Transcript

to the meeting of ADA planning committee. Please note that this meeting is being audio live streamed and the recording of the meeting is available to hear on the council's website. The recording will begin at the commencement of the meeting and will conclude when I've declared the meeting closed. The recording of this meeting will be available for one year and will be deleted after that period. Please can members and registered speakers be reminded to position your microphone close to your face and speak clearly so that the sound system can capture all the audio content. Anything said off mic will not be heard on the recording. The council has advertised all the planning applications to be considered this evening. Some people have applied to the council to speak either in support or to object to a planning application. Objectors and supporters have three minutes each to speak. District councillors and parish councillors have three minutes each to speak. If you had registered to speak I'll announce you at the right time. You must keep your comments to planning matters and speak within your time limit. Following the representations the committee will discuss the planning applications in turn and vote on each application to reach a decision. Before we get going we will have a health and safety notice read out by Caroline Perry. Thank you. Thank you. Please familiarize yourself with the fire exits from this room. There are marked refuge points at the top of all the staircases for mobility vehicle users. There is no fire alarm plan during this meeting therefore if the fire alarm does sound please leave via the fire exit to the assembly point which is the far side of the car park by the flint wall. Should you become aware of a fire situation the call points to sound the alarm are next to the fire exit in this room and at the set of doors to the balcony. There is no return into the building until advised it is safe to do so. Thanks very much. So we come to item number one on the agenda. Any substitute members? Thank you. I'm Councillor Andy McGregor substituting for Councillor Steve Niklaus. Thank you Councillor McGregor. Item number two any declarations of interest and then item number three we have got public question time and we have got one question from Steve Stefton who is from the Mariners Point Resident Association. If you'd like to come and speak thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening chair members and officers. I'm Steve Stefton I'm asking a question on behalf of Marriner Point residents. I'm here to ask the committee to delegate the officers to hold a site meeting with councillors, residents and the Environment Agency at Marriner Point regarding our inadequate flood defenses and report back at a future committee meeting. The history is on the 5th of July 2021 the Planning Committee unanimously endorsed a breach of condition be served to require the developer to rectify breaches of conditions associated with the Planning Commission to ensure that the development is safe from flooding. We wish to present a report to officers with video evidence of preventable flooding on the night of the 8th 9th of April and ask officers to respond having inspected the inadequate flood defenses that had previously been judged by them as acceptable when the breach of condition notice was rescinded and I'd like to just quickly emphasize the following. The flood defense wall at Surrey Hard is too low especially taking account of global warming and the river substantially over top the Surrey Hard defense wall and its associated gaps in April. There are physical and installation defects and almost all of the flood defense is provided by the developer. We still don't have a flood evacuation plan that is fit for purpose and written in plain English we just have a crude rehash of the flood risk assessment that they produced in 2012. We discovered there was no scheme in place for the operation of the on-site flood defense measures on the 8th of April despite early warnings being issued by the Environment Agency. In fact it was left to residents to figure out how to fit the demountable flood defense barriers in the dark just before midnight. Those barriers are stored underground in an area that's only protected by the car park floodgate which already has missing structural components and it's not in its original as tested condition when the breach of condition notice was lifted. We believe that there are structural defects in the building so we'd ask the council to verify what new powers it may have with regards building control as there is water ingress through the walls and floor surface of the underground car park. The landlord has imposed the need of a manned flood monitoring service a flood watch with an associated charge for every high tide and I mean basically the contractors who were on duty that evening were asleep and they still didn't know how to fit the barriers or really where they were kept. There would be no need for a manned watch if the flood defense provisions were in place and I mean really residents being asked to pay out an awful lot of money because the development was permitted to be developed and be unsafe. So really what we want is for the planners planning offices to come back to consider the new findings and maybe put another report back to the committee and we think that that's quite urgent so that is our question would you delegate or approve the officers coming out for a site meeting. Thank you for your question Mr. Stefan. I will hand over to Gary Peck who will be able to advise you on that. Yes thank you chair. I'm not particularly familiar with the site for this the case officer was Mr. Barnett I believe and I have seen some emails that Mr. Appleton the head of development has been copied into as well about this subject so I will obviously pass that on as a public question to them and ask them to come back to you with that. As I said I'm sorry I can't answer questions directly I have been copied into the odd email about it but I don't have any direct knowledge but most certainly I'll bring that to their respective attentions and then they will liaise with the chair as well as the environment agency to get the respective people together. Thanks very much. So we come to item number four so that's members questions and there are none. Item number five is the agreement of minutes from the 4th of March 2024. We got any objections to those? I know there's many new members yeah and then we come to item number six so any items to be raised under urgency provisions of which there are none and so we move on to item seven which is planning applications and so I will hand over to Gary Peck regarding planning AWDM/0284/24. Yes thank you chair so I do have an update for the committee on Friday afternoon we received the following from the applicant which stated after careful consideration it is of our opinion that we do not need planning permission we are therefore withdrawing our retrospective planning application. So as of Friday afternoon the applicants withdrew the application because they don't believe planning permission is required. In a sense what we're discussing tonight though that still leaves a matter for the committee to consider because the second part of the resolution was to consider enforcement action and so in effect committee still would need to go through the same process of considering whether the houseboat is constructed acceptable and if it is not then it would follow that we'd be looking at enforcement action so we do have the same process to go through I think it's a shame that the applicants withdrawn the application at this late stage and not come along to address the committee and in fact it was a correspondence I'd had before the application was submitted with the applicant because at the point when they were carrying out the development they said to me they didn't require plan permission and for the reasons set out in your report it's my view they do and hence the application submitted so it seems a bit unusual to having submitted the application to get to two days before meeting and then withdraw it but that's that that's where we are. But I will go through the presentation the same way as normal because the second part of the recommendation at the end of your reports is still is still relevant so I'll present in the in the normal way the application site is edged in red here just where my cursor is and as we were seen from the reports one of the key points in its location is its proximity to a number of residential properties in in river close I'm sure members will be aware that many of the houseboats are not as close to residential properties as this little stretch here so the effect is is greater we have beach green obviously to the west where there's an open area and some of the houses further onto the west are also set further back so there's the site there and then just closer up showing again the proximity to the residential properties and the actual application site itself the overhead view is a previous one so that's the old boat when the Google images were shown so again essentially located within the within the run of houseboats and we see the residential properties immediately to the south in in river close in terms of the drawings we did receive for the planning application I'll show some photographs many of which are in your agendas already but the the two side elevations there as it were the south and the north the south southern elevation is the one that's directly in front of the properties in river close because of the slight angle of the river bank this side elevations can also be seen as well and they are quite long as you can see in two stories as well so that's the western elevation and then the eastern elevation shown there members will see in the report that the Environment Agency had asked for floor plans to be submitted they were eventually submitted after this report was written and have been sent to the Environment Agency although we haven't had a response from the Environment Agency is yet on that but the the upper deck here shows this bedroom fourth bedroom here and the living area lounge area and then on the lower deck is where the rest of the bedrooms and bathroom is as well as the entrance to the building so some of these photographs are are in your agenda already that's the southern elevation when viewed from the from the jetty they're moving slightly around that's one of the side elevations and set out in your report that is one particular elevation that gave officers concerns as to the compliance or otherwise with the council's houseboat guidance and then turning back from in effect in front of where that the boat is that's looking back towards the nearest properties in River close they are clearly clearly visible from there then a few from outside the sites one of the speakers will also I'll be showing some photos when they speak as well but just for some photographs here so this is actually within the entrance to River close it can be seen from the public viewpoint beyond the riverbank itself so that's the that's the building there this is a view from one of the residential properties again so this is the the the building here and another view from another of the ones residential properties here again showing the boats here at that point and as we pan along further to the to the east in that stretch as you can see here the majority of the boats are of a much lower level where they are adjacent to to River close and that's from the garden of one of the properties again it'll be some further photos shown in a minute but you can see here that some of the other boats then disappear because they're single story nature view from from the gardens but because of the upper story here this one can now be visible then looking across from the other side from from the town side and from the bridge some of these photos again are are within your reports but it's just to get a flavor of the of the nature of the character of the area there are a couple of taller boats there that's one that was recently granted permission there are two elements in the houseboat guidance which is a nautical appearance generally and they're low height so most of these are the lower heights and there is the subject building just on the left-hand side there and then panning across and with the angle here again as I mentioned a moment ago most of the of the boats near the properties in River close are of a lower level and of a more boat like appearance might be said but you know there are two aspects here in terms that visual appearance and the impact upon residential properties and just a bit closer up again so our building is here on the right and then the other boats on the on the left-hand side there so although the the planning application has been withdrawn in effect the second part of the resolution would have only followed on if the first part have been refused so for members consideration is to still to consider whether if a planning application had been submitted it would have been approved or refused and if it were the latter to then consider whether enforcement action is to be taken in line with resolution to in the in the recommendation thank you chair thanks so do we have any questions at all Councillor Albury thank you very much chair and to Gary Gary see us so we can understand so the applicants have completely withdrawn saying they do not need planning permission is that correct yes that's correct but you are an experienced planning officer you will have looked at this in depth you will have looked at every aspect of this and your experience will say that it does need planning permission is that correct or is there a fine line where it might actually not need planning permission hey I hope I'm experienced planning officer I don't think anyone has