Transcript

We're on the Northern Area Planning Committee on Thursday the 10th of June. There are a couple of housekeeping items. Can you first of all ensure that your mobile phones are either muted or turned off? And secondly, in the event of the fire alarm going, there's no practice schedule for this evening, you exit the building and congregate by Smiths, which is literally where I'm pointing. Oh, it's Monday the 10th. It's normally Thursday we have these. This is the first one we've ever had on a Monday. Right. Before I go into the agenda, items eight and nine have been withdrawn from the agenda because the senior planning officer has decided there's more information available. Is that correct? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, there's some additional information that we need to give further consideration to, and we need to give that some further thought with the hope that we'll be able to get to the next committee if we've been able to do that. Thank you. Agenda item one, apologies. I have no apologies, Mr Chairman. Any apologies from the floor? Okay, thank you. Public participation on the list of members of the public wishing to address this meeting has been circulated, and they have all been briefed by the committee officer. Are there any declarations of interest? No, thank you very much. Item four, urgent items. Well, as of Thursday last week we had an urgent item. That has been withdrawn now, and I'll ask Ms Jones to explain why. Thank you, Chairman. The urgent item has actually been to notify all the floor members of our position, in respect to all the reasons we have refused to approve the application. Since the urgent item report was published, the appeal has now been withdrawn, and the new application has been executed, which may or may not be further to the committee in the future. There was no need to change our stance on the appeal because that's the main concern for the system. Thank you. Agenda item five, minutes of the previous meeting. Can I have a proposer, please? Councillor Neill, a seconder, please? Councillor Anderson, all those in favour? Unanimous, thank you very much. Item six, information notes. Now, the information notes are included in this document, and they're for the benefit of the members of the public and committee members. Item seven is Woodside House, first down lane, Hanford. Ms James, please. We have learned about the updates. Just to highlight that, there was a viewing panel on the 6th of June, and councils in attendance were Councillor Anderson, Councillor Paul Neill, Councillor Brooks, Councillor Lizzie, Councillor Jay Neill, and we have apologies from the council's only and Councillor Linda Loescher. And then another update is that we have reworded condition four for the sake of priority, and the condition would now read, Not withstanding, but limited detail, no development of our PPC level or concrete floor level, shall take place until detailed, including drawings, chemistry, and compliance between four and five, outline fire capacity, AW5, H1N4, first of all, it is an improved environment, whether it is a plan or a team, development should then take into account the approved details and the technical work time of the building, reasons in interest of public housing safety, in order to protect natural environment, and the police have set up their countries, revised over time, 2016, and obviously T2 and 28. So it is also understood that third party comments have been raised in relation to building fire safety, but would be beneficial to explain what the properties have done to address these comments. So usually, fire is certified federal legislation for building control, and then you consult a building control and capture the fire, I would like fire to consult with the comments, capture and I would like fire as part of the generic response on land and footage regulation requirements, our building control is to advise the building that has been exempt from building regulation, consultation is also done with the records that are posted at NAGP, which is what local authorities are doing throughout, and legal advice is also explored, and legal advice that could take into consideration as it was exempt from building regulation. Now for the applicant's contact to provide fire measures, which is addressed in the document that has been highlighted, the applicant then conditions an outlined fire especially about O5 consultancy, the outline for the fire is actually confirmed that the building is exempt from building regulations and suggested measures for the applicant's consider. The applicant has found that the building will be fitted with a box, profile metal tubing and a roof that will use a D4, D roof, D4 fire safety specifications and fine materials, and this will add fire protection to the relevant elevation of the building, closest to the resolution from C and Ashford. These measures are executed by Commission 4, which is one of my advantages. You will be because you came in the room before the presentation. So this slide one, this shows me, there's a little map there at the bottom, the red arrow showing where I stood in my talk today. So this shows me the aggressive position, you can see the existing arm on the left-hand side, the gable end of the gable, which handles the boundary edge between the application side and the gable property. And this shows me a few more towards the north slightly, which is the continuation of