Transcript

We have a minor IT problem which we saw earlier in the real time, so I apologize for that. Yes, good morning, and we're in the council chambers, but our arm goes off, it's for people to go down the stairs, find it we have under the green, and await instructions. We'll please everybody turn off their mobile phones, or at least put them on silent. If the phone goes off whilst we're in the meeting, I'll try and make sure you are very embarrassed. We've got a line of ground ahead of the development, management and enforcement, planning officers Chris, I don't know if you have a black chart or hunt, planning Liar, and also just keep some of the democratic services. Now, I think probably everybody in this room is already familiar with how we do panic services, but just for the sake of the viewers, the officers have a report on each case, which then presents at a point presentation, and then they make a recommendation which is either through a food or the food, consent, commission, planning, commission, or occur. The decision is made by the councillors who are members of this committee. And those are the only options available for us to use, or to apply conditions, and the strong instruction is to ask food application if we can condition it to make an exception. So the way it works is that having had a presentation, we then ask the officers the early questions which we are already uncertain, we resolve our uncertainties, and then we enter the beta of the discussion, and then we vote on the outcome. The members of the public are allowed to make representations if they put in advance, and obviously the applicant can state their case as well, or their representatives. I think it covers everything. We have a agenda item six, which are three boxes of report for the city to consider, and public speakers are not being allowed on this item. We'll adjourn for numerous breaks during the day, before we move on to the agenda, are there any apologies for absence? No apologies, Chair. No apologies. Good. Anybody? I see none. And we need to agree the minutes of the previous meeting. Are we content that is true and accurate for communism? I think that has accepted. And then we move on to item three, which is the speed and quality of thought. Thank you, Chair, and these are the standing items that we bring out of the committee. The first one is the living table that we have for the criteria for designation once, and the benefit of people attuning the first time. The Council is designated for one issue, which you only know is the quality of the main developments where the criteria is 10%, more and more, if more than 10% of your appeal, major appeals are overturned, then you are sort of allowed, and then you find yourself a designation. And it's an old one, because it's a two-year period, and also that two-year period also allows for six-month lag to deal with the appeals. So although we've gone through the 22-24 period, we still have appeal, seeing the system will take us through Christmas. At the moment, it's looking good, but we can't rest on that at all, so I'm happy to take questions. Questions as well? Yes, Councillor MANUAL. Thank you, Chair. And notice that we only had one pending appeal on the period that we're in now, and that's actually being dismissed, which is great. So we're still standing at 4.76. Can you give us a feel for how many other central appeals might be in the pipeline so that we can sort of gauge whether we'd like to stay within the 10% during this next five month? Yeah, that's the next job. Yeah, you are right. The number that number will not go down, we need to stop it going up. 4.76 is what happened. But to put it in context, I did a quick check on where we were in April 23, and it stood at 6.85%. And then obviously then went to whatever. But then we weren't reporting the amount of appeals made in the system or what they were, so I couldn't actually check, but I would suspect that we had a lot in the system. And so, yeah, part of the work that we now do with DLAC is we do check what potential appeals we've got in the system. And we could be in a position where if I was saying, OK, this is where we are, we're gone through the period. There won't be any more appeals for this period that would come in for all those two. What's the worst that could happen? So yeah, back in the analysis that we need to do, so I think that's what we need, and it's usually this time of year, once we get through the March April, so the next action is we'll get a feel of how many potential appeals, and I'll do that next month and double that actually. Thank you. Then we'll move on to item 4, which relates to the quality of it. Yeah, this is, yeah, there's not a lot to report on this one, only that they want one appeal in the system, I think we basically draw a line on all the appeals in the system and in terms of majors, which is good, and that one wasn't a list on appeal, and so therefore we have got a clear run at the moment, so at the moment there's nothing else to report on that one, only to emphasize we still need to give a round of all in terms of purchasing, but at the moment we seem to be including appeals. Yeah, this can't last. I think we're on top of all this, this is a nice meeting that we've had the notice to aid on, which is always nice. The last one we had was the Mill Lane one way, but we've got two hearings next week, which is basically the bottom two of the list, we've got the Clat and Brie Lane one on Friday and the Mill Lane Capital T prisoner walk-amp on Thursday, so therefore we've got two hearings next week, and then we're through them, we've got don't look like we've got any others pending, so therefore it's looking good at the moment in terms of where we're actually going, but you never know, some of them would be submitted today, so that's currently where we are at the moment. Thank you, that's the end of the easy bit, item six, close to the case is, can I say welcome back to Councillor Loughlin, we have Miss Duke, it's nice to have you back in the Chamber again, I think we've got a four house today, so that's bigger than one, so item six, the UPP 22 stroke 2035 for application land east of St Edmunds Lane in the Great down the road, and this is actually a few of August's reports in terms of mine and the presenter will be Mr. Chris Tyler, are you able to do that from there Chris? Yes, thank you, Chair, please go ahead. The application site is located on the east side of St Edmunds Lane in Great down the road, and comprises of three hectares of undeveloped agricultural land, we site nice to the north east of the first phase of 22 self-built wenings which have already been built. This application seeks approval of the erection of 30 self-built wenings, planning committee has already resolved to approve this application on the 8th of February 2023, subject to securing off-site contributions for eight affordable rental units for a section 106 agreement. However, judicial review has quashed the previously dismissed appeal for the same development on this site in 8th of April 2023, the application now seeks to remove the off-site contributions for the eight affordable rental units as per the quashed appeal decision. So to provide some background on this matter, at the top of the slide is the previously refused and dismissed appeal, it's noted no affordable contributions were included with that. The planning inspector and judicial review did not raise any issue with the matter, as such this previous decision is a material consideration in the current live planning application. On the basis of the recent judicial review decision is now proposed to remove the affordable housing element from the current live application. All other conditions and requirements through the section 106 on the original application are still recommended, as such an asset out in the chief office report, the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and securing section 106. That's the end of the presentation. Thank you, now, because of the nature of this, we don't actually have public speakers doing that. Yeah. So questions for the office, yes, Councillor BAGAN. Because this one was quashed by the judge, the judicial review, did it not have gone back to things when it was an appeal that was quashed, not the original decision where we reviewed this? Yeah, sorry, what's happened is, yeah, the eight-half gone back to things, so there's two bits to this. The first issue is we have an appeal, which was quashed, and that goes back to the inspector to reconsider the appeal, or a different inspector to consider an appeal, which is currently in train. But in response to the appeal, the applicant submitted a planning application on the end of the planning application, and without prejudice, they're holding their nose. They're saying, well, actually, we'll indulge, you know, indulge the authority and actually agreeing to the affordable housing situation to move forward, and so that's what's happening. So you've got an appeal over here, but it's such a bit of a showstopper judicial review. It now means that we sort of are obliged to consider this application, and to be honest with you, avoid the equality of appeal. Just so I can be clear, so this is a brand new application. Yes, it was a brand new application site on the appeal review. Why has it got a reference to WTT22, because that's when it was submitted. Sorry, when I say brand used the wrong word, it was a fresh application, as you hear from the dates that Chris has just gone through. It's quite an old appeal, and it's gone through that, and it got caught up in the lockdowns so the appeal itself took some time to come through the process, and judicial review sometimes. The appeal was submitted in 2012, the application was submitted in 2012, and members of this committee considered this application and agreed it subject to the affordable housing contribution, and that's where we work, so that it's taken to read the mission of an old application, not growing new application. It's the same application, but we have to treat it as a brand new application. It's re-considering an old application that hasn't yet been determined, because it was determined subject to a 106. I thought my question was quite simple. Is it a brand new application? It's not a brand new application compared with what? Well, the point is, it's gone back to P. Yeah, it's not a new application, it is a different, not using the word new, I'm not going to use the word new, it's a separate application from the one that went to appeal, and it's a separate application, determined by this application, by this committee, and now that same application is done coming back here for the reconsideration to omit the affordable housing. So it's a separate application, but it's 2022, so I don't think we can even claim it new. It is a strange application, since I'm in thin by the standards, but the digital review was managed over term and reverse the decision of a bank inspector, which is my main name, which is a very strange thing, but there we go. I can't clarify the reasoning behind that. Yeah, I can clarify the reason behind it. The inspector made a judgement within it. It actually wasn't anything that anyone could talk about, and why the matter was refused in the first place. It was refused during lockdown, because members were not, members were able to visit the sites anyway, because in non-general countryside issues, as well members refused it initially. The inspector, in allowing moving to dismiss the appeal, made the judgement, and it's a thing that's been round and round and round and round in circles about whether you need affordable housing on a affordable housing, on several properties. The inspector made a call on the appeal that you don't need affordable housing on a self-build. But what she, the inspector, concluded was the UU that was submitted by the applicant didn't properly secure it as self-build properties, and because that bit was flawed in the inspector's view, it hadn't secured it as custom-built self-build housing, so therefore it would have been open to normal affordable housing. I think, and I would be honest with you, I think the High Court correctly criticized the inspector, because the inspector, quite rightly, because it was done by written reps, the inspector, quite briefly, with white exchange with all parties, could quite easily have got that bit sorted out. It was literally the fact that he mentioned a permission granted by Atlesford as opposed to a commission granted by Pins, that could quite easily have been sorted out through exchanges. So that was the reason why the High Court decided, but it allowed in order to quash in decision because of that reason, it also confirmed, having said all that, the inspector was quite right in saying there was no need for affordable housing, so they confirmed that at the same time. So that was, that's the real substantial issue. And so, so, so we're now in a position where, you know, we have a legal judgment that says we can't insist on the affordable housing on, on, on self-build. We just need to make sure that in the approvingness that we get it bolted down, that this is self-build, and self-build down, well, that will be the job that I always to actually make sure that happens. There we are. I told you that this is the end of anything you see. Councillor Haynes. Yes, I got a couple of fairly straightforward points, but just first thought to be absolutely certain on this, I mean, my understanding was that the, the appeal decision was set aside basically on a technicality young, but hello, hello. Oh, yes, which you don't. Right. Can I sign my free to continue? Yes. I mean, my understanding was that the court set this aside, set the decision aside pretty much on a technicality, to the extent that the appeal inspector failed to use her sort of common sense judgment, but just to be absolutely certain, and I think just to follow up on what Councillor Bagnall said, what we are assessing now is we are starting from scratch. We are assessing this as an application for self-build housing, and the some doubt as to whether it is self-build or custom-build, and I think that's the point which will probably be brought up later, but the point is that we are looking at application without any affordable housing contribution, and that is what we're to assess, and we're to assess it from scratch. Am I right? You are right. Yes. Excellent. Councillor Bagnall. It was a second point that this is an observation, maybe rather than a question, but we've already approved this theme, to the principle of development on this site via having done that, albeit with the affordable provision as part of it. Now I think the only thing, I think, the only thing we can consider is just approving it without the affordable provision, just making sure that that, as you say, the self-built component is there. I think that I can sort of see whether the confusion arises, because if you search through the MPG or self-built, there's one reference to it, and actually in paragraph 66, which is the bit about affordable, talks about people who wish to build or commission their own homes, but it doesn't specifically say self-built or custom, which would, I think, be clearer in intent, and actually, if they could go further and actually say all or parts of the scheme, because that's the question of mind about how we deal with that in future, part of a scheme is self-built. Is it only that part of its end, and I think that's going to be the case, but... Yeah, you're right. There's a few things hanging, hence why the law isn't in wide red to be blunt, and inspectors are made making decision decisions, and we bear in mind we had a December 23 MPF. It was a gold opportunity just to close that gap, or to clarify either way, but if they didn't do it, it's just still there, but I think this high court decision is quite a significant one, in terms of it's made that call. You're quite right. And I remember when we brought it to this committee, it was members' visit site, which I think was a significant, was really quite significant for members, because you couldn't visit it when we originally, or refused that profession in 2020, which was really frustrating, and it was the very first committee going lockdown. You would have visited it, had you been able to do the mark 2020 committee, and the second is all the inspector made the decision in terms of its impact on the countryside, et cetera, so that a lot of those things had fallen away slightly in terms of how we go, but you're right. Probably the only difference to this, I mean, you've visited before, is this discussion about affordable housing? Fine. Councillor interjecting. So unless it's been said so far, there are no grounds for us basically to revisit any of the provisions of this application, because we've approved it, and what we're going to do is consent. I think actually we've done a lot of questions on this, and I think that whether or not the food, the affordable housing, that's it, basically, to remove it, so that the legal household, please. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you. So essentially, you've already approved an application. This report is saying, please approve removing the affordable housing contribution because of the exemption in this particular application site in relation to the NTPF. So this one application has the exemption, we're not saying every application is going forward because, as you know, we consider each application on its merits, but this application, having regard to what's happened in the appeal and in the high porch, that the exemption within the NTPF applies to this application site. So on that basis, colleagues, I think we'd go to a vote, yes, Councillor back on it. We should have a debate on this, because I'll tell you why, because in terms of what was approved, there was a balance to be waived, because there were harms to this in the first place, and on the other side of the scale, with the benefits of the affordable housing, which have now been taken away. So if you're saying we should be looking at this at the price, then we should look at it at the price, but what I've just heard is we're not looking at it as a price, we're just looking to approve the removal of affordable units. So as a committee, we're either looking at it fresh, in which case we need to go through that debate, or we're just here to approve the removal of the affordable units. So which one is it, because if we look at it, a press, that we need to look at it properly. That's fine. My understanding is that the consent is a done deal, we're talking about whether or not we assist on the affordable housing provision, the New York Council, is that a great interpretation? That's the correct position, this is coming back before a committee, because clearly the high court decision, coupled with the funding appeal, is the material consideration in going forward. So on that basis, to me, I feel that we are simply saying, are we okay with this single application? And I think on the same side that they came forward, another one, it wouldn't be fine, just this single application, which was consented, are we okay with proceeding without any affordable housing provision, either as physical houses was, money, damage, whatever you want to call it. Councilor Daniel? I think the fact that the original appeal didn't consider there to be any showstoppers in terms of landscape and heritage, did reference harm, but the showstopper was the fact that the custom and self-filled status of that development couldn't be, I can't think of the word, it couldn't be set in stone, essentially, that was the thing that made the appeal fail, so, or to be dismissed. So actually, all of the issues to do with this site have already been considered and have been addressed. We then did approve the development on this site, and you're right, with the benefit of affordable housing offsetting heritage harm, but then this decision by the High Court just removes that completely, but we just need to make sure that, can you give us some assurance that the custom self-filled status of this development will be nailed there? Yeah, it will be seriously nailed down, but pick out Councilor Daniel's point to recall, and you may not recall when you dealt with this application previously, but there was a site visit, you've run the site, you've run the above, you've considered the landscape impact, you've considered the heritage impact, so you did go and pull that balance next site when you were telling the application before, and so, and it would be so odd if you did all that and had to do the religion, I would suggest, so that's why it's, I'm not trying to curb debate, but it did the one issue. It's the one issue, you think? Councillor Haynes. Yes, I mean, the Committee may well have done the site visit, and may well have assessed the heritage impact, but I'm coming back, so I think it's paragraph 208, which basically says that where the harm to the heritage asset is less than substantial, there is a balancing act to be made. Now, the balancing act, in this case, is harm versus benefits. We know there is less than substantial harm to the heritage asset, but then we have to assess that against the benefit. Now, a very large benefit was the contribution for affordable housing. If we are now being told that we have to take away that benefit, that affordable housing, then the balance to me is totally altered, and it is the heritage harm in my mind that outweighs the benefit, because there is no benefit. So, I mean, from my point of view, I have been told that we are viewing this application of risk. On that basis, I really think that we should debate this, and we should assess once again the balancing aspect of this, and especially very in mind, we know that from other paragraphs in the NPPF, rates must be applied irrespective of the level of harm. So, on that basis, I think that debate is necessary. We always have plenty of debates in this chamber, and there will be no complaints, and we have two inputs from our officers here. First, Mr Baum, please. Just to add, the provision on affordable housing contribution, I would suggest, wasn't part of the benefit balance, if mitigation wasn't coming forward, I mean, the whole housing provision, including self-builds, which included any requirements for affordable housing, would have been the moment, would have been the benefit that affordable housing in itself is not considered the benefit, it's obviously the good thing, don't get me wrong, but it is not part of the benefit, it is part of the mitigation for the development, and that's where it's different, and then what the judgement said is we do not need to mitigate it for affordable housing contribution, so I don't think it has skewed the balance in any way. Just to reiterate, that Mr Baum is absolutely correct, and what he said, in terms of affordable housing, you have an affordable housing policy, depending on the numbers of homes being built within a development, in this particular aspect, referring to the heritage aspect, they were already balanced, so removing this provision as per what High Court are indicating to us that that cannot be achieved, that on this one development, that the exemption within the NPPF grind, and for us to ensure there's an enforceable legal agreement to that effect. So then, I think debate is reasonable, let's have some debate if that's what people want for you, Councillor Pavett. Yes, the point I actually can test Councillor Haynes' point about the affordable housing being the benefit, it's not issued, it's the scale of the housing provided, that's the benefit of the community, is the delivery of housing, and as you say, it's affordable, that's where it's available, will be mitigated, so I don't see what we could discuss, I think around the homes, but I couldn't say it for you, exactly, Councillor, to manual. Thank you, so the Customs Health Build Act requires that the Council keep a record of people who want to build a self-built housing build, and there is a, I think it's 250 odd people on that list, so there is a benefit associated with fulfilling some of that need. We were never entitled to affordable fundings, it was the developer's offer to make the scheme acceptable in response to being an incorrect decision by the inspector to dismiss it. I think that we should approve, and I'm happy to make that proposed. That's the proof that we removed the affordable housing, because it was only in the 5% site. Yeah, thank you, basically we should go with the recommendation that's in the office as we're brought. Yeah, just to point out all of this, can we be able to be clear in the minutes that we've looked at this application purely on the removal of the affordable element, because at the beginning of this we talked about a fresh application, which seems to misled some of people into things when we were looking at a fresh application, as an uncomfortable memo is the word, but the officer recommendations on page 23 of the report involved is recommended that the planning committee amended its previous resolution to remove the financial contribution for the eight affordable entities. All other provisions and conditions as made on 6th of February 2023 will remain the same. That is the proposal, if you agree or comes to the manual, we adopt that. Okay, proposed and seconded, to activate all those in favour of the show. Members against, please show, abstentions, please show, what's our legal account? Thank you, there are six in favour, two against, one abstention, so the recommendation is approved. Thank you, thank you colleagues, let's move on. The agenda item 7, which is UTT 240585, which is the old cottage, a starter here in Staying Street, great talent going. And the officer who will be in the presentation is already out of black trust, please. If you need to come and connect with the IT system, so give us a moment for that, please. I'll be having on screen, so please go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. You are on screen, you're showing the findings. Okay. Thank you sir, apologies for that. This is a full planning application for the closure of existing access information of new access from the highway, demolition of our buildings and the direction of nine dwellings. The site is located here, outside the development limits and stuff, here I am within the city's area of the county side protection zone. There are two semi-distorted to the northeast of the application side, here. And then there's a recent planning commission grant, it's going to be 4, 3 houses and more houses by the east, to the west of the side, on that side. There's an example on the commission for 15 houses that has commenced. A southern side of the site boundary station to a protected tree fell with a tree for the patient order, and a proof with employment land and commercial uses for the south. This is a revised proposed site plan, revised following my request, plan permission has been granted, I'm going to give some context here, because I think it's necessary for this application, plan permission has been granted for seven dwellings and access on the same side, which is extended to 2025. Another application for nine dwellings, access to mulit and existing outbuildings for the huge by the planning committee, February this year, overturning the office's recommendation for approval. The application will be huge on the grounds of its scale design and layout resulting in over development of the site through the used gardens, lack of green space and a foot parking layout. The key changes since the acute application include a smaller application site, a smaller red line basically, and changes in the scale layout and design of the plots. For example, plots during the have been updated clockwise with front elevation spacing southeast from north east. Also, there was the omission of a couple of garages, previously the word garages, somewhere here in plot four and in plot seven here, and also the garden spaces and the set green spaces have been increased, not only some other changes. The permission grant is a fallback position and case law dictates that the way to be given to the fallback position depends on the likelihood of the development of RA. On this occasion, the development of the seven dwellings from the exam permission has already started on site. This is the fallback position should be afforded significant weight for this decision. The five year housing land supply, turning to the change in circumstances now, the five year housing land supply has been decreased in comparison to what was the situation in February, just a slight detection. The site, by the time of its limited openness, its position between form and all sides and its domestic appearance, given the presence of our buildings, makes a limited contribution to the character and appearance of the CPZ and of the camera site. The footprint of the proposed field form has been reviewed by 12% in comparison to the few application in February and increased by 19% in relation to the exam permission for the seven houses. Gardens now have appropriate sizes. I'm talking about the private gardens and the community spaces for the plots. Upon my request, the visitor's parking spaces on the eastern side of the application size of this, this, this one, basically, and also the couple of parking spaces for plot seven, this one, the standard ones, have been a move slightly south so that there is a appropriate turning area of appropriate dimensions for plot seven and those visitor parking spaces. So the situation has been improved vastly from in comparison to the previous situation that refused application in February, but therefore the proposal would not amount over development of the site and will present the character and appearance of the CPZ and the camera site. These are the elevations, the proposed elevations for the nine houses and these are the plot plans and root plans. This is the protection, the tree protection plan, but I wouldn't give that too much attention now because we have a landscaping condition for the details anyway to be checked later on. This is the confirmation of how gardens and parking spaces, how gardens and green space have increased and how parking would work successfully. And finally, some photographs from the site, from a site visit, the planning balance remains in favor of the proposal, it is therefore recommended that the application be approved such as the conditions and the expiry of the notification period. Happy to answer any questions sir, thank you. Thank you. We do have speakers for this, there's a statement from Councillor Piscoll which is to be read now. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Piscoll's statement says, A cult in this application is one of two district Councillors for Broad Oak and the Halenbury Ward in which to bring the following to the committee's attention. In an email sent to me by Patrick O'Sullivan on Monday the 18th of March 2024 was an attached email from a Craig Hoover who I believe is the managing director of the Spartan group. This contained the following quote,You stated in your reading calling there are no relevant changes in this application from the last, with respect I disagree. The units have been reduced in size and bedrooms to allow each garden to be increased and now each garden is in excess that required, allowing a good area for the children to play, tandem parking removed, visitor parking increased, garage is removed to reduce built form and increases green areas, lack of green space and poor parking layout, contrary to policy gen 2, parking standards, the Essex design guard, guide and the NPPF. 14 of the 17 residents parking spaces are still in the tandem format, which when the charging points are in use will block in the second vehicle, it will mean the moving cars around in the remaining road space will be likely to cause a hazard. What is the size of these spaces is my belief that two parking spaces should also be provided for old cottage, however the parking allocation plan does not show this, thus insufficient parking. The superseded proposed site plan indicates the parking is allocated in the re-garden of old cottage, which I understand does not have the permission of the owners and in fact will prove difficult to access. There is no public area on the plans for green space that is not the garden. Minimum space standards for new homes, 2024 update, the following plots have bedrooms without measurements which I believe will not meet the minimum space standards. Plot 1 bedroom 3, plot 5, 4 bedrooms, plot 6, all bedrooms, plot 7 did not give dimensions how it does give total square meterage. Space standards for new dwelling houses include the following, a room used by one sleeping adult can't be smaller than 6.51 square meters, a room used by two sleeping adults can't be smaller than 10.22 square meters, a room used by a child 10 years old and younger can't be smaller than 4.64 square meters. Have the house size has been reduced as stated above in the opening paragraph, the units have been reduced in size and bedrooms, to a level where room sizes do not meet good practice stroke standards. Salas, I cannot see any sewage plan in the documents known to the damage caused in the groundwork. Yes, thank you, now I have a speaker, I would like to speak to Mr Ranger, how long was that? It's four minutes, Mr Ranger, four minutes, Mr Ranger. Before we, I'm here appearing on behalf of the owners of Old Bottom, my time which is to bring two matters to your attention, firstly I wish to address by far which is the most important. My time has gone, what grants if only commissioned by an application, the erection of seven dwellings at this property, they subsequently he sold that permission to the applicants of this current application for nine dwellings that my client retained on is of the old cottage. Your planning office is quite direct each other too, the land ownership is not a material planning matter when you consider applications that come before you. However, planning permission is attached to land and that is why plenty of applications require this efficient of a site location plan with the red line drawn around the boundaries of the application site. The seven dwelling application red line area included old cottage, the land my client sold did not include old cottage, but importantly it did include a suspect that is part of the found drainage system that served not only old cottage, but also the adjoining property white cottage. The final effort in getting into the brook that runs to the south of the site. That sewage treatment, the seven dwelling scheme that my client sold to this applicant allowed for a new sewage treatment pack to serve the seven dwellings, and also to serve old cottage and white cottage and improvement on the existing situation. The final effort would then drain into the brook as it does present. The sewage treatment pack was cited at the location of the existing suspect, which is why the sold land included the suspect area. This current application for nine dwellings does not follow the approved method of drainage of the new and the existing dwellings. If it's the wish of the council with the grant permission for nine dwellings, it's important that the grant of permission specifically acknowledges that the drains that the existing properties of old cottage and white cottage are connected to the new sewage treatment plant in the revised position if nine dwellings are approved. This can be confirmed by where a revised drainage plan is submitted in a part of a condition attached to the consent. Failure to connect old cottage and white cottage drains to the new system will result in these properties being addressed without adequate drainage. However, having described what would be a depending disaster to you, there is a further aspect of this situation than the maximum could you take from the committee. The applicants for the nine dwelling application have commenced to work on site, claiming they are implementing the seven dwelling approval, however, that's only permission for seven dwellings had 26 conditions attached to it, notably condition 25. That condition reads, No developments should take place, including any ground works of demolition until the construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. An application for the discharge of that condition is still alive within the planning system and approved yet work as commenced on site. In undertaking the work on site, the applicants have destroyed the drainage connection to the Brook, but the applicants for old cottage and white cottage relied upon the proper funding of the drainage system. One more minute. Thank you. The environmental health and public, the environmental and public health problem illustrated to you earlier has occurred and it has been caused by the applicant preaching a planning condition. This problem can be remedied if the applicant is still there to retrieve the fact promptly and connect the drainage and white cottage into the system as approved. The seven dwelling development or nine dwelling development is entirely in the hands of the council. If the extension of the council minded to approve the nine dwelling scheme and approved plans must be made to drain the drainage connection for old cottage and white cottage connected to the drainage system for the new dwellings. So that happened with a result in the continuation of the environmental and public health problem. That fact would mean the application failed to meet criteria H for policy change to the local plan. That criteria must be met to allow development to be approved. It reads, it minimizes the environmental impact on neighbouring properties by appropriating appropriate mitigating measures. As it stands at present, no mitigation proposed are included. Secondly, this housing manager, thank you very much. Thank you, the next is a statement by Cooley Fates to be read out, please. Thank you, Chair. I hope you've had the opportunity to visit the site to better understanding its setting and layout. I live in white cottage, a property that takes back to the 1750s and a joint zone cottage. It's important to note the age because it has no conventional foundations. The house shakes and moves when the heavy digger is operating on site, especially while the ground levels have been raised. Many cubic tons of material have been concentrated, moved and then tapped down with the digger bucket causing vibrations. Should the new houses have piled foundations, I fear for the stability and structural integrity of my property and the journey neighbour do developers ensure against this sort of thing. Such a fear the site began in late February, unfortunately, and despite having the benefit of 20-plus-page flood risks, pavement and drainage strategy document, the team failed to identify the cesspit clearly marked on the graphical survey report figure 2-2. The developer's digger caused severe damage to the existing cesspit that has served both houses without a problem for many years. The outflow escape to the surface and the channel was subsequently dug to direct it to the southern boundary stream. The channel was currently covered in last week, possibly to disguise that fact. It did not take very long before we could smell the effluent in our garden and detect rats and blind insects. There's been no explanation as to how this could happen and more importantly how it will be rectified. The cesspit has been emptied quietly in the interim, but we've been left completely in the garden. We've been subjected to airborne bacteria and environmental hazard to the family, our pets, visitors and locals is all very depressing, it cannot be safe or healthy for the machine and ground workers on site to be operating in these conditions daily either. Following the latest revision of the plan, the area where plot 7 is now intended is completely saturated with sewage runoff resulting in contaminated and saturated ground and an open pond of freshly collected septic tank water. The new plans have moved plot 7 on massive edifice nearer to our boundary fence, so we will be able to easily hear new residents and their cars adjacent. Building this plot will cause a lot of our amenity by being overbearing, causing lots of light and privacy in our enjoyment of the garden. The levelling of the site means we will collect their runoff into our garden. The residents and visitors parking in green areas have been a topic for much debate by using grass creek for visitor parking. This has been included as part of the green space too. I also contend that the parking spaces allow for old cottage have not been specified and should be the minimum of three spaces for a four bed house. I detected some of the exasperation in the statements when the recent engaged plan of consultants aimed to satisfy all previous reasons for the committee to refuse the last application. I would like to express my faith in the committee to decide this application considering all the exacting plot planning policies and the reasons that I have stated. I would hope for the decision to be influenced because of any sense of jurism and the prospect of an appeal. Thank you. Now, that's taking us from Judith White's chair. Yes, thank you, and our final speaker is Mr Ben Elvie, who is on behalf of the African Indian. And all of us, Mr Elvie, can I ask you a 15 minutes, Jim? After 15 minutes, we always appreciate it if it's been less. Thank you. I promise it will be far less. Good morning. And thank you for the opportunity to address you today. As mentioned, I am a pen consultant here to represent the applicants in this particular application. Firstly, I would like to thank the pen officer for their project approach to the application and their continued recommendation of approval. The report that has been prepared before you today, if we believe the detail for a robust well-balanced thankful bed, it takes account of all new considerations, balances and appropriate lead and reaches sound conclusions. Members will likely report this site being presented to you. The recent meeting for a different proposal to that now will call you. The applicants with whom you supported and frustrated us, the outcome of that meeting, for the reflection on that decision, amended the scheme accordingly, and worked with your officer to address the previous issues. My intention now is to make clear how those matters that led to the decision to approve the meeting have been resolved. For the first issue in respect to the garden sizes, these have been improved from the previous scheme. The gardens now range between 75 square metres and 172 square metres, with the average garden being between 119 and 122 square metres. These gardens are not of standard in size. They are well-oriented to have access to daylight and sunlight and provide useful recreation space that is not overlooked. Every garden exceeded by some distance, the minimum size is set down in the AC design guide, and with everyone considered the previous reading of the view, they have been overcome in respect to that maximum. With regard to green space, there is a total of 146 square metres of green space provided throughout the development, the equivalent of over one a different garden. Green areas are opposed to the front and side properties of the front and side, providing a soft edge to the development, and there is also a dedicated area of green space towards a southeastern corner that will enable planting to be delivered to help green the development overall. Again, we believe that the proposal provides adequate green space for future properties. This takes me on to parking. Parking is provided for each property on respected plots. Four parking spaces are also delivered to visitors, and they need to locate an accessible position on the site where visitors can readily access the respective properties. Changes to be made to parking arrangements will overcome the previous plans made at plain committee, in which we consider directly addressed the previous reading for refusal. A paragraph 14.3.3, the planning officer is helpfully set out the details of the changes that have been made. Overall, the concerns of overdevelopment were expressed previously have been overcome. The site provides the density of 30 dwellings per hectare, recognising the emerging provision sound in policy H1 of the regulation 19 both in the new local plan, and thereby pause at your emerging policy. The proposal demonstrates none of the traits of overdevelopment, its spacious, well designed and fully addressed the previous concerns. As you've heard, the applicants attempt to engage in the council, they then extend that approach to the Woodmember, but these approaches have been rebutted, and thereby no discussions with the local member able to occur. This was incredibly disappointing as the applicants generally wish to discuss the previous concerns and seek to understand why there remains objections based on the same reasoning previously given. They consider it's important to note that if the site already has permission to be built on, that commitment has occurred, and there's such that many of the concerned of raising third-part responses are already effects that have not been found to be harmful. In conclusion, therefore, the applicants have listened, amended the scheme, tried to work with the local member, and generally believed the previous concerns in the address of thereby asking you to support obviously recommendation and approval and proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Now we have more speakers, other speakers, but it's time for questions officers. I have a couple right at the beginning. The first is, is there a management plan, construction management plan in place, and the second one is, so I'm aware sewage is building a storage environment, that is, for those two clarification even, I'm welcome. Thank you, sir. Third is condition number 10, I believe, which is a concerning method statement. I believe that was recommended by environmental health, and there was something similar in the extent of the mission for the seven counties, and there was also a condition number 20A for the construction management plan, the CMP recommended by S.X.5 waves. Just a clap. Sorry. What was the second question? Essentially, sewage, I believe that's the building control, if you are planning for that. Yes. Okay. Okay. So the construction management plan is required by planning conditions. Was has one been put in place, that's my question. Two minutes part of the condition, it's part of the recommended conditions, and it was part of the conditions that follow the planning, the external planning permission for the seven houses. It was correctly said, it was correctly said by Mr. Rainser, that this condition has not been desired for the previous scheme, even though the development has commenced, some preliminary ground will help commence as I saw on side. There is, however, an application with this at that condition, it's not with me, it's with another officer, but there is an application with this at that condition. Thank you. Questions for officers, please? Yes. Councillor Haynes, Councillor Manuell, yes. Thank you. Just two or three things, hopefully very quickly. Just to come back though on that point about the management plan, I think probably Chair what you were referring to was management plan for the seven units scheme. I noticed that as it's highways had basically highlighted this, and we're asking for enforcement on that, is anything being pursued? Because it does seem as though the scheme would be implemented without conditions having been satisfied, so the first thing of my first point is, well, my first question relates to that, is important in action being considered in line with highways request, then a couple of other things. I still don't understand the car parking for old cottage. There is a little hatched area, hatched in blue, say, access for old cottage parking, but I couldn't actually see where the parking was, and what the point of that terrible access line, that little line is, the other thing is, is there a bin store? I didn't quite work that out. Right. You know, I'll pick up the bits about the seven scheme, if you like. Yes, I mean, I'll be honest with you, what's happened here, and I think the applicant has sort of done this in a bit of a lot of way. The applicant members refused an application, I think the members recall visiting the site, which would have been in February, there was nothing on the site and not a lot happening, but they were still at the extent of consent. Now, members were quite aware that there was an extent of consent for seven, so that's why your objections were not on place for development, it was the call, the jump from seven to nine and how it was presented. You were not blind to the extent of consent, but what is not since then, you know, and from Mrs. Blake's comments, and I think Mr. Range also alluded to it, activity started happening almost immediately out on the review planning commission, probably just got down with that, that is always then consent, and which wasn't really necessary because it's still an extent, consent, whatever they're still in the morning tomorrow. So that's why there's been this flurry of activity trying to keep the permission alive, which it doesn't need to do. On the decision about the construction management plan, the construction management plan, I understand is the only outstanding condition, but we have that to tell us. The first issue really, we need to determine that discharge of addition application, and if the discharge of addition application is accepted, but in terms of the construction management plan, we need to approve it, and ensure that the applicant adheres to that construction management plan, if the construction management plan isn't acceptable, then yes, we need to consider the enforcement issue regarding around that. So that that's where we are, but the second issue is the hope of the construction management, the main issue in terms of the impact of construction from that site is parking on the road. And as you know, that, you just don't have to imagine the potential problems caused by parking on the road. It carved apart on the road and have stopped in the highway, it is not the Utterson District Council to enforce the parking. That happens tomorrow, even if you, you know, regardless of the construction management plan, it is highways that were sponsored by the construction management plan, but having said that, if we have the priority, the construction management plan is to avoid that to happen, or have them parking arrangements on the site. So that's a really long answer to your question, but the most important thing, because we have a discharge of an issue with us, we need to determine that to suite, I would suggest, and if that's refused, then we are looking at an enforcement issue, and they need to adhere to having the construction management plan. Having said that, you're considered an application for nine, not necessarily related to that so, and all the other questions you raised about parking areas, et cetera, I'm sure everybody just can take that out. Yes, probably the other two issues, so it was also mentioned by Councillor Dries calling his statement that was read out in sufficient parking for courtes now to Councillor Haynes may mention the, what's the position of the review bins, I think. So for the parking of all courtes, this is, I'm going to show my screen again. If you can put it back on screen, I'm going to go here and there, thanks. I'm going to go there, I'm going to go back again, okay, so you can see the blue and red dots on every floor, and this in the legends is roughly, so there are these dots on every floor, and obviously the planning help would allow refuse people to get in the application side, and we take this with highways as well. In terms of the parking for all courtes, it does mention here that it's going to be access for parking for the old courtes. It was initially suggested by the applicants that too, I think also in the previous application, the very previous application, that a couple of parking spaces are created somewhere on this location to the back of this courtes, however, because as it was confirmed by Mr. Ray, because this land has been sold to another party, basically a third party, this is not possible, so anything outside the application side or anything outside the land and the applicants control would not be delivered, basically, you can't do development on a different side, but what's going to happen is, with a landscape in English, and this is already indicated on the drawing submitted that we see now, there's going to be a close call dispensing probably around until this point, and then we're going to make sure that these areas have been left open, so that the occupants of both courtes can use the new access, go through the clinic head, and then begin back to this, to the back of both of the courtes. The questions, Councillor Laniou. Thank you, just a comment, I was really pleased to see the garden sizes all separated out, that would be very helpful, thank you, and the parking and the same would be overlooking how you dealt with each of those, I thought that was really, really helpful, thank you, so a couple of questions raised by speakers that haven't been addressed, the nationally described space standards, we're able to determine if the rooms are actually in the clearance for those, and I think that the parking issue for all the courtes is not satisfactory, I suspect it's probably a bit of a few between the two landowners now having sold for land, it depends whether they made an agreement, it's a provide parking. That's it, where they transfer the land across, yeah, there should have been a back agreement to provide the parking, but as Averus is quite right, it's not within the this application to provide the parking. Because the red line has been an issue, okay, and that's because of the transfer, not for anything from the applicant, it's really interesting. So on the search treatment, is it because it's a scale of developers below 10, we haven't got sub scheme, we haven't got, you know, anything on the drainage and sewage arrangements? You want to do that, yeah, yeah, it is below the threshold for nature development, but we, a flood resource assessment and a drainage scheme has been submitted, and it also conditioned like it was in the examination. So this is condition in terms of, I'm talking about the drainage scheme now, in terms of the sewage treatment plan and the common expansion by third parties, this is on the civic matters outside the control of planning. So we should have been arranged somehow with the solicitors when they sold the land, whether third parties sold the land, the previous applicants sold the land for this, I'm talking about the applicant who got the permission for the seven parties, so it should have been arranged. So it's not a civil matter, it's not a planning matter, it cannot be arranged now, it will be completely defenceful, to tell the reason why it's usually related to that. Thank you. Any more questions for officers, Councillor Pabit, if you're speaking from the point you wrote about, so we've been building regulation matter, this presumably is going to have some kind of flightless for the system, who was a sophisticated suspect system for the group of houses. That, to my knowledge, that requires special dispensation for the evaluation to see if it's 50 metres within the water course, and do you know if that's going to happen? Yeah, obviously I'm not a flat expert, but I've seen in the flood risk assessment that the applicant provided, and previous comments from the local flood authority for the previous application, the approved application, if a certain threshold is exceeded, then permission from the environment agency and potentially from the local flood authority will have to be obtained by the developer, but again this would be outside planning, but they would have to do that through separate, because it's mandatory by non-planning legislation. I just missed the point that the Councillor Emmanuel mentioned about the NDSS, the National Disguides based on that, because it was also mentioned by Councillor Brieck, Councillor Brieck, and his letter. I've said, this is just one example of plot one, we usually take all the gross internal areas of all bedrooms and also the capital areas of the actual plots, and we make sure that they comply with the NDSS navigation, even though this is not adopted policy, it's a government document, and it's a very useful guidance, and all the bedroom sizes and other sizes of the actual houses, the living quarters of the houses are acceptable. I have Councillor Loughlin, please. Thank you, Chair, but Paragraph 14.3.7 says that the CPDED has limited backing in the NPPF and the restrictive nature of quality F8, and then on 14.3.12, it says for me to develop the rights for the extensions and outgoings must be withdrawn from preserved and appearance of the CPDED, so that's what I'm going to do, even though extensions and outgoings can be built without planning the machine out, and... I have a route you just noticed, like I've done, it's not, I'm sorry. Yeah, and I was praying. Oh, no, not at all. Oh, not at all. Please continue. Of support, no? Yeah, given that extensions and outgoings are sometimes be given without permission, and we ensure that we are allowed to put these permitted development rights on here in order to protect the CPDED, and the openness of the countryside, because those two paragraphs are somewhat contradictory. So... Right. I think, yeah, I think the CPDED issue, I think, to be honest with you, I don't think we need to have a detailed discussion about CPDED, because we've improved seven on the site already, and I think that's the big issue. So I don't think we need to reopen the CPDED, but I get your point, totally. It is in the CPDED. Yes. And the PPD rights issue, I agree, there is a recommended condition, five, that removes the PPDEDED rights, and that's huge. When you are in that, to be honest with you, that's not necessarily in the CPDED, it's because you're looking at a site where you are not saying that they haven't, you know, the gardens are quite comfortable in terms of what they're providing, but they could be not being so comfortable again if you do under the PPDED, so that's why we believe it's great to take out the permitted development rights, because of the nature of the development as opposed to the SPDED. And I just come back, and that will be added in for an item, will it? It won't, somebody can't build an extension, and we will say, Oh, yeah, you're allowed to do that. They're allowed to apply for planning conditions for any extensions, that's what it would make. Anybody else who questions, or the officers, did not, we can move into the bait, colleagues, and all that at once? Yeah, there's no manual, I've got it right now, it's a bit of a bag on. I think that the parking range with raw cottage and the sewage arrangements are unsatisfactory to death. It's disappointing that they're not, you know, now down at this stage. I know that the sewage side of it can be addressed by condition. It would have been nice to see the parking given that there were two spaces provided in the previous nine-house scene for all cottage, although if it is a four-bedroom passage of 23. I think that should have been addressed, but equally it should have been addressed in the terms of sale between the two parties, so I think that's definitely outside the scope of what we were able to control. I'm really pleased, though, that the applicant has listened to the quiz that we made. I think that the scene is much improved from what we looked at the last time, I like the gardens now, obviously we're all meeting the standards, particularly that the parking space is there. I think we could have mentioned tandem, for me, the issue becomes when we go to three, a tandem, three spaces, a tandem, that's when it becomes really unwieldy to, I think, quite a common occurrence, I don't think that's as much of an issue. It's less positive than having the side-by-side, but I don't understand that with the constraints of the space. I think that we ... I'm not making conclusions, but I'm happy with the scheme that it's presented then. Councillor interjecting. Yes. Thanks, Chair. I'll go back to the construction environment management there. You suggested enforcement might happen if the plan isn't satisfactory. I would suggest enforcement should happen now, because they're building ahead of when they should be building. So, just as a small point, I think enforcement guys will be out there issuing a stock notice, because they've clearly started work before they're supposed to. I don't think committees give power in that, to be honest. We all decided in the normal alignment enforcement policy. Do you have an error? Yes. I do. I do have an error. I don't know if that's an important policy. So, regarding sewage, there is a condition on the original condition, I would suggest that they're the plan. So, I'm surprised that they've broken through sewage stuff. We've got a plan on where all the sewage stuff is. That concerns me, but my main thing is, and the reason why I objected to this last time was because I feel given the location of the site, the green space is absolutely paramount to any occupants of these dwellings, and I still find that nine is over-development of that site. I think they've increased the garden sizes, yes, they've actually decreased living space on the presentation is, it always worries me when room sizes are not there or no one's really accepted. There's too much taken on trust, and if there isn't actual information there, then I don't think we can assume it's going to be too standard. So, for me, I still find that there's no sufficient green space, and I am worried about the parking as well. Unfortunately, for the old cottage, they've solved the land, so that was for them to look out for, not for us to do. So, they'll have access to their garden, but they won't have any parking on the skin. So, I'm still not comfortable that it's not over-development. I think it's only development of the site. Okay. Thank you for that. Mr. Batchock wants to make a comment about the naturally adopted room standards, naturally determined room sizes. Yeah. Sorry, just to clarify. Not the comments, I think, if you look at patients, it's a bit by me, it's for the nationally decised space standards, but I wasn't clear when I saw you blood one, the blood one, or blood one. We do take all bedrooms and all living quarters to make sure that they comply with the NDSS, so I can show you now all the drawings if you live with all my measurements, but we do take as officers, we don't rely on the measurements from the applicants. We have to take, that's the details, I can show you these if you like. So I have take everything and everything takes out, and in terms of over-development, there's no such thing as over-development in the policy terms. So we can, the previous reason for it's usual, it would justify some indications, for example, the huge garden sizes, the lack of green space, and the pool parking layout. Now, as I said, the garden, the size of the garden for every block are acceptable, are both the threshold recommended by the Essex Design Guide, and again, I have to take all these measurements myself. I wouldn't wait for the, for the, to rely on the applicants information about these. We talked about the parking layout and how it has been changed. And the last before was the, the lack of green space, there is a drawing that has been provided, I'm not sure if I did include that in the presentation, but I'll send my screen again. There's a drawing provided by the lovely panel, this one, actually, I think this is the previous version without the changes here, no, no, it's, it's a, it's a latest revision, but it's also the garden spaces and the rest of the green spaces. Now, because this is not a major development application, we wouldn't be able to increase than having a formal public open space, so a green open space in the usual way of having major development. But in mind you, and this is what they convey video to the board, this, this is enough. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Council 11, sorry. I had a spot to go on. And then it comes to the other. Thank you. Okay. Have it. Um, on, on the last application, I, I wasn't happy with the C-PZ, and I'm certainly not happy with the country time protection zone being ignored on this application, um, I'm beginning to wonder why we bother to have a country-side protection zone, it just seems to elect many applications just seem to get round it, and then I don't think that I'm going to agree to this application on the ground into country-side protection zone again, this is in my opinion. Yeah, thank you, Councillor, and then we'll see the church. Thank you, Chair. Um, I find the layout of this application, um, that's a, the, uh, a proof of professional seven dwellings, and I think the list is part of me is also very beneficial, and unfortunately there's a lot of seven, um, I find an acceptable, um, I think maybe I was right about this, and it is a bit of a lot of pounds, um, inappropriate, so I'm, um, making my position, um, based on, um, that, it's, it's a shame, because, you know, as a pre-determine, Councillor the judge, you have to listen to the debate first, and then you can use, I think as well, um, I feel, I still feel like I'm heading that direction, um, from what I've done so far, I think I'll let others speak, and I thank you very much, Councillor CABID, I think you want to speak. Yes, thank you, Chair. Um, when we went to see a site, just out of the, uh, almost industrial building, we didn't, uh, one of the things that was called the social conditions from the door of the broker, that the bank would not be, um, protected or polluted as, as I recall, um, and it was another site somewhere along that way, it was the same thing applied, but I, I don't change anything in the conditions here, protecting the broker, that the bank's been losing, and in fact, we would talk, on several applications, but we would say that construction management should be, um, handled in such a way to ensure that, among the protections, is, is the broker at the back, you know, that it's not polluted by the process, the construction model, it's already has been, you know, if they're broken through the, through it, they're already closing the broker at the back, so I think, tomorrow I can't see any condition here, relating to protecting the little boy at the back, but we, we need one. We also need to be careful about language, you can't just say, it is polluted, you can put two two together and conclude that it might be, but you can't say it is, uh, but picking the issue up, the, the, the scenario, and I've not, ironically, was when we visited this site last time, when we dealt with the industrial land, where you have had vehicles parked there, and you will have, you'll have commercial vehicles, yes, we had a condition about ensuring that there wasn't, you know, that there was run off, there was interceptors all sorts of things, eventually, they had been broken, that's not necessarily a requirement in dealing with residential development, and instead that, it goes back to the construction management plan issue again, and I think you were quite right, because most of the, most of the problems, of course, during construction, rather than actually one, you know, if you could magically go, blah, blah, blah, suddenly nine hours of the ride, you know, you can guarantee that probably wouldn't be any problems, so it's all about the construction management plan, issues related to, um, run off to broken, you know, pollution controls about existing service systems needed to be covered by the construction management plan, that we have recommended. I would also add, you've also coloured how we determine the current discharge and condition application for the seven, because what I was wondering now, we've got a discharge condition still to deal with the seven, and we need to make sure that's what we need to do to that as well, in terms of, in terms of ongoing stuff as well, that's aside from that, but I think issues in terms of the impact of the development, in terms of impact on existing service systems, anyone up into the group, we can cover that by construction management plan, and we can make that, we can go back to these details, because what depends on the construction management, as they've done, we can actually find out and put that in there, to actually put them to insist that happens, because it's from the construction, when you're likely to have that impact, rather than, I'd like to just say, that it's actually operating, doesn't say it's good cause, because, you know, how does that suck on, you know, something on my side, say, will it just come back, Mr Brown, yes, thanks, thank you, um, you know, I take this point in time, but the site, it's focused, as I recall, from the road back down to where the book is, um, and I don't see any, any particular provision about self, or about how, you know, service management can be handled, unless it's a public service, or unless it's some specific drainage provision, it will just all end up being brought, all the service, you know, and the, the discussion very often even with, with residential design, you know, car wash, uh, surgeons, oils, all those things, that all, all end up in, and we had this particular debate about 110 houses that have been built which has been, rightly, the river, and they've learned a couple of having a particular kind of search provision with drainage, and with, with retaining tanks for interceptors, no, thank you to, um, and I don't see anything back here, I don't know why, not, if that's in because of the scale of the development being less than that has. Yes, because it's less than 10 houses, yeah. Um, can I ask you something, please? Um, thank you, I just wanted to just go through a couple of things. First of all, when it comes to CPZ, obviously, you know, I believe in CPZ too, but, um, we've already got permission for us that and houses here, so, um, you know, in lots of ways, you know, this committee has approved 7 houses, nothing bad, which we've waned up with the thinking, going forward on the CPZ for two more houses. Um, and the construction management plan is really important to get all the things that, um, you know, that need to be looked at appropriately, and also, natively, you know, because obviously the people living on the site whether they've sold the land or not, they are, they also have, are due some respect and consideration, so I really would love to think that, you know, people working together to operate in the right hours and not make the people that are already living on that site, and they're, like, impossible, so I really hope the management, uh, the construction management plan would take that on board. Um, with regard to the old cottage, the sewage, I hope that, um, looking at that you will apply the best condition you can, um, and I don't know whether we can or can't, but obviously the sewage, um, the detail for the old cottage in the other building has been, um, has been, um, you know, damaged, so therefore, there is an issue there, I don't know to our father that we can, we can do anything about that, but we'll see, I'm well aware of who we're concerned, and also the parking the family is very, it's a, it's very, you know, it's very difficult because you're going to get people parked in the wrong places if they can't park their cars, even if it doesn't have opposite or next adjacent to development, so it is all a bit of a particular, but, you know, that's just what I wanted to say as far as, um, my comments, because obviously this isn't a straightforward, even if we quite like the fact that put the gardens bigger and that they've done these things with the way they've set out the places, still these big issues that are really good. It's really thinking long and hard on what we did. Yes, thank you. It's, um, okay, everyone else, please. Thank you, sir, just to clarify a couple of points, uh, I'm turning my screen again, hopefully. Yeah, that's it. So condition number 20, um, it's, uh, it's about the, the follow surface, what the drainage seems to be implemented, but that's going to be mandatory. And as I said, although there is no obligation because it is a minor development application, there's no obligation to provide an FRA, a, sorry, apply a little assessment, and one has been provided by the applicant, and this is one of the last pages. So this is the drawing that we are conditioning. That shows all these other, the drainage in basically all these details. That's one thing. The other is going back to the conditions again. There is, as we said, with Nigel, there is condition number 28 about the CMB, the construction management land, and there is also condition number 10, the CMS, the construction metal statement. Uh, condition number 28 was recommended by highways. So I'm not sure if we can, if members can add anything in that one, because this is just from a highway safety perspective, but probably you can do show, uh, if you wish for condition number 10, because condition number 10 is each one, but like you can see that actually. It looks about the noise and that potentially emanating from the side during the construction period. So if, if members think this is enough, that's okay. If members think anything should be added on these, can I just clarify one last thing? I think it's useful because it was mentioned a few times. In terms of the parking, there are four business parking spaces provided by the development. Now as you know, as you know, they need to provide 0.25 parking, these those parking spaces, but it's a lot. That means 2.25 parking spaces for business in total. So around the top, this is two parking spaces, but they're providing four. So a couple more. So it could be the case, subject agreement obviously by the development. But the principal court has used those two these those spaces at the parking spaces. But the condition will be up 200 men, by the developer with those third parties, for which the planning committee has no say on the plane. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I just would like to think that the developer will work with the people and obviously not just the dust and but also, you know, being able to get access into their own properties. You know, you can just imagine what it's like on a building site living on that. I just think I hope that if the developer takes all that into consideration, I don't suppose we've got massive pass to make them do it. It's very disappointing. I'm concerned that we have progressed to have a construction management plan actually in place. I'm not blaming anybody for that. But it seems that we've done quite a lot of work already, which has not been involved in our eyes by anybody, which has been pointed out, that's not a planning issue. That's another department. Yeah. Okay. I want to bring this case to a conclusion, but so we've got lots of other speakers of people who shouldn't speak again. Councillor Bhagnorf, Councillor Haynes, please. I'll be quick. And so I still struggle with this one because I accept that we've given permission for seven. So we can't make arguments about the principle of development. I understand that. But when you look at the commission we gave for seven and the balance that would have been taken, it was a much better amenity space, far better. I think it's debatable whether it's a better layout on the seven or whether that layout could have been improved as well. But how's the church's point about the clock nine? It just pushes everything to the edge. So I'm afraid I'll still stand by what I said earlier, which is I feel that the design is not right. I feel it's too much in a small space. And I think the amenity space does suffer. So one scheme was approved for seven, which looks on the face of it, looks okay and acceptable. And of course, someone else owns a plot. And now they want to squeeze two more in there. And the consequence of that is everyone's efforts in terms of their space. So I'm not supportive of the scheme of nine. Does that mean councilor background when the time comes, you might? I would be happy to make a proposal, Chair. Councilor Haynes, please. Yeah, well, I just look back at the reasons for refusal on the previous application. I mean, especially with overdevelopment, lack of green space, poor parking arrangements and garden sizes. Well, garden sizes, yeah, okay, we seem to have sorted that one out. Green spaces, I mean, well, there's never enough, but I mean, based on the plan that we've seen, it is still very light on green space. The parking arrangement, to my mind, has just not been resolved. We have we have tandem parking. And I think it was Councilor Driscoll said in his statement. If one of those is at a charging point, then the other, the other driver is completely stopped. So we do have we do have a problem, I think, on car parking. I mean, I think, you know, in terms of the bin lorry turning out, I mean, I just I just think it's so tight. We didn't actually have any sweat bath analysis. So we can't really test it. But I mean, it just the whole turning area seems to be limited. Houses, we still have this overdevelopment issue. No matter whether this is policy or not, we have overdevelopment. We we've squeezed in an extra unit. And I mean, plot seven now is totally on top of the old cottage boundary. Old cottage, we have no idea what's happening about their car parking. I mean, to me, this is this is this is a mess. So I am certainly in sympathy with Councilor Beggman. And there are some corrections that the officers wish to make. So this was about sweat. Yeah, sorry. So you mentioned the lack of sweat path analysis. I think that's been done, isn't it? Yes, there's a number of analysis. There's a simple filming provided by the applicants about these with pause. So it's a swing that isn't for the individual. That's not the drawing. But the shed path analysis was examined by Essex Highways. And it was accepted by Essex Highways, which is a study that it goes to be. I just want to go back to a comment that the transport vehicle made in his letter. I think it was said that 14 out of 17 parking spaces are abandoned. This is actually incorrect. The, see, abandoned parking spaces are only up to two abandoned spaces. And only these two here are plot one, plot four, plot five, plot six, and plot seven. The rest of the parking spaces are not abandoned. And there are no people tandem parking. I should also clarify something. Excuse me. It is, it is not for maintenance to impose their own design aspirations. If there is no backing from planning policy or the NPPR, the national planning policy, especially since we still don't have the design code adopted. The ethical design code adopted is still being prepared. This is in relation to the parking layout and also to the comments that are related exactly to the previous video for the future. So saying over development, it's just a statement. We need to be able, members need to be able to quantify this. That comes, we are a way out of a box in which we work. And if we work outside, but we rely on folks like yourself to tell us that we're outside of the box in which we're committed to work. So thank you very much for that. I can give you the housing density. If you like, if that's helpful to that, please. Obviously, the application type has been changed now, has been reviewed. So by considering what is now the application side, what's now that I've liked, the housing density proposed now is at the point 99, 31 dwellings per capita, whereas for the seven dwellings, but exactly the same side, it would have been 24.1 dwellings per capita again. Thank you very much. And I'm so anxious to move this forward. Councilor Church and then Councillor Emmanuel. Did you also have a second to wait for me to vote? That's fine. So Councillor Emmanuel. Can I make a point of order? I haven't heard any reason given for reviews or in terms of the policy. As far as I can see, there are no reasons that we could give that would be defensible as well, because this meets the parking standards. This meets the nationally described space fender. This meets the garden size that's required in the design guide. And those were the three reasons we gave the reviews or the line I've seen before. Unless I've missed something, there are no policy reasons why we can't refuse this scene. And you might not like it, but in terms of overlooking, dot seven doesn't overlook. There's no stair windows that can overlook into the gardens white house or old white cottage or old property. Sorry, white house just comes. I haven't heard anyone mention a policy reason that is contraband. And I'm very good than the fact going to second being a vote for the people without having any policy reasons to follow. You're definitely in need of policy reasons otherwise you could be by now if it will be an entity pervert. Well, we also actually need a reason. We haven't had a read. We haven't even wished right. I know. I think he would have been. So we only had the one reason which we used last. So the question is, has it really changed? And that's what we need to consider. So yes, okay, so they meet the garden standards. So we can't cite that one parking. There's still tandem parking. So but it's debatable whether parking is acceptable or not, but I take the point. But it's about scale design and the layout. For me, the scale and the layout still stand. I would refuse in one beginning to same as last one. There's no other reasons we can refuse it. So that would be my proposal would be to refuse it on the grounds of January in terms of its scale and layout. I think you could, I do agree with Councilor Manuel. I think we are on a slight not strong again. But if you're going to go down to January 2, you can take it in terms of the concepts of the character of the area because you did mention, you know, that it's not sort of an urban site. It's a site on the edge of the village. So Gem 2 in context. So, you know, you know, you need to look at the site in the context. So Gem 2, what you're saying, class saying in the context, in terms of the context of the character of the area. I'm happy to say that, but I don't think we used that last time. We did it, but last time you were refusing matters on the factors, didn't make car parking standards, didn't make, it was literally not ticket boxes, but it clearly didn't make up, didn't come up to the standards. Now it comes up to the standards, so therefore you need to probably add a little bit more wine. It applies with the standards, but it's still in my mind over development, how to calculate the cars of this. And that's why you need to say, yeah, I mean, it's your course, your proposal. I would agree with that. But I'm trying to be honest to what we say last time, but if you feel that it's necessary to add those words, then I'm happy to do that. But for me, it's about the scale and the layout. Councillor, have it and then count on my manual. Yes, I have a figure that says, Councillor MAYOR or so, but in just a debate here, within 50-100 yards of this site, with an inspector, he sent it on appeal, stuff as of equal density, right under the flight path, and I can't see how we could I think you were going to be doing more of the same in that location. Chair, also you should move to the second. I know the rules are that I like to do that, but it's not absolutely all about me. If a member should be mindful, there are 15 houses being very next door. Mr Chairman, just in terms of protocol and order that even if it is a proposal, which is alternative to the recommendation that's on the table, the proposal needs to say the reasons for refusal linked back to policy reasons. Again, just by way of reminder, as you know, a good planning committee would describe the loss of something or the harm and then tie that back to policy reasons. Again, just by way of mop up, if you like, we've talked about parking, the applications like meets the parking standards. We know that the DSS, the design, it meets that, that's guidance, but even though that's guidance, we actually insist upon that. It meets that. We know that there may be some neighbourhood dispute with an adjoining property. Again, that's a civil matter outside this red wine boundary as to what you're actually talking about today. So again, with that in mind, in terms of reasons for refusal, the loss of something, the harm, describing that and tying that back to the policy reasons for refusal. Colleagues, outside his bagel, please, so we're not to debate amongst ourselves, conversations, so we're having difficulty finding a reason for refusal, in my view. No, I'm Chair. I've given the reason. I've given the policy number, but Mr Brown's pointed the adding to some additional words. Whatever my view about where we're going with what people want to do, that that's my view. I think Councillor DAGLOR's given a refusal reason back by policy. That's a good idea. I'll advise you where we are with this, but that's all the Councillor Bangles reported. It's like I'm pretending I haven't given that at this stage. Thank you, Mr Chairman, for indulging me. It was just obviously so that members in the vote that you need to be clear what they're actually voting for and for that reason for refusal, and I expect that Councillor Bangles did give a reason, but that's the reason that you'd be voting for. That's why I think the issue is we started having seconded. It's seconded being offered when Councillor Bangles had an immediate opportunity to do media, but that's the issue. So it's seconded in something before something actually, and before we knew we could be in a vote stage. So let's, I think we shall vote on the vote and it's going to have a seconded. No, you don't because that's just the issue. He's Councillor Chirched seconded in the matter before Councillor Bangles having the major proposal, so you're still now still sitting in the second vote. I think it's seconded for this, the only thing is we can still be Councillor Chirched once you came in the first time. So those, the motion is, can you read this? Sorry, I need to say it. So in terms of the proposal on the table currently proposed by Councillor Bangles and seconded by Councillor Chirched seems that the application will be refused on the basis of scale, design, layout, but it's out of character with the did. Yeah, it could be out of character with a general area. General area, content of change. Yes. Those are seconded, those in favour, please show. Those are gains, please show absentions, one outcome, two abstention. So the recommendation for refusal of the application is five, two against refusal, two abstention. Therefore, the application is refused. Thank you very much. Not that I've entered it. We have a break, or I've been as pleased. Thank you. [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence]