Transcript

There are obviously lots of people who are present, and I ask you please to just respect people while they're speaking, that's a no-membering of colleagues or side conversations, because we need to follow the problem here, and then just kind of ask people, give other people in respect if you accept them. We're not expecting a fire drill today, and can't please make sure that it's obviously clear that people who are actually going to have any. So if there are simply long sounds, please use one of these to do exits, and we'll leave that side in the hour. The meeting will be recorded, and they're not loaded to YouTube following the meeting, so if there's only one present yet, so everyone should be aware that they may be picked up on the microphone, they may be on camera as well as so if you haven't even heard about that, please let us know. Okay, can you please switch your phones to the side, the duration we need to. I'll announce the agenda item or which agenda item we're on, and then the planning box that will introduce the applications of any residents' updates and provide visual presentation to other things that are starting to participate. I'll then follow the speakers through this, to present in accordance with the positive speaker engagement, the clarity you have three minutes, I'll stop you with three minutes. I'll then ask members and officers if they're having points of clarification or points raised by any public speakers, and then I'll ask members if they're having technical questions about this. The entire meeting will then debate the communication. Members basically does the clarification on particular points from officers, one place that is in the bank, through the officer will respond to additional questions as appropriate, and then the committee will make a decision prior to that. So the first item on the agenda is apologies. We have apologies from Councillor or my question on the Council to check the snout. Thank you. Apologies from Councillor Tom Power, who I believe will be attending online. Thank you very much. Can I at this point seek point of clarification, please, on committee membership? Yes, or? I've sent you an email informing you, well, it's a copy of correspondence between David, Bob, the gill, the leader and David Clark, because Councillor Steve Ashton, as you know, left the Conservative group, and David, Bob, the gill, wrote to the monitoring officer, and you're trying to be informing them of that. Okay, I'll stop you with that for you. I was on the way with that correspondence. I'm on it kind of to be responsible for the correspondence, but it's not within this committee to the board members. Thank you. I just thought I would raise it to your attention, so you're more aware, Chairman, as it's probably in the public interest as well. Okay, the second item on the agenda is the minutes from the previous meeting, which you have within your package, is it your which sign is the true record of previous meetings? Thank you. Are there any considerations of interest under the leave once we're already on the public report? I bet you've got anyone registered to ask me if you've got any questions on the board. So the item five, the planning application, 23, those three, 015, and it's the session 73 application. That was a really intense switch. Thank you for that, too. Thank you, Chair. This afternoon we are considering the section 73 application to vary to the requirements of the condition pen, but the outline approval was the inspector imposed in 2018. It's not He should make under sections of '73, the Town and Coaching Planning Act, to vary in addition to the previous headline planning of pre-war, and to vary submission of the final details required to discharge from addition to as well as amend it with detailed requirements for off-site pedestrian works on the high street, which were previously imposed by the inspector and to part three. Members and residents will recall that the original design, including a traffic light control, to single-carriage way and the construction and the payment, along the lake of the high street, has been trained to be unworkable in technical details at the detailed off-dip stage, and therefore developers will continue to work with the high-way liability to find a suitable alternative. This site shows the application site as the day-run permission was approved in 2017, along with an indication of when the original pedestrian improvements along the high street were anticipated to be under condition 10. You can see to the south of the site the boundary with Dorset Authority and about the further kilometer to the south of this is the village of Stawbridge. Since the report was written, we have had additional correspondence received in the department. We have had a letter compared to a carriage pencil on the amended plans, who have confirmed that the amended plans do not address their previous concerns, and therefore that they still recommend that the application should be refused. In addition, since the report is prepared, we have 33 additional letters of objection, which have been received up to 9 o'clock this morning, please do not raise any additional points from those already raised within the committee report. Please also be aware that there was a typing error on condition one of the proposed draft conditions in the officer report, which refers to the date that development should be begun, and this should read 19th of May 2022, rather than 2024. Okay. We'll do just like these slides to hear. So this is just to refresh. And residents, what residents in a short pencil is memory about the high street in hanstrut and the situation we have the historic buildings looking both safe and north, which demonstrates the lack of payments and many sections, as well as the narrow sections of high street. This is looking safe. Okay. Oh. This plan, which shows the original area for pedestrian improvements as required by the planning inspector, when you determine to appeal in 2018, as well as the additional secondary that the inspector identified as a potential for use by pedestrians along the third lane. So there is a road road and church street, which will go in top of the most directly between points on the high street did provide an alternative reason. As the screen as the map shows, we have the original area where I should be where the proposed works have been focused, but now it show also shows the potential location for. It has already been conditioned in terms of tactile paving and additional signage. The two areas of proposed work to improve pedestrian safety can be divided into two main areas, the first box and traded around the high street, where an installation of the 20 miles per hour of the prescription. Delignated by block paving making the end, which will emphasize changing road spoons and relevant road signage. These two road. These two lines will be at the northern end and at the southern end with the junction with marshaling. A further in a block paving strip is to be installed to act as a rumble strip or further emphasize changing road speed in the middle of the high street as well. And this is the area of the north, where the bottom of map, you just see the church street everything. The introduction of the 20 mile an hour of speed limit will also enable the creation of a single carriage way, which will be controlled through signage, rather than as previously proposed traffic lights or yellow boxes. This will enable a proposed build out when prioritizing to begin to traffic driving safe to north. The proposed build, I will also enable a wider area of pedestrian pathway, not raised pavement, but pathway to be provided in front of people cottage. In addition to the works along the high street, the developers have also worked with the high rate authority to provide some additional works along that second group, which was identified by the inspector, along the first grave would hate road and church street. And as well as the areas of tactile painting that required by condition 10 point one, the developers also suggested works, including speed reduction, granite features in linked into the road and highlight narrower carriage ways. They recommended that a section of pavement opposite the allotments will also be extended for further pavement for the pedestrians and street lighting along a section of pathway between church street and. So Nicholas close to naval war people to use that particular pathway. On the judge in the church streets and high street they're also proposing to take one section, no entry, so that the most part is the exit from church street, or the sudden most part is an entry into church street. That's shown here. As I mentioned, the committee report, the principle of development has already been established and cannot be taken away at this stage. So the key consideration in this application is high rate safety and whether proposed will drive into details do provide an increase. And you're on the high street, and therefore whether the changes should be agreed. Thank you. First speaker down is Deborah. I have two points. Firstly and most importantly I quote from the UK for such flexible options planning commissions paragraph 14, which states clearly that planning commission cannot be granted under reception 73 to extend time limit in which a development must be started. Further research confirms that the section 73 approval stands a separate planning commission, but it is subject same implementation times. It cannot extend time starting your position. This proposed is a clear violation of the planning process by asking for an extension of time to start the sign before the commission's entry has been satisfied and signed up. This is confirmed within the planning report by her comment that the proposal to extend the time period for compliance with condition 10, to enable us to choose on the commission can achieve, rather than lose the commission commission is reasonable. This was a clear fundamental change against the inspector's decision, and the applicants have had six years by which to comply with this very valid condition of safety. It is not reasonable. It is in fact illegal, and will be open to judicial review. Members should deny for this by making their decision. The inspector in these reports is that there's clear justification for applying the condition of safety, and then it was fundamental to the development in setting without it, it would have been necessary to refuse the application, because it failed to pass both the national planning policy claim back and the local plan for CTA 5 to in terms of its sustainability in providing a safe and secure access for all to the local facilities. Contrary to the planning officer's report, the grounds of safety for pedestrians must remain the key consideration in terms of the plan process, as we've left it into a comment. She inspected a specific and by the use of words, no development shall take place until further researching the case that this is considered to be in true condition precedent, going right to the heart of the commission. It's important to note here that when the applicants purchased the land, they would have been made believe aware of the decision that came with it and the attached conditions. In summary, what they are seeking to do should absolutely not be allowed. They've been trying to find ways to fulfill pedestrian safety conditions since 2018 and none has been found. I therefore ask that you reject this application in its entirety for the reasons I've given. Thank you very much. The second speaker I have. My name is Barry. I've registered and disabled, and I need that the various part of the high speech and the page point. And this, this thing is possible for the developer has not addressed the concern which I spoke about at the last meeting, but the views were taken seriously and assisted in any outcome. This is proposed already take place for entry drivers give where but the way I need it. However, my favorite thing witness Lori is coming from opposite directions, trying to squeeze through a gap to narrow with another one wants to give way. This needs to available or traffic behind and eventually one of them has to try to refer so long with whatever vehicle they're behind. Those are common signs since they do not have a clear view of the road. Our house street in the narrow appropriate and multiple driveways leading to groups of setback houses. The main difference is the creation of payments and barrier to give priority system outside my house. Of course, this makes more problems than it solves. This is quite an expected when we are on the road swings towards you as it turns. It will create very dangerous creation for pedestrians on such a narrow path of road. Teachers can do guests that I so I use oil and water heating. When I always delivered, the lorries have to stop in the road, the new front cross those lanes have reversed along the driveway, which is next to my neighbor's house. Who to live has come to my front door, so it's very important that I have a parking area outside my house for this, and also to offer shopping and to load on an unload time walk up. We have to get necessary items and some of our does, and medications, etc. The decision of the proposed violence as a big point means that I will not be able to pop my car where I don't do this. I was fed idling in the high street on either side of my house. This will increase dangerous air at the low pollution by over government, the lead to an increase on my breathing problems. I have already had to move right downstairs on due to recovery going home. I have a letter from my doctor stating a quote. He said, Paul, what Mrs. Frith, I'm going to give you a sentence. I brought you a life that she is able to pluck first to her home, and I will be hopeful. This could be taken into consideration. I heard the council to actually implement this game, which would cause a decrease in my level of safety. Being in charge. Thank you. Thank you very much. The third speaker is Susan Sordelen. Thank you. Thank you. I did the way that he can't talk to us. There are no footpath in front, and the developer stated they cannot provide new pavement at this section of the high street. This corner of the crossroads has very poor visibility to the right, when emerging from further laying on to the high street. So, safe. Should the proposed scheme be implemented, the tailback of vehicles from a priority point would lead to even worse lifelines in either direction and serious and increased danger. Outcomes are struck by vehicles on a regular basis. By failing to provide a footpath coupled with the proposed installation of the priority system, commencing at the funeral parlor, unacceptable danger is created, which is in direct comprehension at sections 1 1 5 and 1 1 6 at the National Planning Policy Framework. During my morning drive, I'm half pedestrians, including parents with lots of little children walking in the center of Birch Grove Church name. Rules 205 to 208 highway code state. Schools should allow at least two metres of space, while overtaking the pedestrian walking in the road. The developer suggests that adding eight metres of pavement and road huntsets is adequate. The blind, disabled and parents pushing back these works, holding hands for children, will find it a serious danger for the surface as identified in the road safely ordered. This is clearly not an acceptable solution under T85, the local plan. Section 1 and 1 of the NPPF that we should anticipate from the direct possible malicious threats and natural hazards. The footpath referred to in the plans, making church name that the peninsula and field is completely shielded from view, having six foot benefits is a horse on either side of dangerously steep and narrow path with no handrails. And the water near the drop to the river which passes beneath. Again, that effective footrails or groundrails are very unsafe. The part of naming clients in a similar fashion towards the slumpest place is state. Most women do not and will not use it out of fear. You wouldn't want your children or teenagers to congregate there and it could easily become an area for crime. The department of transport wants the ability of publication, suggested reading for local authorities and highways departments, goes into great detail about the design of public areas for them to be accessible to all. They state maximum radiance should never be more than one in 10 due to toppling risks and physical effort required by a wheelchair user. Hence, you should just reach traffic funding capacity through roads never designed for preventable vehicles. Council resources have been needed to spend during these six years as this developer has continued their efforts trying to put a square peg into a round hole. It's time to start. Thank you. Thank you very much. The fourth speaker is Mr Keith Walls ahead. My name is Keith Walls. I hope the committee has an idea of institutionalization for at least taking advantage of all these videos that we've been providing. We have provided a realistic photograph, not the one shown. One objection is the letter proposal is that it fails on safety that the developer is about six years to achieve. For 33 years, I've been a coach driver and H.G.B. class one driver and have driven me most of Britain and Europe. I've made you concerns over this scheme. I live in the village and see issues faced as a driver and a pedestrian. The effects be of my family. My experience by coming on this beautiful town scheme and present in future for those who can save the game. The proposal is South Bank commercial vehicle negotiated the congestion as they run the bent and enter the house. And approach a proposed holding point and new design. This is a mark on the road that is assigned which is impossible to enforce. A site of the focusing traffic is impossible to prove. I believe the driver will get to this point. And if it looks clear, a few times changers have not even stopped. Local large steel bodies, agriculture machines, and car transport with free ground is rude. And the measure of 18 metres long, excluding hanging over loads. And emotionally, two point by four metres wide plus their mirrors. So two H.B. H.G.B.s equals 5.1 metres. Important to remember this measure now. The road at this point is 5.5 metres wide, just enough to large vehicles to cautiously pass. From the hill point, there is no visibility past the bend in the highest community. The deal would be worse than the many far-end left hand drive of games, so it also passes through. The holding point and including the proposed pedestrian pathway and bollards, the road reduces to only four metres. Once moving from the hill point, the drive is then committed, but there's no idea of what's coming. Large vehicles would be able to pass, not able-class England trucks, delivering heat gear, food, rubbish collection, ambulances for other emergency services. The drive would need to keep very tight to the near side and sip the pedestrians and bollards to be able to pass a task. If a commercial vehicle does appear, the nearest point to pass is around the bend in the corner, which the northbound driver had already passed. So reversing is essential for someone. If moving pedestrians, protected houses, cyclists, and bollards are going down. It'll be a tremendous shift, frustration, noise and pollution from the station with vehicles, and severe danger risk for pedestrians going down. There was two trips first that eventually passed one another, a round run that appeared around the back lanes, which is narrow in pavement, vest, a single track, and places on dangerous things, with school kids, parents and parents and dog horses. The bollards would require regular placement as vehicle damage and trying to pass. People's property would be damaged without probably knowing who caused it, that everyone will have to pass a whole basic entity for traffic, people to do with them, and ask me to do it all. It might be interesting, it will never work, but people are leaving all risk. I just needed to reject requests that had six years to achieve that. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. There's been safety and traffic management to have been a problem to this large development in their ability. Highways, full analysis, has always been after, not before fundamental decisions have been laid. The high speed pinch point proposal allows the best in 1.2 to the footway. Two meters is recommended, which allows all types of pedestrians to pass one another without stepping into the road. Attention to this, this book is stepping into the road, it's part of my deal. Why propose this anyway? The distance can be left high and dry at this point without any further footway, and while most day it was planned for high speed, they will continue to avoid it. To be improved, he met once everyone used for high speed raised paid speed. That plan for six years ago was a ban on his own work. The planning statement mentions low speeds on the back of the lane. Proposed traffic farming devices are not needed, and might actually reflect driver's attention. This is a pedestrian. Developer's ploy to suggest something is being done. The extra payments are willing, but they are not at the dangerous parts of this route, where there are three 90 degree blind beds, and notable families to get out of the way of traffic quickly. Church Street has no beds, two narrow, in the two way traffic and non-safe. The latest plans offer minimal extra pedestrian protection, but will produce significantly increased stress on 130 houses. This will worsen the risk for the desert, including the estimated 42 expectations. There is no evidence that the narrower high speed system will benefit traffic flow. Time will worsen. The back lane will be used as a red one to avoid an increased high speed congestion. Highways recent statement did not support these proposals, and quite correctly wanted more information. When highways examined the plan, they will know what the tracking work assumptions are based on lor is 16 and a half meters long. But 80 meters is allowed, and even 20 meters, agricultural vehicles, and steel low loads. We are surrounded by farms, and the price of price, and we have two steel guards. That is our suggestion condition would be granted all over again. Council was refusing six years ago, and the good reason haven't changed. An appealing spectra, then and now, with the full facts, would not recommend 130 houses at this site. The appeal condition has not been met. It has not been sent to TA via policy. The developers must not be allowed to rewrite an appeal condition, and start work, just because then permission is expired. Please refuse this proposal. Thank you for hearing us all. Thank you. We now have a council of king Courtney, who represents the history of area council. I have no chairman and castles. In the south, so I'm going to set the local plan. Hence, which is a rural settlement housing development. Sorry. In the south, some set local plan history is a rural settlement. Housing development in rural settlements is limited to that, which meets identified local needs. But 130 houses development does not occur with policies, SS one, SS two, SS five, and TA five of the plan. At the 2018 appeal, South Somerset's failure to achieve a five year housing land supply, tilted the balance towards a presumption in favor of sustainable development. But the national planning policy framework states that commission should not be granted. If adverse impacts of doing so was significantly outweigh the benefits. The decision states that South Somerset district council and the applicant have reached agreement on highway safety measures, which included a footpath along the whole of the high street. Your officers report quotes on the decision that this would be necessary in the interest of highway safety and accessibility. Some set of highways authority has stated that the inspector made his decision on the back of flawed information. If he wasn't wearing this, we do not believe that he would have granted the appeal. We cannot accept that improvement for half the length of the high street needs to be appealed to decision requirements. Road users and residents, which still face significant danger traveling from south to north village. If the present and. The future residents of hensdridge cannot safely access village facilities by cycle and one foot. The development of hunting party houses would not be sustainable and therefore fails the requirement of the national planning policy framework. We do not agree that the scheme proposed by this application for first growth and church street without effectively discouraging vehicular through traffic. Provides an acceptable alternative safe route. Particularly for children. The narrow roads with inadequate footpaths blind bends and narrow pitch points in the face of increasing traffic volumes do not provide a safe environment. This housing this large housing development was imposed on us by the 2018 appeal. We will have to believe that the unsafe pedestrian situation in our high street. Would be addressed as the condition. Head Street parish council strongly recommend. This section 73 application is refused. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much for allowing me to address the committee to say. Yeah, well, there is a whole culture and president to get a speak on this application. And if the time and number work restricted, you would have had a lot more. You can see by the room. These are residents who have major concerns about the future of the safety of their community. These concerns are not really speculative. They are grounded in fact and with an acute understanding of the implications for our community for being. Taking that footpath proposed in the plans, making church safe with direct creation around the village hall. As mentioned by Susan, this path presents numerous safety hazards. State gradients, lack of handrails and inadequate visibility and significant risk to pedestrians, particularly those with mobility impairments and children. Low parents and contacted me to speak of their concern over this proposed route. This directly contributes the NP-PFS emphasis on creating accessible and safe transfer that works for all members of society. Furthermore, as you heard from Mary, the proposed traffic management system raises concerns about increased idling times for vehicles in the high streets. This not only contributes to elevated levels of noise and air pollution, but also again the undermines pedestrian safety. The very scheme that is meant to be designed to enhance safety will actually render the high street less safe, not more. The proposed scheme will increase pipelines for large vehicles, as you will have heard from Keith and Adrian. At the very least, this will cause damage to all arts and properties, which in turn will place financial burdens on the council for the removal of those. And again, this is a compromise on safety. I will also note that the photos that the committee was showing show no traffic at all, which is absolutely not accurate representation of travelling through Henstra twice streets. As per Deborah's comments, there is concern that failure to fulfill the appeal conditions in compliance with local planning policies undermines the integrity of the development process. We should not be allowed to be right in appeal condition and for the development to start, just because the planning commission will expire. Things must be done properly or not at all. Ken, speaking on behalf of the parish council, right, you noted that part of the original, the original, the peer decision states that the agreement on highway safety measures included, but along with a full of the high streets, improvements, but only half the length of the high street. Just quite simply do not meet these original requirements. It is therefore entered the proposed development for short of the standard set out by the MPP and our local planning policies. Safety concerns an adequate infrastructure and concern regarding planning procedures underscored and needed a thorough reassessment. We cannot compromise the safety of wellbeing of our community, just for the safety experience. Thank you for your attention, my consideration. Thank you very much. Thank you for keeping the time. The final person to speak on this is, I'm going to respond certainly to the accident. I'm going to make the way to my. Questions members, my name is Andrew, my name is in the rights of the fact, sorry, I've got to speak to my. I'm sorry. Thank you. My name is Andrew, my name is Andrew, my name is in the rights of the fact that I'm here on behalf of David Wilson homes to discuss this submitted section 33 application for our consent to times in landing. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Right, and I'm not certain as to exactly where the heating oil tanks are down there. But the build out itself is not a huge sort of construction through there. It's of limited size. So I presume the pipes for the heating oil vehicles would still be able to stretch. That's a lot less. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've now heard three solutions trying to deal with a road, which is too narrow to put two lorries past each other in the center of this village. I wish to ask Adam exactly how he intends to get two lorries past each other in the middle of this village. Well, this is, as we've said before, the taking it down to a single lane and having priority flow sections with signage. Any vehicle approaching those is instructed by the signage and the lining on the roads. If vehicles are approaching, one of them will have priority. And you enter the environment of having that sort of tidal flow. And therefore you only get one vehicle trying to go through the narrow section rather than existing, which is, as, as. The Councillor, House rightly points out, is the two vehicles approaching each other when the scheme is in place. You will only have one vehicle trying to go through it any one time. And all I can do committee members is repeat. We have undertaken a road safety audit on this matter. And there were no problems envisaged. Thank you. Thank you, but let's go back to the beginning, shall we? And I don't have a question, which is on question, please. I don't want to level all speech. You're not going to get a normal speech on this occasion. But if the highway's officer realized that the implementation of that condition was unsanomed, why was nothing said at the time? Because it could have been you just should have quashed. Because one of the six conditions, as we all know, is it's got to be doable? It's got to be enforceable. It's got to be like six conditions. This clearly did. You heard our very own highway's officer say it was unsanned and gave a whole plethora of reasons why it was unsanned. Why was it not quashed at the time? And this would be happening. I'm just thinking, John, do you think that's it? You're very great. It's a difficult one to answer because nobody who's involved in the application at the time is in the building or in the authority. So the rationale between discussions between the high authority and the case officers at the time are all available to us. The point is nobody did challenge it. The decision was issued. It's beyond judicial review period and we are. And it wasn't this ability that took the decision that way. It wasn't it was the secretary's sake. So it would have been going to call it. It was an appeal decision. It would be open to either of the then councils, if they had so chosen to see what judicial review. But as I said, it took the speculation now as to what review was given to that decision and that. So it's going to be looking at some of these issues by pins. So if you have your answer, I don't want to hear anything further on that particular angle. Do we have any other techniques? I've got one which is could you please remind us of the test against which the conditions. The paragraph 73 two says that when considering section 73 application, the local authority should only consider the question of whether the condition subject to which plan and permission should be going to. If they decide should be granted subject to the revised conditions, then they should, then they should, then they should run a planning commission. If they decide planning the mission should not be granted subject to the same conditions, then they should simply refuse. It wasn't quite the question. That's the process. My recommendation is previous treatments, have we included words such as the condition must have ceased its planning purpose, for example. That ring about. That's more to do with section 106, that you've been only discharged if they cease to have a plan purpose. With conditions, there is a reality with planning conditions that there will be many ways to discharge a planning condition. Again, you need to think that this is a process that exists to allow the alterations at any time, if not any permission, not the issue we're simply focusing on now. So there are many alternative solutions that can be brought forward to amend a planning commission where what relates to suns or landscape and materials. We're simply dealing with one which is going to bring technical background to that, but the flexibility is there to come forward alternative solution. What it allows us to do is say, would the scheme be acceptable, but this alternative in the same way that the original solution would be accepted. Can't take me back to the inspector's report of the wording that he used. My reading of that was that he saw face specific purpose of imposing the condition in the way that which was that he required that the priority we satisfied with the proposed scheme. Prior to discharge, but the condition that he heard for some reason, well, usually deliberately set the step of saying no, that should happen on sites until that condition was discharged. And it seems to me that he was very clear after a purpose, which is to make sure that there was a feasible and legal scheme. Even though he did not have a particular scheme which didn't have the right to go back to me. I can see the office says we should be seeking to find a statement, if there is one of them. But there's a separate issue of that the scheme should be approved by Harvard's authority, prior to commencement of works on site. And we have that issue because as well. Is it also your read, the inspector had intended that the no one should take place on site and until a feasible scheme had our ability to room. The original condition and ten does state that the development shall take place into a scheme for pedestrian improvement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local authority. And that's why the seeking have changed that to allow certain amount of works. Before submitting the details for approval. So the details will still need to be submitted before the whole development is commenced, but they're asking for the initial site clearance and initial language of the access on the good house road. Do we normally, as an authority, impose such a tight condition that there's no start on site, unless we were taught before the, how this authority has agreed the external works because it seems to me. This is the little work letting the horse out into the field. Once he's made a start, the permission is locked in. So, as well as that, it's locked in and the mission, which rather changes the balance of power as soon as the planning goes in the developer in terms of negotiations. Is it our normal practice to allow any start on site is very well matters, such as the offset her ways to. I mean, the tests that applying precedent conditions are that, in your view, there's no alternative trigger that would be appropriate. And that we usually come down to issues, including safety, but also things that could not be subsequently result. So, for instance, inside doing archeological evaluations require you to be doing that before you start putting in foundation so it's a condition precedent and tree protection, or similarly is one that could come forward to that. So, it is, it is not unusual to see this all forward as a condition precedent. For me, if somebody has said to the inspection at the time, what about the construction of a junction for the lay out of an access would that be acceptable. It is, they are treatments that are used quite often these days because we are discouraged from applying too many condition presidents. There are lots of conditions now that will talk about foundations, so that they are not stopping development. So, there's a sort of a mindset within D look around, you know, you don't need development rather than stopping it so the condition precedent is there for both of those things that you couldn't retrofit or those things that goes to the heart of the consent. So, it is, is perfectly legitimate, but that doesn't mean that if you look at the submission they've made about a limited amount of work. If you can't find that that would have caused a severe residual harm on the highway, which is the highway test. The question is actually what is your rationale for saying we move the trigger by what could be, you know, a month's worth work or two weeks worth of work in reality, compared to the known, known commencement of anything. And then you've got with that trigger because the trigger is moving it by the scheme of development and very small margin, but it is moving away from implementation on the points you make about the balance power. I think that will be discounted because they still have to discharge the condition, and there will still be an enforcement power to say you haven't discharged the condition, and therefore we have the ability to serve which condition notices on the developers. And in terms of social acquiring houses, you have that issue that condition is not being discharged and there's also a gap in the back of the mind. So bottom line is they are there all things like highways, whether it's a safety issue underlying it, but that doesn't preclude you. And considering an alternative trigger, if you consider that actually, there is no severe residual harm, which is the test that Adam has to apply. I'm assuming castle or that's an additional question exactly Mr Chairman, and wish to remind the chief planning on the circle fox is wrong, where the failures carry out condition allowed fox is wrong to be commenced. The main thing will apply to this, if that condition stays in place, this planning application will fall. And there is a fundamental point here about the condition that the inspector put on, and the date that the planning of the developer should have started this, and hasn't so he's in trouble, and he's now trying to get rid of the condition or the layback condition. And you explain why that's not a major consideration. The planning authorities position is not to do this out at all costs to stop development. So if the home authority are happy with the change to be treated with the condition, we will see no reason to run counter to that because as I said, it's not our position that we are anti this development. We are providing impartial advice to the committee recognises an unpopular case, but that is not actually a planning test. And can't construct that ignore that, it seems to me from the office's report, the house ability will be happy with the scheme which is actually proposed, and that why isn't an agreement in place does discharging condition said that the appeal conditions. The conditions that there are three conditional submissions that are in front of, or we have consulted our highways colleagues, I understand that we're sitting awaiting their formal response on those. There are legal judgments around implementing something which is approved as a discharge of condition after the event. We haven't reached that point yet but legal tests that cover that point as well. But I'm sorry about that. My understanding was that there were a number of things in the in the condition which is sought to be buried by this application, which actually required. We've heard a price from the house officer that they're not disagreeing on to the road changes why is not an agreement in place does obviously need for this session so to say it. You're right that the highways authority have agreed with the revised skill, but because the revised scheme doesn't match the wording of the condition. We have to look at changing the wording and the formal requirements of the condition first, because the scheme that they are proposing doesn't match the wording of the condition. So, if we were to agree that changes of wording, which is removing the specification the classified system and currently six, because we're now being advised. And, if it's in a position to agree, the broad trust of the present, and why is the other part of the application necessary. It may not be entirely necessary if the change to the wording of condition is agreed as well. We think therefore discharge the condition very quickly. The applicants will also need to have their technical over as well and to disseminate the volumes. So, we've been meeting the technical aspects and perspectives required this in terms of the threshold. And, if we were to actually maintain the existing threshold and change the test so that it's to the agreed on harvest policy. That's actually has the same effect. So, there is actually the effects of creating and a development of the mission and the activity, if we change the test on the threshold. So, it's whether or not this can be done in the station. Yes, by and over the extension to the trigger point, it allows the necessary people, the necessary paperwork to be completed from the highways authority side. Thank you so much. Sorry, just a little point. Condition 0 aid, no developed balance. And then it goes into practice. Faithful works in respect to clearance, laying out and dealing works as shown on plan. That seems to be the exception to no development shall take place until the scheme of pedestrian approach etc. That clause remains, don't do the works that are listed here and clear that's laying out and digging works are shown on those plans. Would that then constitute a technical start, which would then mean that the planet becomes expanding in perpetuity. Yes. Can I have the follow up? Are there any parts of that which do not constitute. This is a matter of consideration, but I would suggest that the potential of clearance sites will not be made. Afterwards, the entertain them and possibly laying out as well. It's not huge. [inaudible] [inaudible] Just to clarify and to confirm. So if condition eight was to remain. As stated, my screen has decided it wants to update. Then we would be agreeing the technical start on this development, which means that that planning would become extinct and therefore in perpetuity. That's all we've got to do. No, you would be agreeing a level of work that would be able to be undertaken before. They could submit the details. So if they got beyond that work that was stated in the condition, and it's still not submitted. Those details have been approved, then they would be in breach of condition. [inaudible] The first condition requires that they do nothing on site. Prior to having back condition formally discharged by the local 5 team. If the committee were to accept the condition as proposed, they would be able to do work. So they would be able to do work to respect and clearance laying out and digging for the work shown on that floor room in relation to the access and no more. Before they submitted and how to prove those details in writing. [inaudible] The trigger point of the condition, the actions are seeking to change. The trigger point is currently that no development at all will commence on site. They are asking that the trigger point becomes that is after a certain amount of work as shown on that drawing. So they can do the work shown on the floor room and no more prior to having the information discharged by condition. Okay, I'm trying to ask this question in the way that the department being there. The day after the state. If they have cleared and printed an entrance. And that it was still not reached the point of agreement with the highest quality authority that allows you to discharge the condition. Have they had found it mission on the site. And I think that's why I mentioned that there are certain legal tests that are applied there being run through the high fourth. So, if the applicant has additional submissions in front of the house authority, which those are probably happy with or possibly happy with, but they have this. And it goes on site and undertakes works to implement that scheme at that point in time. They don't have a set because they don't have additional proof. However, we at the house authority are tasked at determining those applications, regardless of whether the consent is tied or not. And if we've got to prove the route retrospentively effectively approved, that's solved on site. I think the point that Council was making is that the issue with condition eight is it allows for a start to happen. So yes, you're right. And that's the commission. It then requires a stop until the works are consented. So it doesn't allow the development to proceed. I'm hindered, but it does allow the implementation bit which fixes the mission. So I'm in plain English Chairman, it is indeed a technical stop. In which case, I don't know how the committee is going to go on, but would it not make sense to remove the bracketed wording. We take out safe for work, seem respected clearly, but that is taken out. Then there is no doubt. And if an eight reads, no development shall take place on terms of schemes of pedestrian improvements, etc, has been submitted. We take that out for the avoidance of doubt. We're doing that. Is it possible to do that? Is it within the duties we made to part, part should be approved for the next week? But we need to put it on the last day. No. In essence, if you take that out, you're taking away the implementation of the opportunity. And it shouldn't really be in this Council's view that it's an objective to take away the ability to implement a scheme. So you'd have to explain why pieces of work to deliver those, or the work required to deliver those. Parents laying out now, is actually all this self unacceptable. I think that's the test. Okay. Okay, that case, I think I'm going to move to the debate on this matter. I think that's the most important thing I'm telling this up. Why not. The reason I've asked a lot of questions is because I find it extremely troubling. I find it troubling that an inspector have the power to send this Council and its communities with a clause that is unreasonable, unworkable, unenforceable. Unenforceable and all the other items. And we are all left to pick up the vids and pop up the mess, because no one spotted it within 42 days. The opportunity for a judicial review was lost, even if the Council took it somewhere to judicial review to actually push the condition because just don't go to work. One of the things about conditions being acceptable, I must also be implementable. And if they are not, and they are required to make the development unacceptable, which in this case was why this condition was imposed, if it cannot be met, then the application should be refused. The inspector should have refused it in the first place, and they should be all sitting here today, trying to mop up what is essentially an early mess. It's a mess for this Council. It's a mess for residents, and it's also, dare I say it, a mess for the developer. I'm afraid that the solution proposed just not to convince me, I think they'll go from one set of problems to another, the fundamental problem remains. You haven't consulted the police on the 20 miles an hour, so there's no chance that that will go in force. So who the hell is going to enforce it? No one knows practically, there hasn't been any modelling on how this voluntary, right-of-way scheme is going to work. What happens if two vehicles get it wrong and meet in the middle? There's only one model, the impact of the rat running on those side runs, because it won't just be pedestrians using them to avoid the high street. When there's the block, people switch on their sand nuts, and they will use the back roads as a rat runs, which will increase the risk to the residents of those side streets. Has that been taken into account? I don't see anything in this report that shows that it does. Need I say more, but I would propose that we refuse this application based on the original terms that we refuse the first one. This takes us no further forward, it makes no progress. And that is all you need, and that is all you need to say, and that is all you need to say fundamentally, the risk to remain pedestrians, the risk to relate to the rights of those people that already live on that high street, because there isn't any payment, and their front doors go on there. The impact on the residential community, the future and existing developers, because of the unintended consequences of what this could bring. So I proposed challenge that we refuse this application, mainly on the terms we refuse the last one, that it isn't workable, but there's no letting us that it will improve pedestrian safety whatsoever. In fact, there is a risk with the increased traffic coming through, coming on that road through the increased development and storage, and no consultation with the next door, it could actually make it worse. I'm afraid, in all conscience, I cannot support this. I'd like to second that, on the final point, because Councilor May was that this day has not improved what we turned down last time, is no improved whatever as far as I can see, to the basic points, which we refuse this. So I would second the refusal on the same reason as quoted by Councilors for again. And I think we just gave the reason with the same reason last time. If you can read it, well, if you've been like the officer to read it out to us, the refusal last time, then we can agree. Could I just perhaps suggest that we say that it would not improve the traffic situation within the village, and that you have, I think that's a similar last time, so it wouldn't have to boost the wordy. And it's just not going to improve it, which is what the inspectors require. I'm not going to share. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I've found it agreed with what's been said already. I've been looking at this since 2017. I honestly don't understand how you are going for all houses in this village with the traffic problem. All I certainly there's a member or number of members of the 356 society, which are the people that have been looking at this road for years and years and years. That's the kind of thing you want to contribute. Nothing really chair, I think Council whole house has said a lot of it is we've been seeing this come through this itself and many many years and. It's a pinch point itself. I know the road and. I've got to say this about this, the disabled and disabled people walking along at the first time it's good, but a person sometimes they said care rep, which makes two people on one of the answer. Sorry. So the question we would go to the beginning is whether it increases public safety, so I wrote this down, and this is what the notes have been based around. No, I don't think it does increase public safety. My papers claim state that is accepted that this is not a perfect solution. I don't think that's going to be about the solution here. I recommend the members of public what lovely area you live in, and I think that anybody living in your area would be welcome and be part of a massive community. And I love seeing you there. So thank you for coming. So, today I will be putting the health and safety, the public safety as the residents before for the decision, and I will be able to be in the council more. That's the version. Yeah, I think for the comments on it earlier, I don't think you're changing in my last issue, other than instead of boxes, we're going to have very direct with. The signage. I don't see how this is a group of the, the safety for able in the village, that's all. Okay. So, for my point, thank you everyone for coming along, particularly for those of you who spoke out and spoke so perfectly and briefly on the subways. I went out to my segment site visit today, and I can usually understand the issues of being encouraged ways, and to say, I agree with colleagues, but this is not a significant. Step forward, in terms of public safety, it is, in my view, a slight step for a very, very slight. And certainly doesn't measure up to magnitude of the test played out by the inspector in the individual approval for his traffic night scheme, which was the, this would look sort of. I think that's not the case from the I just think this does deliver the safety wish for me. You're, you're, you sell this for the residents to be a new estate that he has. I'm also concerned that the, the form of the city. So, through in this mean hybridized, to allow that to be attacked itself when you have developed this happen. It's in which to achieve what a solution here does itself says something. I am fairly certain they could be a solution. I don't think this is it, but I don't think it, I think it will increase the congestion and footage over the present. I think the other ones, it goes out. And I don't, that's changed for me from the reason one, the last time this was before us. I think reason to tell you about the other book system and I didn't think this. But I think that was gone away. So, I should have possibly stated that the yellow box calls comes out because it's obviously, but the rest of it fundamentally remains. And can we be clear that in the event of committee supports my recommendation that it, that also the clause in condition eight also falls so we don't get a technical start through the back door. And then just in person, first thing is that, you know, the the original highway's best. But then got realized that could be approved. I can understand in Taiwan, how is authority is it's now going to accept a woman to meet her in the area. There are very, very few for its payments and the current standards. It is very much the exception rather than the rule. As I know, it's driving out there and back again today. And people need to find out. I've heard much said about the pedestrian access through the village. I quite enjoyed it. I'd like to say I did. I think one vehicle came fast. And there are some ways which don't have short ways, but there are equally very, very short distances to ensure that we're now laying down by the church. I don't see that's a big issue. There's somebody who will put a child on the side using that as the ultimate degree in my view. It would be most of us. And that motion would be so rude is to actually. I'm sorry. I bought it myself. And if you build that, there's not a road. It's going to drop. And you can't afford to bring drivers. That's not a plan. So I think we have to propose it before us. Yeah. I can just mention something. I think that's what I just mentioned about changing condition eight. But we can't do you or you can't do that. And you're only here to determine the variation on condition 10. I'm sorry to say that's understanding what she said, although it's mentioned. I think it was in the case of frustration. So you really have to just accept. You've approved it for rejected and rejected the reasons. And I believe people said the reasons are as per the reason one of the previous decision. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So we have a. Just for clarity. We're going to take it and all those sites. The previous refusal is a number one was that the proposal would lead to increase congestion within the village. There's ultimately conflict between larger vehicles and between vehicles and pedestrians, which would not improve the overall pedestrian safety. Would fail to secure inclusive safe and convenient access on foot cycle and by public and private transport. That addresses the needs for all and would not maximize the potential for sustainable transport. As such, the proposal will be contrary to policy team A5 of the sites and set local plan and relevant guidance within the MPP F to promote sustainable transport in particular paragraphs one one two and one one. Sorry, one one one and one one two. Okay. I believe that has been properly proposed in the second period. Yeah. So I have a show of pants of those in favor rejection for that reason. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. And thank you for the same experience. There are some certain assets on the agenda. It does as well. So, I think that's simply the opinions. I think that's very important. Thank you very much. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]