the boundary edge. This is the standing facing towards the south, you can see the existing hay barn, the existing storage barn on the left, the gable here on the foreground, and then just where there is the neighbouring property's garage building. This photo was taken on my first visit to Edinburgh, showing the existing storage for the hay. This photo was also taken in September from the saving yard, you can see the blue tassel at the top there, that is the top of the previous photo. This photo I've now entered into Ashbrook and I am facing the building from the hedge, and then I've done a 360 here and I'm on my back towards the property and I'm facing towards the boundary hedge. And this is on page 24 of your report, this is the existing, or proposed, sorry, block bank, and then this is on page 25 and this is the proposed elevations. And that's it. Thank you. Any questions of the officer? Councillor Borgenil? Just one, you talked about the good from the wall in terms of their fire protection, do you know what the approximate burn times are on those events? No, sorry, I don't know. But Hampshire Fire have recommended that to that level? Hampshire Fire have provided a generic response to building regulations, the building's exempt from building regulations, so the applicant commissioned a fire strategy and served five consultants, suggested these particular measures and that's what the applicant has. What is it? Councillor Anderson? Thank you very much for informing us about fire regulations, which I did ask about when I was on site, so thank you for doing that. There are just a couple of questions I'd like to ask about. One of them says that would result, 6.4, would result a loss of light to the neighbouring properties. Well, I couldn't really see how that would affect the loss of light in the neighbouring properties. And also it's mentioned on there about it would cause rats and things. Well, I just wanted to mention, it doesn't matter wherever we are, we're only a foot away from a rat anyway, so I couldn't see how that was affected at all either. But a loss of light, I couldn't see, could you explain that at all? Is there anywhere on the bench where you could put a stone? That was a third party comment, so I don't know why it was said, that's all I can really say about that. So in 8.6, I think I do go on to impact labour immunity, and I would have outlined it on that, so where are we? So the height of it is 3.77 metres, which would be, it's about here according to the proposed elevations, and it's on no higher, further, closer to the boundary than the ridge like this. inaudible inaudible Yes, so you can see the ground level here in blue, and they've taken it down inaudible Thank you Chairman, may I please ask for clarification for section 8.16, related specifically to the material used on the roof, which says here it's B-Roof T4 safety compliant material, exactly what would that be? Would that be metal, wood, tar? It's a, so B-Roof T4 is a 5 safety classification, and I think it means a range of different materials that you can use, but as part of the condition, which was about lovely, so I appreciate you having seen it, because we're asking for details of the materials before they are in its own centre. Thank you Chairman. Are there any further questions? No? Well we have speakers on this. Could I ask Mrs. Blissett to come to the left-hand please? Mrs. Blissett, you have three minutes, and if you'd remain there, just in case members have questions to ask you. Right hand button, that's it, yeah it's a bit red. Our chief objection to this application for an additional Hay and Haywich farm at Woodside is the high fire risk it poses to our home ash book, the nearest and most vulnerable property. Hay and Haywich have a high fire load, and can spontaneously combust at 70 degrees C. This farm could store a volume of Hay and Haywich, equivalent to over one and a half double decker buses. We therefore consider that the proposed barn is dangerously too close to us. It would be only 40 feet away from two bedrooms in our home, which directly face the bandwidth. Our home and the barn are only separated by a very large beach hedge and overhanging trees, which would contribute significantly to horizontal firespring in the event of a blaze. The Risk, Insight, Strategy and Control Authority, administered by the Fire Protection Association, states that the hazards of hay storage are often forgotten, and that hay must be stored a safe distance from other buildings. Trawley Borough Council, for example, states 30 metres, 100 feet, is a minimum distance from a bander wing. Angport Parish Council agrees that the proposed hay barn is very close to Ash Brook and could pose a significant fire risk. The applicants already have a hay barn in which they keep machinery. The additional hay barn would have joined this. This is unsafe and exacerbates the fire risk. The applicants could safely site their second barn elsewhere in their 50 metres, such as on the north side of their large riding arena. To this we have no objection. Planning Commission must ensure development considers the impact on the surrounding area and appear to design and safety standards in relation to all those who may be affected. We consider this application does not observe these requirements. We feel our property and lives have not been sufficiently considered with regard to high fire risk posed by this hay barn. We have to ask if you would be happy with a hay barn potentially stacked full of 150 cubic metres of hay at halit, just 40 feet away from two of your family bedrooms. If built in the proposed location, we would be living with the constant threat of fire. All we ask, all we have ever asked, is for the proposed barn to be located further away from our bander wing at a safe distance from our home, that is at least 30 metres, 100 feet from the bander wing. Then no one would have anything to worry about. Thank you. Thank you Mrs Blissett. Any questions for the Speaker? No? Thank you very much indeed. Could I have Mr and Mrs Talbot-Rice please? And again you have three minutes between you and if you'd remain there just in case you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you Chairman. Good afternoon Councillors. This is an application for a group of a modest hay barn measuring 12 by 4 metres for the storage of hay and halit just for our horses. Importantly, as regards the proposed location for the barn, it cannot be seen from any public space, neither from the highway nor from the footpath which runs along the eastern and northern boundaries. In the case of the footpath because the field which runs down to that footpath is a hill and that hill blocks any view of the proposed barn. It will be alongside and in keeping with the existing barn at the back of the stable yard and the stables conceal it from the highway. The roof height has intentionally been kept at the same height as the existing barn which it will adorn. We have stored hay and hay which on the ground of the proposed site with hay being put under top hauling as you saw from one of the photographs and on pallets where possible for years and have photographs showing this going back to 2019 and have had no incidents from such storage. And it has to be said it hasn't even been noticed by our neighbours something which is made clear from their submission in opposition to this application where they say in terms that they've never seen it before. All that's proposed therefore is to replace the unsightly top hauling arrangement for the storage of hay and halit with an in keeping barn which causes no harm to the setting of the conservation area to which it's adjacent but not within. The application conforms to prevailing local and national planning policies and there are no objections from the parish council which the minutes of their meeting on the 30th of November show that Mrs. Blissett was referring to an earlier meeting which was superseded by the later meeting. And there are no objections from the Test Valley Borough Council Environment Team. We're aware of course of the Blissetts objection to the grant of planning consent despite us inviting them around twice to show them what we proposed and modifying the application as a result of listening to their response. The depth was reduced by two meters. And as you've heard the objection really boils down to what we would say is a misplaced concern as to fire risk. As to that, as we have stored hay and halit on the proposed site, the relevant risk is between storing hay and halit on pallets on the ground under a closed tarp hauling or storing it on a concrete base in an airy barn with concrete walls. The side of the proposed barn facing the boundary with the Blissetts property will be some 12 meters from that property. It will have walls made of concrete and no openings on that side. And in addition to the concrete walls, and whilst unnecessary, we have made clear that we're content to clad that elevation with boxed grey farm metal sheeting. Thank you Mrs. Torgerice, that's your three minutes. Very good. If you could remain then. Of course. Councillor Borgeneal. The same question I asked the officers. From the fire assessment thing, do you know what the burn times are on the roof of the wall? Roughly? No we don't. Do the assessments, the assessments didn't mention the burn times? What the fire strategy report said is that building regulations don't apply. If they did, these are the materials which would be required. So they're the materials that are required effectively perhaps. And so whatever the burn time is for any building, that's what we're proposing. That's for fire tools so it's got to be better at it. Alright, thank you. Let's look at these. Thank you, Chairman. Could you just clarify something? You previously got permission and built a hay farm which is on site now, but you don't use it. Could you please explain why you don't use it? Yes, so we didn't build it. That was before we were there. But you're right, it's absolutely, it's there and the permission was given for a hay farm. It's insufficient for what we need for the winter hay and haylage that we need for the horses. We just need more space as you can see from where we're putting it at the moment. Thank you. Any further questions? No, thank you very much. Thank you. Can I have pets of the flood please and you have an extra two minutes. You have five minutes to speak. Thank you, Chairman. I don't think I'm going to need five minutes, but thank you for pointing that out to me. Good evening, Councillors, members of the public, officers. I call this application to Northern Area Planning and when I do, I will speak, but I will be brief. I think you've all received a very comprehensive report. Thank you, officers, for drafting that and I think you've also received a lot of information from elsewhere. I called it, in essence, because this isn't really about potential fire hazards. There are other planning issues, sufficiently unusual, I think, for us to consider. And of course, safety, as has been pointed out to me, is a planning issue. So I did decide, I do decide, I think that this application does need to be decided in a public forum. So, occupants' objectives are clear about who and how the decision was made. I look forward to the debate. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Councillor Flug? No? Thank you very much. Any further questions for the officers? Councillor Borgenale? I just want to be totally clear. So, we currently have nothing in our planning policy and there's nothing in national planning policy with reference to distance of hay from a residence. And some councils have, as sounds like surely, got their own ones, but we don't have any of those in the national policy. We don't have, there's nothing in the national policy. Yeah, for that being their local plan, so that's something that wouldn't be, wouldn't fall under planning policy and therefore we couldn't use it for reason of refusal. So, I just want to be clear, there's nothing in national policy. Any further questions? No? In that case then, I propose the officer's recommendation for permission. Can I have a seconder, please? Councillor Brooks? We are now in debate. Councillor Borgenale, you've beat Councillor Lashmore. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Looked at this very closely and have read the lengthy emails from both the applicant and from the objectors. Whilst I understand the concerns and fears of the objectors, there's two matters to consider. One is we could not refuse this because there's no planning policy to refuse it. And therefore, they would just take it to appeal and it would go through and actually go through without any of the conditions that we have worked with both the applicant and the objector to put in place. I think secondly, because the applicant has listened very carefully and put some fairly strong fire mitigations in, much of the risk that the applicant is worried about is being dealt with by the applicant. I do feel very strongly for them and I understand totally where they're coming from in terms of having bedrooms fairly close to it. But I think the risk is very, very, very low and we don't have anything that we can pin on that from a planning perspective to refuse this and it being put in a different location. So unfortunately, I have to go with the officer's recommendations. Thank you. Councillor Lashbrook, please? Thank you, Chairman. Sadly, I have to disagree with my colleague. To store this quantity of hay inside what is basically a little structure, given the climate evolution that we are currently undergoing, the heat build up along with moisture will further increase the risk of spontaneous combustion, which is ever present in the storage of this type of material. The fire mitigation of the structure may go some way to reducing the risk, but there is still an overall risk that I feel is unnecessary given the close proximity to the neighbouring properties. And therefore, Chairman, I cannot support this application. Thank you. Councillor Neill? Thank you, Mr Chairman. The hay is currently stored outside and probably if that caught fire, it would be far worse than the existing, the very fact that the building is dug in, so it's no higher than the existing hay down and hearing that the applicant didn't apply for this hay barn, it was there when he got there, I went to the viewing with an open mind of looking both sides of it and having been next door walking around, I can like Councillor Caulfield, I can't see how we could refuse this. I do sympathise with the objectors, but it would have to bear in mind also that the prevailing wind carries away from that house, the wind not 90% of the time being scrubbed from the south-west, so the fire would be carried away from the house, and I could not find a reason to refuse this and would support the Office's recommendation. Are there any further questions, Councillor Broughs? I don't debate my questions. Sorry. I'd just say yes, I quite agree with two of the other Councillors here. As the applicant did say, they've been storing this for, and I believe it's five years, and they've had no problems at all. And it's all to do with, I believe, it's haunted by the wetness of the hay that causes the fire, and, for example, I don't know about this, and it takes seven days. If the hay's not dried out enough, within seven days the top of the hay will catch light. So they've been storing it outside in a damp condition, and so luckily at the moment they've got away with having the fires happening. And I can understand the objectors' concerns as well, but to say that the Office has worked really hard on extra conditions, putting extra safety issues in. So I do have concerns, in some ways, with what the objects have said, but I think on the face of it all, with all the reports and everything, I think I agree with the Office's recommendation. Thank you. Any further debate? No, in that case then, I will put the recommendation on the table. The proposal on the table is for permission. Those in favour of permission? Thank you. Those against? Permission is granted. Before I close the meeting, I would remind everyone here that the recording goes on for another 15 seconds after we have stopped it. [bell rings] [doorbell rings] [doorbell rings] [BLANK_AUDIO]