full experience in houseboats and that's why I've written it sir I think I mentioned a gray area in my report however what we have always done and I think residents are the same as this is that we do have one appeal decision in the past from the big warship at fish with some years ago and is a terribly involved document but where a lot of these issues were played out and in effect my understanding I believe it it's clear is that the inspector there came to the conclusion that if you bring a boat in in its entirety from outside and more as they did in fish that doesn't require planning permission even though the inspector said well if it didn't need planning permissions out of keeping the area but he said it didn't require permission so that's that but he also raised a couple of other cases along the bank where it was simply a pontoon and someone built on top of it and at that point the inspector then said that does require planning permission or did require planning permission and in my view that seems to be fairly clear I do understand that if it is possible to bring a large boat in and if it floats in you just put it in situ then that's correct but it doesn't follow for everything and this is quite a different situation so I I won't sit here and say I am 100% certain because houseboat case law if you if you google it generally it comes up Vader Council so it isn't something I can find out from elsewhere which is a slightly problematic for me but I think the one bit of case law we have demonstrates to me quite clearly that permission is required thank you may I ask for another question chair so if we look at this we will go with your recommendation still that it does require planning permission and we will therefore look at this in that aspect is that correct surface yeah I'm not advising the committee that because of what I received that that my view is different and indeed as I mentioned I had this dialogue with the applicant for some time while we're trying to secure the planning application the first place I think much to the frustration of some of the neighbors as to wondering what was happening while this was going on but we had that we got the application in my view stays the same I mean and the simple same I read out from the applicant just saying we don't think we require planning permission well there isn't a reason why they're saying that they don't require it so as far as I'm concerned my mind doesn't change on that thank you chair thank you any other questions councillor Harvey yes thank you chair and it's unfortunate the applicant isn't here because I would have liked to address this question to him but in which case mr. Peck I wonder it says in our notes that the applicant believes that planning permission is not required and has obviously reiterated that by withdrawing their planning permission are you aware if that was based on any professional opinion or is that just his own opinion has has that been brought to you it hasn't but there wasn't an agent used for the planning application so I wasn't aware of any professional opinion beyond an expression that they felt that the fish case proved that permission wasn't needed and I my counter that was well if you if you read it I don't agree that's the case that's as far as we got so I'm not aware that ordinarily in this case I might expect a planning consultant to challenge that but we haven't had any of that Councillor McGregor thank you now I noticed that there are no objections from environmental health does this mean that the houseboat will be finding another way to dispose of their raw sewage or will that sewage be discharged into the river thank you a question that's often asked to me actually on houseboats in which I'm putting in quite good tonight saying that's not planning's bit and I don't think I would take the environmental health object normal objection as in this carte blanche on that I think it's no objection to the planning application because we were just asking them to look at the design of a houseboat so it's not surprising they would not object to that but in terms of the separate matters which are out with a planning control certainly I could look at that separately but it's not a it's not a planning matter thank you chair I have a few questions that I would like to ask and which may be thought to have a bearing on whether we would have given permission if we were handling it as an application first of all I wonder whether it's valid to consider that the appeal of this whole houseboat site is the immense variety of houseboat styles and conditions and sizes which to which people come from all over and it's a very popular place to visit and that contributes a lot to the local economy they it might be considered that the eclecticism an extreme variety here in the houseboat as a whole from traditional to modern to experimental to wacky in some cases may therefore be the site's most characteristic quality and and in fact might be considered that the that the collection of houseboats does have a genre of examples which are not nautical in flavor which are architectural therefore might it be valid to say that the the application should be assessed not in the context of the few houseboats near it but in the visual context of the the whole collection of houseboats for instance if we were assessing a project an application in a conservation area would we be considering its qualities in the context of the whole the whole environment that sets the tone that we want to see matched I have a couple of other questions might be better to deal with them individually do you think or shall I go on unless we have we got any other question I'll go to Councillor Albury and then I'll come back to you Councillor Thompson Thank You chair and Gary if I could ask you going back to Councillor McGregor's question this this houseboat is almost what could be referred to as a new build if you looked at it in the way of a house because it's completely new build isn't it so therefore should we not look about look at this about are there not some legislations where new build houseboats are not allowed to pump raw sewage into the river and should we not be looking at that as it is a completely new houseboat I don't think it falls under the remit of when a planning application is required I mean that that's the whole reason why in a sense that well it is the whole reason why I'm I'm determining the plan permission is required but I think it is separate legislation and again because of the vast majority this it doesn't come before us because most of them don't require planning permission I can certainly give members more guidance if I can find out about it but I don't think it's a it's a matter that's germane to the application itself castle Thompson thank Thank You chair another question that arose in my mind from several visits to see the site I'm talking to people there including an architect living there the applicant in his submission said that the new boat is similar in size to the previous one this is referred to and on page eight of all of our notes in fact it is said to be a little higher point seven meters higher than the previous one but slightly narrower than the previous one and another point of view that was given to be in this architect is that the houseboat is smaller and lower than the size of the homes from which some rejections have been raised and as mr. Peck said there there are a number of houseboats under construction including one with planning permission that is considerably higher the denotes another thing that sorry council Thompson causes are a question yeah I mean is is that a valid point of view in assessing this application sure yes I well there are matters to the committee to consider there are valid points which which will be for the committee's deliberations I don't think it's a question for me to say to guide you on so I think we need to come to a conclusion in that probably what I will say in terms of the bit about the height though is that one of the photos I think that the speaker will show in a moment will clarify that I haven't gone into that in particular detail but I think that is well the committee will see the previous boat from itself I think the highest point of the height of the previous boat at one point may be comparable but quite clearly it wasn't a two-story boat all the way across so members can look at that but I I think that that's a point that's been made I don't agree with that because I think the bulk at the first floor level is appreciably higher than what it was from my understanding looking at previous photos but the other matters council are certainly for members to look at when we come to debate any other councilor watts thanks hello thank you chair and how much how much weight would there be for the lack of immunity for the basically residents of Riverside close so you in your report you've highlighted that as one of the reasons for refusal and and what and what constitutes immunity if it's not view thank you yes I think view is a quite a quite a difficult word in this I think it has a couple of meetings because I'm sure you would have heard in in in various parts of planning aspect that the view in itself is not a planning consideration so if any of the residents said well look out my window and I can see the church or the downs and or or this or that and the boat now blocks that view that in itself is not a valid planning reason perhaps amenity or appearance though is it is is something slightly different and I think that the and again this is really for members to come to conclusion but I think the point that Councillor Thompson just made about the heights I think there is more scope for increased heights where the boats are north of Beech Green because there aren't residential properties nearby it I think that where there are residential properties immediately to the south I think that there is some impact of a taller boat and I think again perhaps if I go back to my picture of the garden if I can find it this one here I mean that's not really a view but I think it has an impact just because that boat is now higher whereas a single-story ones are below that point by and large so I would want to say oh it's affected the view of the river or anything like that but I think the higher the boat goes I think it has an effect and I certainly of course would be very reticent to make any comparisons to the height of the houses because a boat is not going to be the size of a house if it's going to be a unless it was a line or something so I think you know I think there's a balance there but perhaps it's really for members to consider whether that impacts and again I think some of the photos that mr. Korda bank will show in a moment I'll just plan a screen will show that impact so maybe it's an impact rather than the view anybody else Councillor Harvey yeah another one for you I'm afraid to carry thank you chair on page 9 the Environment Agency report it states that there has been no flood risk assessment received and therefore they are objecting to the application on that on those grounds so are you aware whether a flood risk assessment has been forthcoming since this was written yes sorry if my report isn't quite clear on there the flood risk assessment did come in so that's the bit in in sort of brackets in bold but what the Environment Agency said today is well thanks the flood risk assessment we don't have any floor plans so we can't really we can't get much further on that so the floor plans did come in that that was only I think a week or ten days ago so it went to the Environment Agency we didn't get a response and if I see the applications we've drawn they won't need to respond to it so we did get a flood risk assessment in but I wasn't surprised that the environment agency said that needed to be in more detail and we did get it thanks very much anyone else Councillor Thompson Thank You chair and pursuant to Councillor Watts question I noticed that the planning officers say in this report on page 15 that it would be difficult to justify a refusal reason in itself regarding the adverse impact on the living conditions of the nearby residence that's on page 15 and then later that I wonder if this conflicts with the later statement on page 16 that the application adversely affects the amenities of these residents and if that is a conflict are we then looking at that it's more on a matter of view than practical amenity damaged by this application again apologies if my report doesn't give clarity to that I think that the point I was initially making was that if there is a comment for example that residents are overlooked by the windows of the boats or so on and so forth and I don't think that's a refusal reason because overlooking can occur from the riverbank path and at various points so in effect of a living condition about overlooking I don't think that's a refusal reason however I think the general amenity point about the fact that buildings higher I think is a point so I'm sorry if there's a sort of if I didn't make that clearer but I think that's that's the point in normally we talk about living conditions we're talking about overlooking and overshadowing that sort of thing I don't even claim that but I think that the matter of fact that the building or the boat is higher than it was before I think does have an impact upon residents sorry Councillor Thompson could you just turn your microphone off thank you Councillor what's sorry just one more um what again how strong is the argument that it doesn't look like a boat and obviously presumably it doesn't move like a boat it doesn't have an engine well in my view that's fairly critical or certainly in in my recommendation and residents will will refer to and will be aware of the the houseboat to the west that has recently been constructed which is you know again perhaps going back to council Thompson's point quite you know some people say that's a bit big isn't it or it's a it's a bit funny-looking or it's quite eclectic but the point is it does have to my mind a nautical appearance and is perhaps experimental but nonetheless has appearance of the boat I think this doesn't I think that's really the the point that when I came along to look at the site with a fresh mind that I seen it from across in the town I thought well we've written our houseboat guidance that talks about nautical appearance and I'm struggling in my recommendation to reconcile what we've put in our guidance with what I see before me and hence that was the reason for the recommendation as much as anything else thank you any other questions no okay so we come to our registered speakers next first person we have to speak is David called a bank you have three minutes but is I'm speaking on behalf of two residents so yeah that's fine yeah so thank you Gary for putting the slide up to keep chair and councillors so first of all I just emphasize that this was written before we knew the application had been withdrawn so there's some slight difference to it so yeah in summary we'd like you to agree with the officers recommendation to reject and enforce I like to point out that there are multiple conflicts of the Ada houseboat good practice guide and also that we believe that the size and mass has been understated by the applicant could pop up next slide please so just like to draw your attention to from a district council planning policy 11 which requires new proposals should be assessed against a good practice guide for houseboats and draw your attention to two particular sections within that guidance first being section 3.1 where the requirement is that the new development should continue to preserve the open feel of the river community allow excellent views across the river not only for houseboat owners but also for nearby residents and visitors and we would contend this fails on that ground and also to draw your attention to the fact that the size of sheds and the size of fences is actually covered within the houseboat guidance even though that hasn't been recommended to you as part of the enforcement action we would like you to consider whether that should be so okay if you wouldn't mind the next slide please so in terms of the mass and the height the application clearly shows that the overall height of the structure is a 1.07 meter of hull and 5.77 meters of superstructure total of 6.84 meters which is a 35 percent increase on the claimed height of the old vessel the Laguna I'll show you why I say claimed in a moment and as Gary has already mentioned the applicant in his design and assess statement does does claim or did claim that that he was not too dissimilar in size to the old vessel so just now like to show you three before and after pictures from various houses long river close so this is the view from the kitchen of number 12 so the bottom floor so the picture on the left was taken in 2020 when the Laguna was still there prior to the Kingfisher being built on she can see the size of the Kingfisher in comparison we would argue certainly not dissimilar it's quite difficult to see on those pictures but in the left but in the right hand corner you can see the chimney of the next boat which was clearly visible and the solar panels visible in 2020 those are now obscured by the fence and the shed that's been built on that part of the plot thank you Gary so this is the view from the upstairs of number 13 so I've circled the old the old vessel Laguna and you can see clearly rope tackle is visible over that obviously you can see from the from the new view that that is clearly not the case anymore the vessel is I don't think anywhere near the same size as Laguna was thank you the last photograph this is a view from my own house number 19 we have the extra story on the top so this is all the extra extension on the top this is the view from that taken in 2005 again of highlighted Laguna in in red you can see it's the one with the sort of pink pinkish door and white side and then and then you can see the new structure Kingfisher I just draw there as a visual comparison Laguna barely comes up from the same angle barely comes up to the top of the back of the fish whereas whereas the glue whereas whereas the Kingfisher comes clearly up to significantly further the fish so we would certainly contest the expression that it is of a similar size to the old old vessel thank you just also then like to highlight one of our most significant concerned about this which is the risk effectively of canyoning of river close our gardens and our first floor sit below the level of the houseboats you know we have always had houseboats there that's not in contention nobody nobody disputes they have a right to have a houseboat there but by the development of structures of this size especially if it's replicated along the back of River close we would end up effectively with a canyon effect behind our houses which isn't suitable for for the area Thank You Gary next slide so I'm just turning then to the fish inquiry which I had the pleasure of being heavily involved in and being questioned for many hours about so as Gary said the actual conclusion of the planning inspector in the fish of fish inquiry was that it was oppressive and overbearing upon numbers 8 and number 9 River close the two closest houses and therefore should be removed the officers obviously said that the building Kingfisher is of comparable size to the form of a warship the fish and therefore we believe the strong precedent from the planning inspector it's here that it should be removed I'd also just like to add add on this because because of the withdrawal the there was an aspect of the fish inquiry which was around the jetty which was deemed to be operational development and that was required to be removed the actual structure was moved from one side of the fish to the other so that it was less impactful upon the houses in River close we agree with the council official that it is clear that this is operational development on the site it is not the replacement of one boat with another and therefore we believe it should be removed so can just ask the next slide please so in summary we certainly don't dispute the right to replace one vessel with another actually new Laguna slightly it wasn't falling apart and needed to be replaced that's just not yeah that's not our position there have been many changes along that riverbank area that we haven't objected to even though they possibly should have needed planning permission because they haven't had a significant impact they haven't had the overbearing impact upon ourselves as a as I think I've just demonstrated the height is significantly different to the old old structure and we would say it is definitely not nautical and nautical dictionary definition is of the sea you know it does not look in any way shape or form like any any any form of vessel in terms of remedy recognizing the right for somebody to be there we would like to see it reduced to one story that's your just get to that final point yeah and they're just going to make one further point has come about because of the withdrawal if that's acceptable so it was just to ask for an enforcement yeah so so it was just to ask the committee to look at the enforcement time scale that's been suggested and to reduce that to one month given that the applicant is clearly not prepared to be within the planning system and play within the planning system thank you okay thank you very much so anyone got any questions just for clarification purposes no okay thank you very much thank you and our final speaker on this one is Tony Reikens good evening chair good evening councillors thank you for your time I'm coming to excuse me I'm going to as a concerned resident of river close I've only only lived there for three years but love the area first thing you see when you come into River close and it was in mr. Peck's pictures literally you come into the close you now see this thank you this corrugated rusty corrugated iron as you come in to the close it's obviously we think quite unsightly it's not a characteristic sort of use of materials doesn't fit in with the other houseboats or any of the other dwellings nearby due to its height of mass again as mr. Kordewank has pointed out it's clearly much larger than the previous houseboat unfortunately have any pictures for before and after but just from within our property and let's ride back on to the houseboat you can literally see from the ground floor you are looking at that's the back one thank you you're literally looking at it and it's looking into our kitchen but more concern is upstairs literally our daughter's bedrooms are looking straight into the upstairs the second story obviously that's a bit of concern from a privacy perspective both of bedrooms and in the bathroom as well which is next to the bedrooms so I try to read my notes what also isn't 100 clear here is actually the fences taller as well so the fence there is probably a good sort of 40 50 centimeters higher so the whole sort of aspect now has completely changed and again picking up on the canyoning point when you actually walk down there now if the fences in general there's more and more fences are creeping up the the houseboats are creeping up in height and again you just sort of feel that you're walking down this sort of almost solid wall and again it does now I know there's not a right to a view but again in the ADA house guide it does clearly say you mean to you know enhance the character and keep the views of the estuary and they are clearly being blocked here both by the fence the other buildings on the site and of course the actual pontoon I want to look at a boat the floating pontoon itself again there's many points within the houseboat guide you know it's obviously there for a reason there's many points that aren't being met again it's the open nature excuse contributing to the character yeah I'm all up for it being a bit wacky and a bit out there is great it's amazing to look at we love it but there's sort of a point where you sort of think mmm is that really sort of pushing the boundaries and making it more eclectic I think here we've sort of rusty iron cladding it doesn't really give that much of a benefit to the area and again that doesn't just affect you know the residents it's the visitors people along there as well all they see now is some wooden fencing and a large structure funny as well I think there's a big impact on the environment you know this is a large structure it's in a site of special scientific interest you know there's been no environmental impact assessments done here you know and this is just literally blocking out you know a lot from the marine life there obviously impacting you know the birds and all the other RSPB sanctuary thank you very much any clarification needed from any of the councilors yes councillor Albury yeah could I just ask Gary what is the height of the fence

• as such as you know front garden on land as opposed to on here I haven't measured the height the fence and it is something that I think as speaker says is emerging as a problem so I mentioned in my report that although our guidance says they should be below one meter in height as far as I can see the permitted development is two meters so most the fences along there don't require plan permission or at least we could only reduce it to two meters I think there may be a conversation to had to look at if we could take out an article for direction in the future that's very unworldly so a difficulty is I don't want to be sort of to it is it some of the stuff in the guidance we've put in this guidance but it doesn't actually require permission so though we can say we'd like the fences to be a meter if they go higher than that it doesn't actually require plan permission so we are in a bit of a difficult situation with one or two of those um one of those arguments is that something we could look at for the future Gary that we could put better guidance and perhaps not even guidance but actually some rules because as the gentleman has stated it is closing it in more and more with every fence that goes up there yes I think we will have a look at that I think it's it's something that to my mind appears to have got worse since the tidal wall was constructed I don't know if I had a bearing on it but I think there is an issue there and it there is a precedent there we're lucky I think that most of the houseboats don't tend to do that extent I mean there was a fence there previously we should point out but I think that is something for us to look at in the longer term because we are facing increasing issues with this that our guidance won't necessarily cover Councillor Watts thank you and do houseboats fall under the permitted development rules because they're not buildings sorry and two houseboats fall under the permitted development rules because they're not buildings sorry do houseboats fall under the permitted development rules because they're not buildings just asking Gary yes it's about getting too legalistic about it if the houseboat is a floating boat then it's not in permitted development at all please not development so committed development is things that are development but are permitted without planning permission so the floating houseboats the others if you like are completely out of that but in terms of a fence that's not related to anything else fences are saying whether it serves a house or a building or anything like that so it has its own separate use class or permitted development class should I say so that's a separate matter unfortunately so it's something we need to look at I think because it is as a city council we just now think it is a an issue that's going to carry on does anyone have any clarification of anything that mr. Richards has said rather than just the general debate because we can let him go and yep thank you chair I just wanted clarification on them whether those two points gentleman raised the question of overlooking and the question of the appearance of the rusty cladding ah are those part of the reasons given for refusal and if they're not are they valid are you asking mr. Richards or no we'll come back mr. back to the debate I'm just a second yeah okay thank you my first time okay we'll we'll open out for debate now council Thompson if you just wanted to clarify what you were saying okay thank you I was I was wondering about those two points raised like the overlooking aspect of the new boat on the existing property and the dislike of the iron rusty cladding are those they didn't seem to me to be part of the reasons for objection and and if that's the case are they to be considered by us now so the overlooking point is when I touched on earlier I think I don't think we could justify that as a refusal reason for the view into into a bedroom because I think for overlooking to be a refusal reason you have to create overlooking where there's no overlooking from any other points and you know the fact is there's a public path there where the windows of all those properties can be seen so albeit the elevation is different I think that is that is a difficult one in terms of the of the of the rusty material if you like and I wouldn't say rusty material in itself is necessary unacceptable because we have such a variety materials there the problem is the extent of it so why I've not mentioned rusty material in in in sort of explicitly the fact that it's from my right picture the fact that there's this much of it at that height I think is an issue so you know if it were a more modest structure and that form part of of that then I don't think I'd want to decree that any material along that stretch is necessarily unacceptable in its own right because we have the whole palette there I think the problem is it's what it's on is is the issue so really it would be to do with the overall scale of the building in my in my view thank you anyone else anything else no okay so we need to have a proposal on this yes thank you chair I would like to put forward a proposal I would like to agree with the officers recommendation to refuse absolutely I would like to say that it is overbearing that the materials are not enhancing of the river area that we're not looking at the planning permission as such because obviously that applications been withdrawn okay so we are just looking about the enforcement action right so I would agree totally with the enforcement action for and do I need to give reasons for that or are we that it is not in keeping with the river there is nothing nautical about this would chair probably to keep it easier if we do serve an enforcement notice we'll have to give a reason as to why we're saying force notice so effectively what I've put in as number one would make its way into the enforcement notice so if members are happy with that okay or I want to vary the wording or whatever it might be that that's fine but so basically within the notice if you if you agree to then one sort of flows in with it we don't have okay but it's separately so just just to clarify so we're voting on the enforcement for the reasons specified in recommendation one yes correct thank you Chad okay thanks very much do I have a seconder for that Councillor watts yes I can't I second that I I'm worried about precedent what if they're four stories five stories okay just buildings thanks very much and we'll Councillor Harvey yeah just as a point of clarification if I could if we do agree to in enforce an act action notice then does that mean that there would be some element and negotiation between the applicant or previous applicant and the council as to how the current structure could be amended or does it mean a complete removal of potentially it could be both is that the enforcement notice would specify I would suspect the removal but it doesn't stop the applicant come into a separately and see if there's a solution because if I was advising the applicant I'd say you in a bit of a problem here you may wish to speak to us as to where there are any remedies that would that would avert the situation the wholesale removal of the boat because I think as the as the speakers have said that there's often objection in principle so there might be a way around this but I think that's out with of what you've just said is enforce action proceeds if the applicant wanted to speak to officers separately about that then that's absolutely fine we would do that we wouldn't pen the enforcement action wise negotiations negotiations go on because my previous experience will tell me you suddenly turn around nine months down the line you're not getting any further forward or anything thanks very much Councillor Thompson Thank You chair and I'd wondered if a valid enforcement might include a condition so composing some conditions to to validate the application for instance removing that rusty cladding and introducing something that introduces a nautical theme and also as the fence seemed to be almost as bad on restricting have you a lowering of the fence might there be measures like that that could have a beneficial effect and be acceptable as an alternative to shipping the boat out the houseboat or demolishing it with the fence my concern with that is it's permitted development anyway as it stands I think we could put it to the applicant in negotiations separately so away from the force of notice that if they were looking at improving the general environment perhaps allowing that fence would assist that as well as the overall things of the boat what we can't really do in the in the enforcement notices be so prescriptive to say do this and do that and I think it's difficult because I at present I can't quite see from the photograph I got there how they could easily change that and current structure to make it something we would support which is why you know I have a rather sense of regret as to how this has proceeded from from various perspectives because if it was something I could just say oh well take one and a half meters off and it will be fine then we could specify that and be quite prescriptive but that's not really going to work so I don't think we should do that I think we should just probably just say the building its entirety is not acceptable at the moment okay Councillor McGregor I see that the compliance period is three months is that realistic I am assuming will we receive an appeal against now our decision on this and one points that the inspector will look at will be whether our compliance period was reasonable I did hear the one the speaker say it should be a month we won't get away with that one I'm afraid and I think three months is probably a short time as well but having said that I minded to stick with it because of the process that's gone on because you know I'm tempted to say that our notes will show and and neighbors will be well aware of this this has been going on for some time already and the applicant was warned at various points about a shouldn't be carrying on with this and B if you are get an application in for consideration quickly neither those happens certainly not to the speed I would want so I'm tempted to say I'll stick at three months if the inspectors it should be longer than so bit I can't say a month because that would be deemed as unreasonable like Councillor McGregor so could we give them a deadline of the 3rd of September because that's three months I really would like to see that in the notice that would be very nice if the we will have to get the notice up to be three months on the date when we serve the notice I'm trying so and we will have to get that right so that will need to be drafted checked Caroline or someone else will see it will need to be signs it won't be the 3rd of September I'm afraid we'll need we need to do that or see what's got a resolution we can start acting upon that and I've warned the enforcement officer this afternoon that something might be coming their way to draft up depending on the decision so it wouldn't be the 3rd of September be from the third one get the notice going but we will do it at speed because we need to obviously we need to get on with this but it wouldn't be 30 so it would be three months from today in other words anybody else no okay so let's move to vote then so we are voting to delegate to the head of planning and development in consultation with the head of legal to issue enforcement action to remove the unauthorized development with a compliance period of three months due to the recommendation number one can we have all of those voting for that raise your hands please okay eight in favor and against and abstaining one abstention okay so that is carried so that brings us to the end of that planning application so we move on to application AWDM slash zero four zero one slash two four and I will hand over to Gary again to present on that one yes thank you chair item two that there's nothing further to add to this report no further representations being received and I think I set out and report this application is brought to you because the council has an interest in the building so there's no officer delegation rights for that so constitutionally any such application has to come to committee now I'll put the application site on first which is up here in the right hand corner where the cursor is is circling it's a former bank on the northeastern corner of the square so circle is etched in red here the parade of shops and supermarket and so on is to the is to the west and this is the bend of the road just as we come into Southwick Square from the eastern side so the application site is in red this shows the layout of the developments stated in reports these tables and chairs and so on are not part of the application the the payment licenses and so on post code were taken out of the planning system that's now separate to subject to a separate payment license of application so it doesn't actually form part of this application it is noted that there was one objection on that basis but that's a separate matter and the applicant would need to apply for a payment license separately so in effect the application is basically for these external changes shown here and here and if we see on the photograph for the the use potentially as a cafe these windows probably not compatible with that and more signifying its previous use as a bank so they're here here and here not especially attractive visually in any case and again here here and here so in effect because the change of use doesn't require planning permission or does the use of the pavement the matters you're dealing with are the external alterations here and here and for that reason the recommendation is as printed in your agenda thank you so we have no registered speakers on this at all so oh yeah so we are going to have any questions first of all for Gary Councillor Albury Thank You chair sorry I couldn't quite get the angle where these cycle racks are does that impede on the area where the seating area is needed or is that on a different side where those were yes I'm assuming they would have to be moved because if you look at the bit here that they're not shown on that plan so I guess they would have to be relocated elsewhere into the square thanks Councillor Thompson Thank You chair on that point that there are three there are conditions on page 21 and that includes the cycle stands shall be relocated so does that can we assume that if we approve this that those conditions will be in appended to that approval yes indeed just as I finished my answers council we are flipped over the page actually saw that the condition was there which I should have remembered so that's that's right so yes we have to do that so to comply with the condition so that's part of the development and of course given that we have an interest in the land I'm sure that will that will happen anybody else no okay let's open for general debate then Councillor Albury here Thank You chair I think it's really nice that a bank is not going to be sitting empty it looks absolutely ideal for a cafe once it gets permission to have the tables and chairs outside it's got an ideal space there it can only add far more character more than it's got to to the area and I can't see any reason why we would not agree to this I think it's a great improvement and a really good use of the bank area Thank You chair thanks very much Councillor Harvey yes I very much like to endorse what Councillor Albury's just said and Southwick Square has been redeveloped but we are losing some of the shops there and so the revitalization of this resource would certainly bring a boost back to the square and I would very much support it anybody else like to chip in do we do we have a proposal from anybody that council Harvey yeah I'm happy to propose that we approve the recommendation as is on our notes and seconder anybody Councillor Jenner thank you okay we'll move to a vote then as it does yes Councillor oh yeah last-minute point you were gonna make so let's move to the vote then so voting in favor of that everybody your hand unanimous in favor okay many thanks that's everything for this evening so just before we end I just like to say thank you very much to Councillor Albury who's chaired this committee before me and so hopefully we can continue that the same in the same way that I have witnessed over the last couple of years thank you very much yeah and can I say for your first meeting what a very excellent job well they could have got much much more wrong than it has done thanks very much please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned