Transcript

Good afternoon, everyone. May I welcome you to Southern Area Planning on Tuesday, November 12th to June 24th. I'd also like to welcome anyone who's listening on live stream. At this point, can I remind you all that this meeting is being recorded and will be available online after the meeting as well. So be careful what you say. A couple of public notices first. There's a fire alarm sound that is too real, so quickly go on to the car park if it sounds. Secondly, could you please make sure all your mobiles are either switched off or on mute, otherwise the meeting gets disturbed. And remember that only those members of the public who have been registered to speak can address the meeting in the whole session. Number of officers here who are attending the meeting and serving the council today. On your right, or my left, is Mr. Howard Bone, who is our legal officer. Next is Caroline Lovelock, who is our senior committee officer. And then on my right, to your left, is Mark Spaincliff, the principal planning officer. Then Mr. Graham Nelson, who is the senior planning officer. And then Katie Savage, over on the far side there, who is the planning assistant. So that's the crew from Test Valley. Right, item 1 is apologies. Are there any apologies, please? I have apologies from Councillor Johnston, Mr. Chairman. Everyone else is here, so that's fine. Thank you. Item 2 is public participation. You will have seen a list already of the members of the public wishing to address the committee. There are two down for one of the items and one for another. All the members of the public who are going to speak, I believe, have been briefed by the officer. Item 3, declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest, please? No, I see none. Thank you. If there are any that occur during the meeting, please have that time. Item 4 is urgent items. Are there any urgent items? There are none, Mr. Chairman. Item 5 are the minutes, or is the minutes, of the previous meeting held on the 21st of May, 2034. Do I have a proposal that they are a correct record, please? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I propose they are a correct record. Thank you, Councillor Durden. Is there a seconder to the motion? Thank you, Councillor Parker. Is anyone against? Anyone for? All those in favour, please show. Anyone against? None. No abstentions. One over there, wasn't there? I was not here, Mr. Chairman. Okay, so one abstention. Thank you very much. Item 6, the information notes. I was here, but I wasn't here. If you believe that they are a correct record, then I'm more than happy to accept your support for the minutes. Obviously, Caterpie didn't print that, but I'm flexible, all right? Okay, since you've already voted, we'll leave it alone. Thanks very much for coming back. Right, item 6 is information notes. These are on pages 22 to 27, and I hope that members are familiar with them, as are the public by now. Item 7, we move on to the planning applications, and item 7 is on page 28, and it's application number 23/01053 Falls, and it's Hilltop Farm in Newton. And it's the continued seasonal change of use from agricultural and former golf course to tourism, and a combination comprised with two of knuckleberry checkers huts and three ancillary huts, et cetera, et cetera. If retrospective, Mr. Nelson is going to do a presentation on this matter. Mr. Nelson, please. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's no updated paper for this item, so we're going to continue straight on to the photograph presentation. Members and members of the public may find that you should turn to pages 46 and 47 of your agenda reports, which are the site land plans. So the first slide I've put in the presentation here is an aerial view with several positions annotated on. So position 1 and 2 are within the application site, broadly in the location of the structures themselves. So I'm going to show you the internal view of the application site, and then as the presentation progresses, we're going to just take a quick tour of the surrounding public right-of-way and highway network. So 3 and 4 of the public right-of-way to the east, 5 and 6 of the positions on Newtown Road itself, and then we're just going to finish at 7 to the south of the site, which is another public right-of-way within the proximity of the application site. I'd also just like to use this slide to correct the draft scenario in the agenda report. So the agenda report refers to the Abridge neighbourhood plan, but actually the parish boundary follows the line of these copse of trees, so the site itself is within Sheffield English parish, not Abridge as I've stated in the agenda report. Some apologies for that, I should have referenced the Sheffield English Abridge plan, not the Abridge one, but the principles in the report still apply in that the Abridge plan hasn't advanced to any significant weighting for tonight's application. So if we move to position 1, so I've just walked to the rear of the property known as Hilltop Farm, and we're looking towards the south at the application site itself, and basically the site is laid out with a collection, your first collection of huts and structures on the left-hand side here, the toilet facilities are located just to the right-hand side underneath this mature tree, and then the huts providing the overnight accommodation are located further to the rear in the background of this particular photograph. So we move further in the field now to have a look at, just back at the first collection of structures that I mentioned, so you'll notice from the agenda report that the structures themselves comprise a combination of Shepherd's huts and field shelter-type structures, and these are just adjacent to the tree boundary, and these serve kind of informal recreation spaces and a bit of a kitchen area for that one on the far left-hand side, and then if I turn 180 degrees, hopefully you can just pick out the toilet facilities in a separate Shepherd's hut under the mature tree belt, and then if I move further in the field, so we're further south now, this will bring into view, so from position 2 on the drawing, this will bring into view the two Shepherd's huts serving as overnight accommodation units, and again an additional field shelter with some storage and recreation activities. So that's the internal site layout, and then if I just take you around the right-of-way to the east of the site, so this is position 3, and as you can pick up from the photograph, because of the distances, the tree cover, the canopies, it's not possible to get clear view of the site and the structures from this particular public right-of-way, and then if I move further north to the second right-of-way, this rooftop, you might just be able to pick out the background, as I believe is probably known as Hilltop Farm, and again our site is in behind the property and the tree belt, so you can't see or get a bit of view from this particular public right-of-way. And then just to jump back to Newtown Road, so I've just put this one in as a kind of example of the relatively consistent character that you get around Newtown Road with the mature vegetation screening the site itself, and the clearest view I managed to obtain was directly north of the application site, so there's a bit of a break between a residential dwelling and the boundary on the front there, but because of the topography of the ground and the threat of the hill, again you still can't get clear views of the structures and the site itself in this position. And lastly, just to complete that tour, we've moved south of the site now on a different public right-of-way, and again I managed to get a clear view breaking the vegetation, but because of the tree's position further down the infield and the dip of the land in the background, again you can't get a clear view of the shelters and the site itself in this particular public right-of-way. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Right, sir. Thank you, Mr Melton. Are there any questions for the officer, please, from the committee? I see two. Perhaps the awards are sought first, and then perhaps they're done immediately after that. Officer Walts, please. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just want to relate to the email that we received from Mr Moody earlier today, who was concerned about the views from Hilltop Lodge and Hilltop Farm on the actual development, and whether we could have a look at how this would be landscaped and their views, just so we could see that, and whether you think it was important to actually have a bit more landscaping in that particular area. Thank you. Yes, thanks, Councillor, for bringing that to my attention. So if we're still on pages 46 and 47, so in particular I think it's that first collection of structures, the ones on this particular photograph, that are particularly relevant to all the closest ones to those neighbouring property. As you can see, the presence of the wooded crops in between the site itself and the neighbouring properties, in my view, provides quite a robust screening on the site. So the judgement I made from both visiting the site, and I did actually visit Mr Moody's property last year, was you really had to work hard to get flinch views through, and I thought the crops itself did an acceptable job in screening the site from the neighbouring property. So that was the judgement I made, is that there's no need for any additional planting. Sorry, just to add, the crops itself lies outside the site, so that planting should stay there, regardless. Can I ask, is that crops protected in its own right? I believe the crops qualifies as a site of national conservation importance, yes. And a further question I have on that issue, trees are a good screen, but they are not a good audio screen, so supposing the vacationers have music, radios, record players or whatever playing in the evening, that would travel very quickly across to the nearby gardens, is there anything we can do to control the use of amplified music, or add music on the site? Yes, Chairman, I haven't imposed any conditions restricting the use of amplified music on site, but if members were concerned tonight that that needs to be limited in some way to protect the neighbouring community, then you could impose such a condition and officers would advise you on what the typical wording would be, yes. Thank you. Councillor Dunleavy? Could you go back a couple of pictures? Thank you. I'm going to say it at my hearing, that's good, I'll leave the microphone on there. Could you go back a couple of pictures, or it might even be forward? What I'm going to go to ask, were you saying 'hilltop farm' or 'hilltop farm'? I'm just thinking you said 'farm' and I think you were saying 'farm'. Yes, so the neighbouring property is hilltop farm, the activist property is hilltop farm, hence the confusion, but yeah, hilltop farm is a key one, I'd suggest. Any further questions or comments? Questions? Councillor Diodati, one more please. Yes, Chairman, could I ask the officer, Mr Mulhie was obviously concerned, how far away is his property from his to that? The minimum separation distance is 14 metres between his property. How much? Fourteen. Fourteen? Yeah, between his dwelling, that's not to the boundary, that's to his dwelling house in particular. So the distance between the dwelling house and the nearest structure is 14 metres. That's quite a while, that's quite a long way. Yeah, it's significant, I would suggest. About a hundred and thirty feet in English. Right, any further questions? No further questions, thank you. We now move on then to the speakers, and there are speakers on this matter. I note that the first speaker is not speaking today, so the next speaker is Mr Greenwood, who is the applicant's agent. I think they can speak together. Right, they can speak together. Yes. Right, and also Mr Phil Liddell, who is also speaking as an applicant on the applicant's behalf. You have three minutes between the two of you. I thought we've got three minutes each, yeah. Sorry, I can't hear you, I've got your microphone on. Thank you. I thought we got three minutes each. No, it's three minutes between you because you're both... (inaudible) Well, we'll see how we do, okay? The rule is that objectors get three, marriage gets three, applicants get three. Well, can we see how we go, okay? I think the distinction was that I'm the agent on the application. (inaudible) No, if you're speaking on behalf of the applicant, as you both are, then that is the applicant's submission. Anyway, press on with your three minutes. I'll give some leeway at the end, all right? Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm Richard Greenwood, I'm a Chartered Town Planner and a Director of Benchmark Planning for the agents on the application. We, of course, welcome the officer's support, particularly regarding the issues of principal, impact on the area and neighbours, ecology and the environment, access and parking, and the proposed mitigation by way of conditions of a Section 106 agreement. We also, notably, grant her a global support. My client runs an existing small tourism business and has already entered into a very similar legal agreement with her thriving holiday letter stables at Helford Park, also with very similar planning conditions. With the proposed conditions of the Section 106, we guarantee the delivery of the three areas of new woodland, mitigation for the new forest and state-of-the-art waste water treatment plant that meets the environment's agency's requirements and calculations in all respects. The Section 106 is clear and a fixed limitation against expansion. We've already been through the detailed draft of Section 106 and consider it necessary, reasonable and enforceable to protect neighbours, the community included, and the environment, whilst still allowing all spin-off economic benefits for the local area, particularly local pubs, restaurants and attractions. And, of course, it's a shame that we've crashed the pub. We can see why, and we're upset that the Council won't take away our fallback rural diversification permitted development rights, which would allow up to 50 tents for 60 days of the year without the need for plan permission. Rural diversification is essential and this is a good tourism location on part of the former golf course. We are an existing small-scale tourist facility that Policy LEA team permits, using structures that have already been there for several years. Shepherds Heights, by their very nature and appearance, need, essentially, a countryside location, as Policy Con 2 says, and these are well screened by evergreen and deciduous trees and hedges, and has been planted up against the boundary with a list of movement. And there is no planning policy objection on those two policies I would refer to. We do know that a neighbour and objective wants to buy this land, motivating their assertions about impact, but these assertions are driven by their own plans for Jenny's land, and should carry very little weight. The simple truth here is that Jenny wants to peacefully host a very small number of people during the warmer months within, but not intruding upon mother nature or others in this countryside location. Mr Liddell, you have 30 seconds. Thank you. I represent Chamber of Commerce, Ethan Chairman Committee. Chamber of Commerce support this application, I hope you do. Jenny is a member. We see an importance in supporting rural communities. Newtown has lost its part. There's an opportunity for local people to have part-time work, and we want to see tourism coming in because it then generates into our market town of Romsey as well. There is a shortage of accommodation, affordable accommodation in the areas around Romsey, and we see this as a benefit to town and outer villages and other local parks within the community, Stockbridge and various other villages which are in need of continued support from people coming into the area. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed for that. Can you come back to the lecture, both of you, because there may be some questions from the members on matters of fact about what you said. Are there any questions, please, from the committee on matters of fact about what has been said? Having dragged you back, obviously that was not necessary. Thank you very much for your presentations. Are there any further questions of the officers? I don't think so. Yes, Councillor Waters and then Councillor Bundy. Councillor Waters first. Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm just trying to get my head around the impact of sound on this and how it could be treated, but I'm also bearing in mind what the applicants have just stated, that they could have a number of tents actually on the site without any planning applications. So how does this realise itself? Is it worthwhile to do anything about the site? Is it sound that they could actually have a large number of tents on the same facility? Thank you. Yes, so I think that perhaps what the agents have presented to you has been misunderstood slightly, that yes, central government has introduced the new committed development rights that allow a certain number of tents to be stated on land without the need for planning permission, limited to a maximum number of days through any one year and a maximum number of tents. In this case, we would be removing those rights to limit. So were planning permission to be granted tonight, we would remove those committed development rights. So it would limit it to just the accommodation that is being applied for tonight. In terms of the sound, you do make a very valid reason that if they've got the committed development rights for the 50 tents, but actually they're only putting two units of accommodation, does it meet those six tests? Is it reasonable because of what they could do? In this circumstance, I believe that we're limiting it to six months of the year, so actually the intensity of the use over a long period of time is probably greater than the period of time that is allowed through the committed development rights. But the case officer in this situation did not think it was necessary to make it acceptable in planning terms to put that condition. However, it is arguable that amplified music after nine o'clock in the evening, ten o'clock in the evening should be limited. But that's really a judgement call for members. If that is something that does concern you, as Graham mentioned to you, we could help you formulate a condition that would control that and limit any disturbance to local residents. But in this scenario, highly balanced, but officers don't believe it is necessary. But again, we can listen to the debates and help you if you didn't think it was necessary to have such conditions. Thank you very much for the clarification on that. Right. Councillor Bundy please, and then Councillor Celia Dowden. Thank you. Councillor Celia Dowden. This is Gemma. In response to Mark's question, which has just been said to us, I want to play devil's advocate here. Does that then apply if the farm has music that is extremely loud and intrusive or competes if they were given permission? Isn't that the critical purpose? I think you may have answered your own question and the reason why we didn't. There is environmental health legislation that if it was a statutory noise use, they could use their own legislation in order to control it. And it goes both ways. It could be the residential properties disturbing the campus or vice versa. And that would imply that if it was, the same would apply, it can be monitored by the virus and then... Exactly, we have a very good environmental health team that models such things and will take appropriate action on this. Right, so Councillor Alan Dowden, can you take your hand up? Yes, thank you Chairman. Obviously, can I obviously ask the officers, these shepherd hacks have already been used or whatever. Have you had complaints about noise printing? I must confess I haven't checked with environmental health for the meeting, so apologies, I don't know the answer to that question. But I haven't even made, we've obviously been made aware about the breach of planning control in terms of the presence of the huts themselves, hence you've got a planning application to start tonight. Yeah, apologies, I don't know the answer about noise specifically. I have only thought once when I read the application and read through the conditions was that if you're on a campsite and you're sheltered behind a whole lot of trees, which are also 140 feet away from domestic dwelling, then actually there should be a sound condition, because sound does travel in the evening on a sore summer's night. So I was wondering whether or not the committee would support the addition of a condition which says no amplified music after say 9pm. I would propose that to the chair, if anyone wants a second nap then please do, and if you don't want to that's fine by me, that's your decision not mine. I'll just add to my previous answer, sorry, we haven't solved the environmental protection on the application and they didn't raise any objections, so they did have an input at that stage. Okay, I withdraw that proposal, having had that advice. Okay, what I'd now do is our proposal was a recommendation, which is for commission, that's on pages 43 and 44 of your documentation, there are no amendments to that, so we're now in debate, may I have a seconder please? How did you get a seconder? Any further debate? Mr Darden? Yes, thank you Chairman, I'm more than happy to support this application, I can reassure members, 50 years ago I was not a very good golfer, and I actually played on them, I'm probably on that land, and I can assure you there was a lot more noise when I was on that golf course and a lot of other people, and I was missing shots than any shepherd's hut. I'm more than happy because we need tourism, and obviously the test value is, well I would say we've got a lot to offer, and we need more tourists and shepherd's huts, and the more the better. Right, we have one thing in common, I wasn't a very good golfer at one time, so. Cather Parker. Sorry, Cather Parker, I'm thinking of Brian. Woah, good memory, developing it is where you're suggesting people's names as well, but never mind. Yes, strictly speaking this application is contrary to policy, but I suspect to some extent that's because the sort of circumstances we're dealing with here were not really thought of at the time of policy with draftees. There is a desire by Test Valley, and indeed Chamber of Commerce, to encourage tourism in Test Valley as an important part of our economy. The fact that this doesn't fit the things that are appropriate in the countryside, and we turn it around the other way, I can't imagine that inviting tourists to come and live in a shepherd's hut for their holiday, if it was in the middle of an urban area or an industrial estate would be appropriate. It has to be in the countryside, so it's absolutely essential that it's in the countryside. I think the conditions we've got there are pretty robust in ensuring that it doesn't develop into something that people are not expecting. It has very definite economic benefits in terms of tourism. On that basis, whilst it is contrary to policy, it's not harmful, the positive economic benefit, looking at the plan in balance, we must be in a position where we should give permission subject to those conditions. I would, though, like to think that we perhaps put a belt and braces noise condition on there, just to make sure that the name-giving residents don't suffer with additional noise. I know there's been no objection from Environmental Health so far that it doesn't necessarily protect people in the future. So, yes, I'll be voting the train, but for that reason, I would like to see, and I will propose, at the end of the edition, if I can use it again. Well, I already proposed that term, Pastor Parker, and I have no seconder. I can't really now come back and second your proposal for the second time around. It would be seemed to be inappropriate to do so. I do apologise. I was about to second your proposal when you said, or someone said, Oh, there's no objection from Environmental Health, so I'll withdraw it. You were a little bit too quick there. So, I'm not accepting, well, put it this way. Would Councillor Parker's theoretical proposal be seconded from the committee? No, that clarifies the matter, OK. Thank you very much. I now bring you to the actual recommendations, since there are no further speakers. I'm going to just point out that it's on page 43 to 44, but also does the second recommendation be for refusal if conditions 1 and 2 are not dealt with under the legal agreements. OK, so that's what you're voting on. All those in favour of permission, please show it. Anyone against? Anyone against? That's an income, thank you very much. I'd like to give you permission. Can we now go on to item number 8? And item 8 on the agenda is, if I can find the page, on page 60, and it's 24-07-00749-4, and it's an application by test money for a council at Bourn House and Sandy Lane, and it's a clearance of two areas of scrub to construct two parking areas. The officer presenting this one is, in fact, Graham Nelson again, because the officer is not here tonight, he's on formally. Right. So, Libby, Libby, could you please continue? Sorry. You'll have to excuse me, I'm dosed up to the eyeballs for some very, very strong painkillers, having had a very large tooth valve only about four or five hours ago. So, apologies to all of you. Mr. Nelson, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a small update to this item, so the update relates to condition 7, which was secure in the submission and implementation of the construction plan. The update modifies the wording, this tidying of the wording in relation to the applicable sink. It doesn't really change the character or purpose of the condition, but just resolves a previous draft of the error. So if I move on to the photograph presentation again, if you wish to, so the site plan is on page 70 of the main agenda report, if you want to use that as a guide as well. But the first slide I've got in front of you again is an area of photographs, so this is just to give you an Arizona key point. So in the centre of the photograph is the green space where the proposed car parking area would be located. To the east are the properties served by Magnolia Walk. To the north you've got Sandy Lane and hopefully you can pick up the internal access track into the application site itself. I'll spend a couple of photographs on that particular position. And there is also second vehicle access into the site, which is off Cooperman Lane to the west there and through the buildings and so on. But I'm going to focus on the site from Sandy Lane, so this has just stood at the entrance to the application site, so 4 on House is the white building at the very end of the photograph here. And you can see the residential properties that align Sandy Lane on the right hand side. And then if we move down that access track, and I've turned left now, so we're looking towards the eastern properties that are served by Magnolia Walk. And we've come to the first proposed car parking area beyond the bands in the photograph. And it would be located in the green vegetation behind those bands, so this part of the proposal is for 16 additional spaces for the proposed car park. And then if we just turn to our right, further south, so we're just looking across the existing car park and the second element of the proposal, the second proposed car parking area is going to be located behind the mature tree that you see here. So if we now move beyond that tree and again turn towards and the second car park area would be located in that green scrub area that you can see in the background of the photograph. And that would serve the masons vehicles associated with the landscape in the bands you can see in this particular photograph. And by locating those type of vehicles in the proposal, continue on round to the back of 4 on House, so if the intention is to use this existing car park or the food recycling vehicles associated with the changes in food recycling that family anticipate bringing in due course. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you Mr Chairman. Right, thank you very much. There are no speakers on this application, so what I'll do is move straight on to the recommendation and as a recommendation is to delegate. Do you have any questions? No? Oh sorry, yes we quite well. Are there any further questions to the officers? If this wasn't a test value application, would the planners be trying to negotiate with the applicant, the Green Travel Plan? Surely we should be doing as much as we can to not be currently in the construction work. Again, we can't take these vehicles home and have to go up the street, but Green Travel Plan is quite the thing and I wondered if there's any possibility of it. This site is located within the settlement boundary, so there's in principle support for development in this particular area on that basis. So I think in terms of the Green Travel Plan, I don't think we would be typically looking to secure one regardless of the applicant. Those tend to be good sites in the countryside or a bit more remote. Okay, any further questions? Councillor Gynne and Gwynne beg your pardon, and welcome to Southern Planning. We've re-taught it after a short absence. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question on the extension of the car park. My understanding that part of the reason would be potential changes in waste management over the next few years, is that the basis for the need for more vehicles there? And secondly, just a confirmation that there will remain vegetation on the edge of the new area? Yes, thank you. In terms of your first question about the need, that's my understanding as well, that the proposal is aimed at accommodating some additional vehicles around food waste recycling or collection, I should say. In terms of your second question, if you turn to page 17, hopefully you can pick out, even though it's black and white, that the proposed car parking areas don't occupy the whole of the green space. Scrub land, brought on to a better phrase, to be retained in between the proposal and those properties, both to the north of the line that's served by Sandy Lane and also to the east and served by Magnolia Wharf. Thank you. Any further questions? There is now a proposed officer's recommendation, which is on page 66, and it is delegated to the head of planning, a mission, subject to a number of conditions, and there's also an amended condition 7, which is in the update pages, which you had earlier on. That's what's recommended. May I have a second? Second, Chairman. I think we have a burden. We're now in debate for Senate debate, please. No, I see no debate. We will then move straight to the vote. Can I have all those in favour of the applications which show? Anybody against? Again, thank you very much. That is passed. We will move on to item 9, and item 9 is 24/00757 VARs and VARs, I believe VARs in shepard English. There is a variation in condition 2 of the 22/03317 pools, planning application, geology, agricultural buildings, et cetera. This will be presented by Katie Savage, and Savage, would you care to present the item? Yes, if I could just refer members to the update paper, you'll see that a number of conditions have been discharged on the original application. These refer to the materials, materials and also landscape details. You'll also see that there is a proposed condition for wheel washing facilities, which was included in the original application. However, we did have to decide on this application to include it for the entirety of the development phase now that the development has started on the site. Just moving it over to the application. This first image here is an aerial photograph. We've got the 877 running south of the site, with the access tracks and sites running along with the sites here, with the proposed sites being used in this position. You will notice in some of the hotel sites shown later on in the presentation that work has commenced on site, so the abnormal injury doesn't reflect the changes that have happened most recently on site, so the building has been demolished. In terms of the setting of the application, you've got a neighbour located here, to the east of the site, to the north, and then you've also got a neighbour located on the access track up here, and a brave two-listed building located in the circle. We've got the 877 just running here, and the access track, and the site is located here, just for reference. So we've got a neighbour located to the east here, north, and then also a brave two-listed property here, and also a property located on the access track as well. Moving on to the proposed site plan, in terms of the variation that is forming tonight, the site's underdwelling hasn't changed. We've got plot one located here, plot two, and then plot three, which the application relates to. And the sort of reasons of variation are just set out in paragraph 8.2 of the officer report, but mainly they are to deal with the fight with the panels and the completion of the first floor accommodation, which would include the increase of unit height for the site. Moving on to some photos of the site itself, this is just the entrance to the site, so we've got the entrance in front of me, and then the access track just located up here. Moving along into the site, we've got the access track that was working on the first image. We've got the neighbour's window located here, which we've just got on the side, and further into the site, we've got the brave two-listed property located there. Now in the site itself, I've got the brave two-listed property that is behind me now, and we've got plot one located closest to, under the proposed graph. Moving on to plot two, and then moving on to plot three, which is further into the site, sort of around here, with the driveway squeaking round. Now I'm located sort of in the far corner of the site, looking towards plot three, with the 807 running in the background, and, sorry, you'll see that we've got just a bit more of the proposal already now. Now we're stood here, just looking back towards the brave two-listed property that I mentioned earlier, and we've also stood on the driveway of the application site itself, and we've got plot two, sort of located here, and then plot one. And just to give sort of a context of the separation distance between neighbouring properties, we've got just one of the properties located here in the foreground of the site, and that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Are there any questions, please, of the officer? Michael Warns. Thank you, Jim. Just wondering if the officer could just comment on the battle of screening that's going to be treated in this development and the brave two-listed building that you mentioned. Thank you. Thank you. This will take you back to the - what was your thought? Just to take you back to the site location plan here, what's in the brave two-listed building location is our corner here, and the landscape and details have already been approved under the previous application. Any further questions? I see none. We do have a speaker on this particular matter, and Ms Ursula Gooding, who is an objector, would you please come to the rostrum? And make sure the microphone is turned on, please, and remember you've got three minutes, and if you can stay where you are at the end, I'd be very grateful. Thank you. Good evening. Just to put this in context, it was originally a class Q conversion, with five smaller dwellings, which is the type of dwelling that Parrish supports in its building and plan, and of the much consultation with Britishness. It morphed from a five smaller dwelling class Q conversion into three complexes, two of them more this size and one much larger. The original comments from the case officer were that there would be considerable - from the landscape officer and from the case officer in the 2022 original application states that views from the A27 would be significant. You've seen it with trees in today. Of course, with no trees in, you can see the whole site, so this would not have got permission in this - there would be no permission for this development had it not been for the class Q conversion. So the views from this site are really quite obvious from the A27. What concerns me is that there's yet another little amendment to make it a bit bigger, so originally it was agreed that it was okay because the views wouldn't be so big because of the variation in height of the building. So the middle bits are going to be increased in height. So the original application didn't have another story on that thinking document. So again, the bulk of the whole development has been increased, so we're having a slow movement that way. The further concern is that the landscape officer particularly commented that it would have significant impact on the landscape from the A27 and proposed mitigation in terms of planting. This has not been carried out, so the conditions that have been approved do not include the mitigation suggested by the landscape officer, which included native hedging planting to the periphery of all properties. This particular property has no native hedgerow planting around the outside. If you look at the plans, you see some things, but around the outside is just fencing and wildflower meadow, which of course isn't controllable, isn't going to be wildflower meadow, it's going to be lawn. The woodland planting on some of it isn't there. I don't know where it's come from. I haven't had clarification about where the woodland planting had permission and there isn't any there. So we're looking at an open view from the A27 onto this side. If you were minded to approve this, I would suggest that you did very carefully look at the landscape around this one, which does not comply with the landscape officer recommendations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any questions, please, officer speaker? Councillor Bailey. Yes, Councillor. How big were the barns, can you remember? I can't remember these. They weren't very visible. The original thing within the barns were constrained within this. So there is a table in the 2022 application listing all the heights in the original application for this one. And the buildings are somewhat taller. This building particularly, being the bigger of the three, is somewhat taller than the bulk of it. It's bigger than those of the barns at the back. But it's a pigariz, things like that, maybe. Thank you. Any further questions? No, I see none. Thank you very much for your presentation. You'll see, by the way, members, on the screen, the original application at the top and then the current amendments on the second one down. Right. Are there any further questions of the officer, please? Councillor Parker, then Councillor Giddy. This building made reference to things like landscaping, which hadn't been done. Would I do right in assuming that that would be an enforcement matter against the existing planning application, rather than anything to do with this variation application? In terms of the landscaping, the dream point is no purpose should take place for DPC level, which the applicant and the developers can comply with. But obviously they haven't finished developing the site yet, so it would be acceptable to start planting out when they haven't built the properties yet as a purpose, essentially. But obviously, if the planting didn't actually carry out, it's important for those plans, also we do have the planning authority between who would be able to investigate it, if any sort of plans arise. Just to reinforce that, are you saying, therefore, that the original planning application contained the landscaping, which should actually answer the peers expressed by Ms Giddy? Yes, so in the original, sort of, officer's report for tonight's committee, you'll see that the conditions 5 and 6 relate to the landscaping, which is no longer discharged by the council. Right, thank you. Councillor Giddley. It's a landscaping litigation question. Right, thank you. Great minds. Anybody else, please? No? Okay. Oh, sorry, I missed you. Sorry, I wasn't waiting. I'm just looking, I've forgotten why I didn't look this up. How much higher is that little bit? It's approximately 0.8 metres. So how much higher is it in respect of the application to the firms as well? So, I think what we need to be careful of, we are entitled to reconsider the application, because even though it's a Section 73 application, we do issue a brand new planning permission, if we are to grant permission. But what we must have due regard for is what we have approved under the previous application. So in this circumstance, as Katie has explained within the report, Units 1 and 2, there are no changes whatsoever. This application relates to the minor change that can be seen on the elevation plan that are in the update paper. And that is the raising of the ridge line between the two projecting areas. Yes, I just wanted to know how much further to raise. Because that's not what they need to say. So, our consideration or members consideration tonight is, is that increase in the ridge height that you can see between the top plan and the bottom plan so harmful that it would result in a complete refusal of the planning application, bearing in mind that they've implemented the original planning permission and are fully entitled to build that app. Does that slight change in ridge height result in such significant harm that it results in conflict with the plan and the MDPF? I think the key point, Councillor, is that the two apexes you can see at either end are the same height, chimneys are the same height, and then the route across the middle there. You can probably see there's a very faint blue line across the route there, and the distance between that blue line and the actual new route line is about 0.8 metres, which in English is about 2.8 inches. And that's what we're discussing really. Sorry, I totally misheard, I've got trouble with my hearing. It's not your fault, it's the acoustics in this room, which are half a problem. Okay, are there any further comments or questions? Councillor Alexander? As a matter of interest, if this would regain the planning permission, do we know when these would be developed? I've got good reason to ask that. Well, obviously they've already started work on site, and some of the work depends on if they're prior to commencement, which we hope that they will be discharged by now, and what further permissions need to be discharged prior to further building. But I think it's time-wise, I'm not sure how long it's going to take. If I come back, the reason I asked that question is of course with the landscaping, it needs, when you put a landscaping in, for it to take whatever, you need sort of winter conditions to put it in, because if you put it in, there could die before it's taken. Okay, any further questions? What I'll do now is propose the recommendation, which is on page 75 to page 79, but please note that there are revised conditions 3, 5 and 6, and there's an additional condition 22, and otherwise it's all from notes according to the agenda between pages 75 and 79. Is that seconded please? Thank you, we're now in debate, is that in your debate? Thanks for seeing you Darden. Yes, more on the comment really. I think that, if you listen to the speaker, the issue is without doubt that screening is appropriate. I totally accept that it has to be done at an appropriate time as well, so therefore it's not necessarily there now, but I think, can we actually make a note that that is something that is a very important part of this, and that we can see hope that that is sufficient screening for the right time, because again, deciduous hedges then leave at several months expo, so I think that's the only concern. Jeremy and I would say, we need to keep that in mind with our enforcement team if it's necessary, but certainly that's noted to the developer. I think in a sensitive location the landscape officer is conscious of the fact that there should be sort of natural planting of local species, mid-native species, and it'll all be fine in the end I hope. Right, any further speakers? No, thank you very much. The proposal on the table therefore is permission, with all the amendments on the update paper. May I have your votes in favour please? Anybody against? And again that's carried and Mcom and Councillor Bailey abstained. Thank you very much for that. That is committed, and brings us to the end of the meeting. Thank you very much for your attendance, and for the efficient disposal of the items. I do apologise for my stammering and whatever else, because I am really hurting. Okay, thank you. [The meeting was adjourned.]