, it's covered by quite a lot. That's the front wall, though. I don't think there is one. I promise you, that's the front, yeah. I don't think there is one. It's at the back, Flint. You'll notice, by the way, those members who didn't come along for the site visit, that the roof, having fallen in, they've constructed this fantastic scaffolding and polythene edifice above it, which would have done really well at Chernobyl, actually, but that is protecting the building. Clearly, there's a major piece of work already being undertaken in order to provide that level of protection. So I'm not seeing any other members. Oh, sorry, Councillor Snugs. Sorry. And then, Councillor Toro. Thank you, Chairman. On the proposals, there's a lot of the half houses to the west of the ground there. It's actually not the west, it's the south. The orientation is the north is to the right of the drawing. If you look at the arrow, there's an arrow on the bottom. Arrow's pointing north, and so I thought that was east. Which one are you looking at? If we look at page 167. I'm looking at 165 now. Okay, 165. Well, yeah, that's the same. If you notice, there's an arrow at the bottom. There's an arrow at the top, so pointing north. No, the arrow, well, okay, at the top, I see what you're saying. Yes, yes, I'm looking at it horizontally. I see, right. The point is that half houses, I'm saying on the west, but the development in that plot is to one side. I don't know if I'm missing anything. Is the bit that's on the east side, that's not part of this proposal. Is there a proposal, or is that the communal area that is left to deal with the B and G issues that has been raised on this? Let's ask the officer. Over to you. I'll just... So are we referring to this area here? Yeah, so it still remains part of the site and remains effectively untouched. So much of the existing vegetation, including this quite thick belt of trees, would remain, and there would be further enhancement through additional landscaping as part of the overall landscaping plan, plus biodiversity enhancement of the site. We were told by Mr Lewis that that's the line of trees that is to the left there is a line of lime trees when we went on to the site visit, and it's fairly extensive, fairly high, and is definitely a feature. So this is a garden, effectively, for the residents. And it's adjacent, of course, to the A23. Does that answer your question? Sorry, thank you. Councillor Tora. I had the same question. So it's really to know what that was and whether there was a risk of a development happening there, but it looks like they've got a ha-ha or something. There's a little wall there. Is that right? In the grey, it's like a ha-ha? Yeah, OK, thank you. There is... No, no. I don't think it's a ha-ha there, but... Why is it just...? It is an existing ha-ha. It is a wall or something, yeah. Can you show which page? Yeah. Again, yes. Yes. 167, you're pointing out to me, aren't you? Where are you showing the ha-ha being? It's this line. OK, yeah. That's the line where the steps are? Yeah. Yeah, OK. So you can see that. Thank you. Thank you for correcting me. Yeah. Appreciate that. OK. I'm not seeing any other members wishing to comment. So let's move to the vote. Yeah, yeah, I know. So we're going to take two votes. The first one is in respect of the planning permission. So will those members wishing to support the Office of Recommendation to approve this application for planning permission, would you please raise your hands? 13. Anyone against? No. Abstentions? One. That application is approved. And now we'll move to the listed building consent. Will those members who wish to support the Office of Recommendation to approve the listed building consent, would you please raise your hands? 13. Any against? No. Abstentions? One. That application, both of those applications are approved. OK. So we now move to item number 10 on our agenda. And by the way, I should have mentioned to you earlier that item number 12 has been removed from this evening's agenda. So we are on the home straight. So item number 10, which is 23-01945F, 2-96-298 in the rear of 300 Fir Tree Road, Epsom Downs. I once again want to thank those members who came on Monday's site visit. And Matthew Holdsworth is going to present this to us. Matthew. Thank you, Chairman. Please note the addendum item for this application, which includes the appeal decision for previous scheme and a comparison plan between the applications. I'll show the comparison plan shortly. There's also a table there that compares the footprints of the two developments, showing a much reduced footprint when compared to that previously dismissed. This is a full application for the demolition of numbers 296 and 298 Fir Tree Road and the erection of six dwellings within the site and also to the rear of number 300 Fir Tree Road. Plot one replaces number 296 and the access road will be situated between plot one and number 300 Fir Tree Road, extending to the rear to serve a pair of semi-detached dwellings, plots two and three, and three detached properties, four and six. So this is just to show you we've got -- I'm trying to illustrate here. On the right-hand side is the current red line. This is the previous red line for the scheme back in 2016, which also included land here and land here, which is not part of this application. So, yes, I've also got here the comparison plan, which you'll see in the addendum. The red plans, everything red in there was the scheme that was dismissed on appeal, and the green is what is now proposed. That's in the addendum, which might be easier for you to see rather than on the screen. The initial application was dismissed as appeal as the introduction of the access road, which would occupy most of the space between the replacement frontage dwelling and number 300, was considered to harmfully disrupt the existing road frontage. The large expanse of hard surfacing for turning areas and driveways were considered to be a dominant and visually unattractive feature of the scheme, detrimental to the appearance and visual amenity. Due to retention of existing trees combined with the irregular plot size, plot two was also identified as being squashed into the corner, resulting in a cramped form of development that would have detracted from the spacious character of the area. The current application seeks to address this by setting plot one, which you can see here, back within the site in a staggered angled arrangement in order to increase the separation distance between the proposed frontage dwelling and the access road, and enabling more space for landscaping, significantly reducing the amount of hard standing to the rear, increasing landscaping on the site and removing part of the rear garden of 294 to remove the irregular plot size. So here we have the proposed scheme. The proposed access road would have a greater degree of separation than the appeal scheme and would be well landscaped throughout. It would be comparable with other accesses serving backland developments in the wider locality and is not considered to cause undue disruption to the character of the street scene, resulting in noise and disturbance to 300 Furtree Road. With regards to the layout at the rear of the site, the proposed dwellings are well spaced and all have been orientated to front the access road. You've got the three detached dwellings here, and these are two semi-detached dwellings over here. The proposed, yes, the plot widths are broadly consistent with the locality and there is sufficient space within the front gardens to provide landscaping. The proposed dwellings will be well separated from neighbouring properties and the depths of the rear gardens are such that no harm is considered to occur to neighbouring properties, including those within the rear, to the rear within rose bushes that are set at a lower level. Just to show you some photographs, this is the property at the front here at number 298. We're then looking then from the back garden down towards that property. This is looking to the rear. These are rose gardens at the back here. There is an unusual access to the property at the rear, which also is a footpath as well. This access leads round into the property at the rear, which would be demolished. This is the property at the rear here, and then you can see this is the current footpath. The footpath would be retained, but there wouldn't be access to the new dwellings from this here. And then we've got a picture at the front here. This is the property that would be demolished with the access road coming through here. And there's some other examples I have here of nearby other developments with some of the landscaped roads and accesses to the front. The proposed dwellings would have a traditional design that would blend in well with the locality. There's a mixture of off-road parking, internal garaging, and a detached double garage as proposed on the site. A visitor bay is also provided along the access road. So here are some of the house designs. During the course of the application, amended plans have been submitted, increasing the width of the access road slightly in places to enable the maneuverability of a refuse vehicle. The increase in the width of the access is not significant, and the amount of hard-standing proposed is still significantly less than the previously dismissed appeal scheme. In the proposed development, here's a street scene for you. This is at the back showing the properties, and this is the dwelling at the front there. The proposed development is considered to overcome the concerns outlined by the inspector and would be consistent with a number of other backland schemes within the locality. The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions in the report. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. So, Councillor Hart, it's your ward again. It's my ward again, yes. Thank you very much, Chairman. Yes, well, as we've been told, this site has had a previous application, which was refused by this committee, and that refusal was upheld at appeal. I would draw your attention particularly to Appendix C of the addendum, which is the back page of the addendum, which shows the previous refused application, which was in red, and the current application, which is in green. I note that the officers have pointed out in a table that the overall amount of hard-standing of development, essentially, has been reduced from the previous refused application, but I would also point out to this committee that the overall size of the site has been significantly reduced. You will notice that the two back gardens, which are to the north of the site, so effectively to the left, have been taken out of this application. So the overall density, at least at first appearance, if you look at that map, appears to be fairly similar once you allow for the fact that the site is smaller. So I would suggest, I think that this is still overdevelopment, which was the main concern by the previous planning inspector. I would also have concerns about the access road, which is fairly straight, fairly uninteresting. If you compare that with the access road, which is shown on page 211 of the agenda, which is for Chestnut Way, and I'm appreciative of those members who came on the site visit, that access road to Chestnut Way, which is almost opposite, was a gently meandering access with some quite pleasant landscaping in it, whereas this access, I would suggest, is considerably less interesting and less verdant. So I have concerns about this site being overdevelopment. I have concerns about the access road, and of course, as is often the case with these things, I have particular concerns about the impact on the amenity value of the neighbouring houses right next to that access road, particularly now that we learned that the access road has been widened slightly to allow a refuse truck to go up and down it. So I think I have concerns. The other thing I would say, although highway matters are not particularly something that I think the appeal inspector picked up last time, is that those of you who attended the site will be aware how fast the traffic is on this road. We have actually installed a traffic management sign, electronic sign, to try and calm the traffic in this road, but we had a number of motorbikes going up and down the road as we were there on the site visit, playing, shall we say, silly buggers. And also, of course, those of you who had to park on the grass verge were aware of the problems that that caused, so parking and speeding is a particular problem. So I would be interested to hear what other members have to say, and I would like, if I may, to reserve the right to come back to this a little bit later. Thank you. Yes, of course. Councillor Walsh. Thank you, Chairman. It's a bit worrying. I'm having to constantly thank Councillor Harle for his commentary, but it is his ward, and he's very knowledgeable about the local area. I think it was very useful for members who were at the site visit, but actually, if we look at the addenda, Appendix C, what it doesn't actually show here is the comparative to the access road of a relatively new development of a similar nature. It actually showed it was much wider, and it facilitated a safe access onto the first three road. As Councillor Harle quite rightly pointed out, that is far too fast. Vehicles drive there far too quickly, and it's quite good that we're actually trying to slow people down. I have some concerns, and actually, I don't think, whilst I don't recall this application, but I was sitting on the committee when this was refused, or it came through and it was lost of appeal. The issue that we have got with this is actually, as Councillor Harle had said, and in the addenda, it says we can't really compare because it was an outline application, a slightly different application. What they have done is they've taken, I think it's 296, they've taken the plot out, and quite rightly, offices have provided a Appendix C for us to be able to see it. What it doesn't do is actually show us what they've done is they've actually made the same number of units, taken out one unit and make it a semi, so they've actually got the same development density in a smaller site, which actually is a deep concern to me. It's an amenity value, it's actually the issue around the road, how that's going to affect the new dwelling as also number 30, whilst we recognise number 30, sorry, 300, whilst we recognise that it's a donor, so he's going to take his cash and be able to walk away and leave it to whoever owns the property afterwards to suffer the significant reduction in the amenity in the value of the property. But that's not a material planning matter, but it's something that you have to recognise. I am concerned and I concur with Councillor Harp's concerns and I welcome the views of other members of this committee. Thank you very much, Councillor Walsh. Councillor Blacker. Thank you, Chairman. I think it's quite interesting that members should look at the appeal decision and 10 says the difficulty of maintaining the development access, parking and turning. 11 deals with the access road. And then 17 on the next page. The main issue, therefore, I conclude, the appeal scheme would harm the area's character and appearance. It would not amount to the high quality design that the saved LP policies and policy guidance in the national planning framework seek to achieve. Now, as Councillor Walsh has pointed out, they've still got exactly the same development. They've got six houses, but they've got a smaller site because they've introduced a semi-detached. So I think that last item still applies. The one thing they have done is they've widened the access road. So I suspect that item on the appeal has been addressed, but it still comes out into a busy road. Very close to the junction to Mimosa Road, is it opposite? Chestnut, thank you. I was close. Opposite. And the cars are going up fast. The motorbikes are only 125 and I don't think they're going that fast. Anyway, I still think this is a cramped overdevelopment. I don't see that it's been made much different from the original application. In fact, almost they're taking the mickey. The only thing they've improved is the access road, but I think the rest of the original appeal reasons for dismissal still stand. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Bohnson would like to say a couple of things again. Absolutely. It is very much a case of comparing the two, and in some instances those differences are fairly subtle. You've absolutely pointed out paragraphs 10 and 11 in the appeal decision are quite important in terms of setting out where the inspector finds harm. That being the distance between the access road and the neighbouring property and the space for landscaping along that access road. The proximity and the dominance of the frontage plot and the sort of squeezed in nature of plot two. The current proposal does differ from that, albeit it may not be as significant a difference as you may expect or desire. That would be a judgement for you to make. With regards to the specific point about density and whether or not the fact that it doesn't reduce the density compared to the original scheme, I think it's important to note that that in itself wouldn't necessarily be an issue. The inspector sort of notes at paragraph 15 that it's got no reason to dispute figures on density, but numerical density is only one of many considerations that may be relevant in assessing a proposal's impact. So you have to consider the proposal in the round and those changes which albeit may be minor in some regard and form of view as to whether or not you feel it's appropriate and in character or not. Do you want to come back at all, Councillor Blackley? No, I think what Mr Benton has said is absolutely true. It is a balance and I don't see that that particular part of the appeal has been satisfied. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else wanting to make any comments? Councillor Torre. I'd only say that in the appeal in point 14 where it says that the layout proposed as part of the site would amount to overdevelopment. So the layout on what we've been given is practically the same. It's just shifted a little bit and it's within the same space. So I'd still say it's overdevelopment. So I'm a bit surprised that the officers are saying recommending for approval when based on what the information that we've been given. Thank you. That's why we're here to make judgments. Right. I'm not seeing anybody else. So Councillor Hart, do you want to come back? Thank you very much, Chairman. I would say it was very pleasant to see there were two garden ponds in two of the three donor properties as well. And try as we might, we couldn't find any great crested newts, but there were a lot of normal newts. But anyway, normal newts are not a planning matter. Perhaps we'll need to start taking great crested newts with us to drop into ponds. Anyway, did you? Yes, oh, right. Yes, it's quite possible. I wouldn't know what they look like. Okay, I have reasons for refusal if that's all right. And I apologise that the English is not perhaps of the best quality, but it's understandable and I'm sure the intent is obvious. So the proposed development, by reason of its density and irregular siting of plots two and three, limited opportunity for landscaping along the access road. And its proximity with the access road from other back land development, Chestnut Way, would create a cramped, overdeveloped form that would harm the spacious character and appearance of the area. The proximity of the proposed access road along the shared boundary with 300 Ferche Road would result in an unacceptable impact to the neighbouring property. Due to noise disturbance generated by increased vehicle movements, which would harm the amenity of the neighbouring property. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2023, Policies DES1 and DES2 of the Rygate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019. And the local character and distinctiveness design guide supplementary planning document. Thank you. Right. Would those members who wish to support reasons for refusal please raise your hands.
2. Those against, please raise your hands. None. Any abstentions? Two. Okay, those reasons are supported. That application is refused. Thank you. So we move now to our last application of the evening, which is number 11, Item number 11, 23-02417F, the garage block in Ringwood Avenue, Red Hill. Matthew Sheehan is going to present this to us. Thank you, Chairman. This is a full application for the erection of two detached four bed dwellings with two replacement garages on land to the north of Ringwood Avenue. The site is in the urban area, and the immediate locality is residential in character, comprising a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties, as well as maisonettes. So the site is accessed from Ringwood Avenue to the southwest, shown here, adjacent to a block of maisonettes, numbers 29 and 31 Ringwood Avenue, shown here. The site is currently occupied by a row of 10 garages, only two of which are used for storage, the rest being dilapidated and vacant. None are used for parking. Adjacent to the site are 12 garages owned by the occupants of the maisonettes on Ringwood Avenue, and these are shown here and here. And this shows the elevations and layout or footprint of the existing garages. You can see some small photographs there which show how dilapidated the garages are at present, and I'll go through some more detailed photographs of those in a moment. This is looking at the existing access into the site, so these are the two maisonettes, number 29 and 31, with Ringwood Avenue running past the access here. This is the existing maisonettes. This is looking back down, so moving further into the site with Ringwood Avenue in the distance. This is moving into the site, so this is showing the existing garages which are owned by the occupants of the maisonettes, so outside the application site for the new dwellings, the site of which you can see in the distance there between the gap and the fencing there. This is another shot of the existing garages. So this is moving more into the application site now. So here you can see the existing garages to be demolished, and again you note how they're dilapidated states, some of which don't have doors and are generally used for storage of household items, really domestic storage. So this is looking beyond the site, and the properties in the distance there are these flattered developments that occupy Gatton Park Road, and this building here is I think the garages or car storage for those properties there. Now this is moving back into Ringwood Avenue just to give an idea of some of the types of dwelling that are found along the road. So this is a mix of detached and semi-detached properties with some terracing and maisonettes. So moving to the proposed development. It's proposed to demolish the existing garages and construct two four-bed detached houses. They would be orientated to face the west and have open front gardens with enclosed rear gardens extending to the east. Tandem parking would be located between the dwellings, which you can see here. So the dwellings would be of a relatively traditional design utilizing a mix of brick and render with concrete roof tiles. They are proposed as two and a half stories with a gable design to the front with a single dormer to the rear. The design is considered to be appropriate, taking account of the suburban character of the locality, however finalized details of materials will be secured by condition. These are the side elevations. So the development would increase the density of the site. However, this would be in keeping with the surrounding area. The level of spacing between dwellings and to the side boundaries would be acceptable and would not appear overly cramped. Whilst the development is still quite heavy in terms of hard standing, it would be a considerable improvement over the existing site, which contains a mix of hard standing and poor quality garages. The location of the dwellings in proximity to neighboring dwellings along Ringwood Avenue would be such that there would not be unacceptable levels of harm to their amenity. There would be reasonable levels of separation and side facing windows that the upper floors would be obscure glazed, which would be secured by condition. It's proposed that two category C trees are removed, which are these shown here dashed in red in the very corner of the site, which the tree officer has no objection to. Conditions to secure tree protection measures for remaining trees and replacement planting would be included, but would be secured by condition if approved. The site is not considered to give rise to harm to protected species, and there would be conditions to secure biodiversity benefits for a range of habitats and species. On highway matters, the highway authorities reviewed the scheme on highway safety and capacity policy grounds and raised no objection. Each dwelling would have access to two parking spaces, which accords with the parking standard requirements for two four bed dwellings. Of the existing garages to be demolished, as I say, none are used for parking of cars, and two are used for storage by their owners for domestic purposes. These two would be re-provided to the front of the site, which is shown here. And this is the footprint of those garages, so you'll notice that this garage is accessed from both the front and the rear. The owner of that garage backs onto the location of the garage so he would have access from his own rear garden, whereas the owner of the other garage lives elsewhere within Ringwood Road, so he would have access from the front only. So yeah, in terms of the loss of the existing garages, as they're not used for parking, there's no concern that there would be displacement parking taking place elsewhere along the access or within the surrounding road network. The existing four metre wide access from Ringwood Avenue would be widened by 1.2 metres to accommodate larger vehicles such as fire appliances. On ecology, the garages have been found negligible for protected species, and the condition to require biodiversity enhancement measures is included. There are no flooding or surface water issues within the site, however some flooding occurs within Ringwood Avenue, therefore a condition to secure a drainage strategy has been included. So in view of the outlined reasons, the scheme is considered to be acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. So members, comments, questions on this? Councillor Walsh to you. Thank you, Chairman. The comment that I would make is actually what the applicant is proposing is effectively creating two very narrow, cramped units surrounded by garages and a couple of gardens. If you actually look to the north, there's rear garages which are off Gatton Park Road, and actually the access road through is for facilities of other garages. I'm not really sure where those garages are served from. And actually, if you look at the elevations, the buildings have been squeezed to fit into the development. They squeezed and they popped up. I know it's planning policy or planning speak to call them two and a half storey houses, but they're not. They're three storey houses. In reality, there are three floors, ground first and second. So actually, by definition, they're actually squeezing something more than you would normally need to have if you look at the other surrounding properties. So I am concerned about what is proposed, but it is actually, as officers have said, it's not increasing the densities, it's not actually doing something, but it's not a satisfactory design solution to the site. It is making use of a brownfield site, but again, we're not being consulted on this. We're being asked to approve and make a decision. Okay, Councillor Blackhouse. Thank you, Chairman. I largely agree with Councillor Walsh, especially on the three storey bit. But yeah, two narrow houses squeezed in. My one question to the officers is what happens to the refuse? Because there's no way a dust cart is going to get in there. So are they supposed to wheel that stuff right to the front? I think we need to just ask the officers about that because they did mention that first. In terms of refuse collection, each dwelling would have access to its own private refuse storage. However, on collection day, it's expected that occupants of the dwellings would take their refuse down to Ringwood Avenue for collection. I think officers acknowledge it's not an ideal drag distance, but equally it's not sufficiently long that it would be unreasonable. And it means that refuse collection or refuse collection teams wouldn't have to access the site and they can collect waste directly from the road. It's an easier and more practical way of collecting the waste. Thank you. Not desperately satisfactory. I think they also raised before the issue about width for fire engine. Yes, the access has been widened to allow for access for wider vehicles. Thank you. It's all a bit squeezed in. It would be an odd place to live right in the middle of nowhere or surrounded by car garages. Thank you. Councillor Baker, is your hand up? No. Okay. Just got to be clear. Anybody else wishing to speak? No. Okay. Oh, Councillor Chandler and Councillor Tora. Yeah. Yep. Got you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, there are concerns about the cramped nature of the site and what's being squeezed in there. But I really do object to the entrance road and being through a set of garages. I think somebody will purchase such properties, but I object to the principle of that being someone's front entrance. It certainly isn't in keeping, looking at Google Maps with other properties in the area. People have access off the street, but that's all. No, thank you. Councillor Bray would have said at this point in time, I think I'm right saying this, that we're not actually necessarily considering properties and whether we would desire to live in them. We're simply approving an application as given according to our policies and that is something we have to consider there. Councillor Tora, you had your hand up. Thank you, Chair. I would say it's great that we're getting to fairly, even though they are three storey, but to fairly small houses being built because there is a need for homes with gardens. It's a nice play area for children if they want to play with cars and things at the front as well with the garages. I'd have concerns that although I know these garages are from the '50s and '60s and probably even before that, that they are narrow so they're not being used, but because I wasn't able to do a site visit on here, are people not using this area for parking at all? No, there's no cars going, it's not displacing, obviously where they're building the houses, it's run down, pulled down and all of that, but they're not displacing any cars. No, the area is particularly overgrown so it might be worth putting up the photo again and maybe zoom in, but yeah, it's really overgrown and not being used for parking in any sort of sense because of the overgrown state of not just the garages themselves. But the tarmac and so on in front of them, the photos would probably help. Could you perhaps talk through which bit we're looking at at any given time? So there could be in terms of people parking and then blocking the residents trying to get through perhaps, so yes, as Councillor Chandler said, it's not an ideal driveway to your abode, but I kind of like the idea that the house is being built like we've had before where all these garages who aren't being used are being used to build houses on. But I just do feel it's a bit strange and then they might commandeer the front garages at a later point and then the construction of that, those poor people won't be able to get to their houses at all because of diggers. But yeah, that was just my concern is how they're going to get through if their people are double parking in front of the garages. Clearly there need to be private arrangements and private matters in terms of access and we have the application before us. So I think we need to move to a vote now on it. So will those members who wish to support the Office of Recommendation to approve this application please raise your hands?
3. Those against?
4. Abstentions?
5. So the application is approved. So it now being 10.28, two minutes to go and we have no more items for consideration this evening. I'd like to say thank you to you for enduring another long session but we got a lot done tonight so thank you very much for that. See you next meeting.