Transcript

Good evening and welcome to the August meeting of the Planning Applications Committee. Good to see Council of India is alive and well. You okay? Recovered? It's a pleasure. We can listen to you enraptured as ever. Okay. I take no notice of course. Good evening. My name is Tony Belton. I'm the Chair of the Applications Committee and a Councillor for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea. I'm going to ask the people on the front table here to introduce themselves starting on my left. Good evening. I'm Nick Calder. I'm the Head of Development Management at Wandsworth. Good evening. My name is Duncan Mors. I'm the External Legal Advisor. Good evening. Callum Wernim, Democratic Services. Thank you. I will ask Councillors to introduce themselves when they want to make contributions as indeed officers. For those who are watching don't understand, the people immediately in front of me, the Councillors and to my right are the officers. Okay. Have we got any apologies for this evening? I think we have, haven't we? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Apologies have been received from Councillors Apps, Coakley and Owens. Right. At this time of the year that's hardly surprising. May I, I've seen the minutes. Councillor Hunt has just seen the minutes. May I sign them as a correct record? Is that agreed? Agreed. Wherever the last page is. I'll sign them afterwards. Okay. Members of the public will understand that most of these papers have been carefully read. The fact that there's a hundred odd pages doesn't mean to say we're ignoring it. We've read them all in advance and we will go through them rather more rapidly than people might expect. But that's not because we haven't read them because we have. One last, one other question. Has anyone got any financial or other interests in any of the applications? Please declare. No one has any particular interests apart from the fact of course we're all interested. So turn to the applications paper itself, paper 24215 and the first application is for an intermediate treatment unit in St. George's Hospital. Seems reasonably straightforward to me. I'll ask Ms. Richards. Mr. Grainger. I beg your pardon. I might get my boundaries and tooting mildly confused. Mr. Grainger, any comments? Not in so far as that the proposal is recommended for approval as a part two and a part three story intensive therapy unit located to the southwest of the Atkinson Morley wing. I did send around more of a detailed survey plan to try and help you out because I realised the scale was a little bit excessive on the published agenda. But the proposal after negotiations on a few matters relating to urban greening factor and sustainability has been found to lie within acceptable parameters and it's recommended for approval subject to a section 106 planning obligation and conditions. Just wonder Mr. Grainger could you say something about what happens the appearance of it when the development is completed because there's another one due to come isn't there? That's correct chair. So this modular building would to all intents and purposes obviously without prejudging the outcome of the recently submitted and validated new renal facility. The most prominent elevation that you would see from Blackshore road and within the estate would to all intents and purposes be masked by a building if that were to be approved. So this building is very much seen as part of the Atkinson Morley wing and continuing the functions of the Atkinson Morley wing in terms of providing these intensive therapy treatment rooms and that's why the proximity of this building is so close to the Atkinson Morley wing. Personally I don't mind the simple functionality of the building but in any event it's going to be hidden from general view before too long if another application is approved later. Okay any comments? Councillor Humphries. Thank you chair. Good evening everyone. Councillor Guy Humphries, Councillor for South field's in Putney, opposition speaker on this committee. Following off what you were just saying Mr Grainger about the how it sits in relation to the other buildings there's some mention in the report of a master plan for the wider estate and I was wondering chair if it might be helpful if there's anything at some point to see even however vague an overview it is just because it's quite helpful for us as a committee to put the building in context of the wider piece and it's fine to hear about this new reunion next door and all the rest of it but just to have a better understanding of the whole estate if there's anything that's anything developed enough for us to be able to see that would be helpful to have eyes on that at some point if it's possible. Yeah I can arrange that. There were some slides in the design and access statement but they weren't as detailed as some of the information that we subsequently got so we can share that with you no problem. It's just that it's a little bit higgledy-piggledy sometimes to just look at the ping piecemeal when it's actually part of a bigger thing and as far as the design and stuff and things like that it's quite difficult to make a judgment call on it when it's just in isolation or anything else that might be around it in the future it's a bit like you know when we're doing BPS or something like that we at least have an idea of the bigger picture so we can put it in some kind of context would be it'd be helpful. Could I carry on tell me something else while I'm on the on a roll can I say something else about something else while I'm on a roll? Indeed I'm just reflecting on what you said I mean St George's of course is a small city on its own right you hardly do the whole thing every but I take your point it would be useful to have another view of it yes yes what else were you on going on to? I just wanted to say that we have you know quite uh it seems frequently things from from George's on the on the on the slate in front of us and it's it's always I understand it's functional and all the rest of it but it I have to say it is it is disappointing that they haven't hit things like the Bream and stuff like that you know the things that we'd expect them to be exemplars of this kind of thing particularly when it's the the the health of the country and all the rest of it so it's just a note really I'm not expecting an answer on it but it's disappointing that they haven't hit all the various targets that they they should hit when it's such a big player in the game as it were and we're hoping looking to the future for any other applications that are coming forward that things can be done early enough to make sure they do hit things like the the outstanding instead of just excellent sounds good but it should be outstanding so it's annoying to us as a committee when we've asked for things to be a certain standard and they're not done to that when there's you know it should be done at an early enough stage to be able to make that happen couldn't agree with you more the the health authority but other large corporate organizations including ourselves the council not very good at prior notice and pre-application discussions and I hope plan is we'll try and keep them to the mark because it's not good enough I agree with you. Councillor Gavindia. Thank you chair, Councillor Gavindia, Councillor for East Buckney Ward. Two points and just following on from the very utilitarian building that is being proposed here is were there any thought had been given to greening the building because if it was elsewhere we might have been talking about green walls or something else that might make it less in your face but more importantly I have a question about the 106 planning obligations and it won't surprise Mr Granger that this is about the employment contribution of 56,718. I know it's done on a formula but this is one bit of public purse seeking money from another bit of public purse on the basis that this improved facility will not lead to a net increase in jobs but it might it might lead to a net increase in betterment of people who might go to work and might return to work I mean I just think this is quite a bizarre way of one bit of public purse taking money out of another bit of public purse both of which are under strain for some really mythical formula I know that in the past I've raised this before in case of one maintained school we did not charge employment contribution in case of a private school we did the explanation I was given was that the case of the maintained school there was a net increase in staff numbers in case of the private school it was just a better facility now is the argument here that this is just a better facility and there'll be no new job so therefore we need to um in a sense shake the tree and get some money out for them from them I think your party sorry this is not this is meant to be a historical point and not a party political point I think your party can take a credit or blame put it either way you like for cost center management being just part of life Britain in Britain nowadays if you're asking for a reform of the whole of local of how government works and how expenditure that's a pretty big order for us particular uh seven people on a Wednesday evening I think it's a bit complicated but I'm interested here I'm interested to hear I'm not I am interested in what mr grange well may I at least finish counseling of India we always get may I at least finish but I am interested in hearing what mr granger has to say about it before mr granger says sure I mean I am actually seeking an understanding from mr granger just as you are I am not inviting you to give me a lesson in political history or whatever I really don't need that from you thank you very much well I'm not sure the evidence suggests that's true because I think it is very much about it but go on mr granger uh thank you so the employment and enterprise um contribution this it is formulaic you're correct so you would have been um aware of that when this was brought in through the um supplementary planning guidance documents but uh the the way the money is is apportioned and spent in order to get people into employment and then generates enterprise so it's not actually going to pay for them it's to enable um a number of individuals to be able to be placed at the construction phase and then post-construction during the actual operation of the facility so there's no uh that that attracts a fee in terms of the administration and how to deliver that and it's it's not really it's not the case I heard something on the radio about a statistic that that the number of people actually employed in medical actual doctors in medical facilities is is is nowhere near what we actually think because of the amount of administration cleaning stuff all sorts you know it's it's it's proportionate so um there are a number of opportunities for individuals within the borough to engage within the construction phase and post-construction phase and that sum of money goes to the administration in in terms of of enabling that mr Granger do you want to say anything about council given his point about greening and the ecological qualities the the green wall point and um it's largely been dealt with through the uh through the urban greening factor um which has been increased but because of the proximity of this building close to the Atkinson Morley wing and other building control matters and the fact that there is a possibility of a policy compliant scheme being very close to that scheme the success of any green walls was deemed to be highly unlikely in terms of gathering maturity and survival so it was it was just not ruled as as a feasible thing okay the recommendation to approve is that agreed agreed thank you move on to the second item which is the flower stall that i'm sure we all know very well outside of clapham junction station on john's hill um i'm not sure that you wish to say much about it mr Granger um apologies if you do but it's all in the paper isn't it very much so um oh i would draw the attention of the committee to um the late items paper where we have received an electronic and uh paper um petition amounting to um sorry wrong page uh 1078 signatories all indicating their support of the proposal right any comments silence cancer well cancer cancer is finna is from east patney ward thank you um i love the flower stall but it's in the wrong place it really is in the wrong place i agree with all the objections that are laid out in the report here and i understand why people love it so much because so do i but it's extremely inconvenient if you're trying to meet somebody who doesn't know where they are where do they stand because the flower stalls in the way or in the road then yes so um so although and i think there must be a better solution i can't see it myself but there must be a better solution and i suggest that we don't extend it for five years which is what they've asked for but expect or hope that solutions to the problem will arise in the next three years and i think if we make it three years they'll have to concentrate mr grandeur can you remind me how many times we've given permission on a five-year basis once so that was in 2017 officers actually recommended that for refusal at the time but the committee gave it a five-year temporary permission i'm inclined to think like i think counselor is that five years is so long that the applicants won't actually do anything seriously about it sorry if i'm offending someone but won't until it's much nearer and then so i think the suggestion of three years is very sensible perhaps just keep it ticking over rather than us facing this application every five years or so counselor humphries oh if i can press the button thank you chair um yes i i agree with what councilor and yourself have said on that i think i just wanted to on a technical point can i it's it i realize that it's uh the current temporary permit ran out on the 20th on the 2nd of may 22. so what we're approving tonight is that backdated to then something is that gonna is that does it start when does it start whatever period of time we're talking about granting them it would start from from the day that permission is granted so if i have time tomorrow if this was to succeed either five or three it would be from tomorrow well counselor airs was slightly important uh counselor uh airs was slightly more generous of myself when i was mulling over this when i was saying give them two years because i just think it's ridiculous that this has dragged on so long and it's just infuriating it comes back we're all sympathetic to local businesses and all the rest of it but surely i think we should make it clear whatever time we've decided to put on it that that time is to be used by the applicant to try and find somewhere else we wouldn't want them to disappear completely but find an alternative location or something else in the vicinity to make them carry on because and make it very clear that if they were minded to come back again and say can we have another few years we just say no counselor justin uh yeah mark justin nine elms um mention is made in the notes of the current dimensions of the cabin as it's called but um there's also mention that it uh would appear to have grown in size from some aerial photograph in actual fact the previous size of the stall was five meters by 1.88 because that is an official market traders dimensions of a stall so in these somehow in these intervening years it's doubled in size so are we talking about um renewing for whatever period the original size of the stall which was more which was i would say a stall or the size of the porter cabin that it has now become what you see the existing structure is what they are seeking to receive a further five-year temporary permission for so they're asking permission for what you describe not unjustly perhaps but as a porter cabin okay counselor lavinda you had perhaps a question of mr grain jr which is that given that the current or not current but the previous approval expired in 22 did the department not take enforcement action which is what would have normally been the case elsewhere and if so why not it's a good job that my valued colleague mr ray ball from the planning enforcement team is here because we talked about this earlier so if chair i can allow mr abold uh good evening mr abold enforcement um yeah this one has been an enforcement case on and off for a little while um i think initially we were going to recommend issue of an enforcement notice way back in 2016 2017 when it was enlarged and um counselors at the time um were a little bit resistant to that let's say and preferred an application to come in before committee for it to be fully discussed and as explained by mr granger the officer recommendation was refused but on the night members um uh approved the application um enforcement has again prompted submission of this fresh application before you tonight okay obviously councilor white um yeah i mean i've used that flower store in the past um i don't think it's an obstruction and it's been there for such a long time the thing is clapham junction is a really really busy station so that you know i mean unless you have a massive boulevard outside it's you know anything there's going to be an obstruction and i think that if you had um if we're asking it to find another place well it's in a fantastic place so you know obviously they'd want to stay in that place and it's convenient for people coming out the station and going home and whatever so i feel that um i think i think it works quite well and i see no reason why we shouldn't go over the five years interesting i mean it's obviously quite an attractive thing to have around and indeed i've used it too and no doubt all sorts of other people have um i'm sorry i'm not an expert but it's been said no doubt alleged i have no idea if you want to pack this up that is very expensive i think that's not quite for us the planning officers make quite clear the planning arguments against it and it's on a different level i think it very it obstructs the pedestrian crossing the traffic lights there so there are a number of problems with it um council white's got an interesting position which he's welcome to have and which i must admit i have had sympathy within the past we have a we have a recommendation that it's five years we have an amendment for three years i think amendment well yeah i took council as actually moving as three i didn't and i know you're suggesting to council humphries but i'm not sure that um are you moving it or not two it's even more pointed that we shouldn't give medics extra time i don't feel over inclined to be generous on that front unfortunately this is this is like can i say this without offending council gavin do he usually gets offended by bring party politics this is getting like a liberal democratic convention where we swap very unusual but let's but let let's now the last amendment moved and i think that's the right way of doing it yeah was for two years and that was seconded was it it was seconded um those in favor of permission being granted for a two-year period and those against well that wins four votes to two that is a two-year period now that will sorry i should have said a bit the majority may forgive me for this or may not forgive me for this but can i just check out there is a an overall plan one reason why i picked three years is that there three years is that there is a plan uh which has that time of time scale is that relevant mr grandeur perhaps you could just remind us certainly the so as part of the adoption of the local plan we have the clapham junction urban heart master plan that's currently um going through development um it's gone through stage one um it's now at stage two um but the there's easily uh another year of work to complete stage two and it's out of three phases because of the complexities of hopefully people were trying to all the the the stakeholders involved were trying to find one solution to actually traverse the a new element to traverse this station but they ended up with three options so they're being worked up but that's going to actually slightly elongate the work on the master plan to get it to stage two and adoption was was thought to be in spring 2026 but that's going to be projected forward why possibly three years would make more sense to dovetail with that but um it's obviously a matter for members to uh to debate i'm being and hard liners on my left are telling me it's already been decided we're flexible here um the four do you want to stick with two years okay so we've stuck with two years in fact it's two years um so it's a two-year period okay thank you um move to item three which is the riverside business center and is um one of the technical words detail is following on from a major application um any comments hello mr richards sorry thank you my name is ellen richards i'm the team leader for the west team um it's a section 73 application to vary um the original parent permission um for the redevelopment of the site for um 433 residential units and commercial units this um focuses mainly on the central just on the residential blocks really the central block and the one on the riverside and the changes are all linked to changes in fire regs and building regs requirements so two of the blocks um blocks which ones are they d and g um have to have additional staircase um to meet with those regulations and there's various changes to the layouts and access points and routes through and so on associated with um flood and um building regs and fire again um yeah that's the main thrust of it and the recommendation is to approve um i think it makes that quite clear on page 63 that the applicant has advised that these changes are required due to updated fire regulations in my view um whether it's fire regulations or not they are in any event an improvement so i i'm personally quite in favor of the application but any other comments council give India just kind of to one request and one question really on page 91 in para 15.4 it says whilst the units would not strictly comply with new standards set out in lp 26 about external amenity space um how many units don't comply or is it all units don't comply i couldn't get an understanding of that and the second point is a request for some information at the top of page 25 talks about 25 000 contribution to facilitate improved visitor access to the river from king georges park so when that is drawn up could that be shared with me please mr engines i missed which which where are you referencing what was the second point where did you see that in the report at the top of page 20 91 oh 91 yeah it's a 25 000 pound contribution uh for improvements to improvements from the park to the river i just want details when they're ready that's all that's fine are you prepared so sorry there are two bits so the one is about how many units don't comply yeah um so all the flats have private amenity space either through terraces um or balconies um except for three studio flats so they're little studio flats um in block f um and these are as were approved previously yeah and there's communal space as well yeah the vast majority okay yes a vast majority okay uh any uh counts uh white um yeah we've got a um a plan that uh actually removes basement sorry councilor white for tuting bit more actually removes basements i mean this is uh this is a major moment for me anyway um and also the the improvements around sustainability are much welcomed as well but um our our own plan is is 50 affordable homes isn't that it is indeed yeah um sorry just to confirm our part that's a merging policy that's not actual policy yes and uh also uh rfo will split at 70 30 um and this doesn't meet any uh either of those um and i know it meets the um the glas um standard as far as this is concerned um but it's disappointing they can go a little bit further um with our with changing the plan to actually um at least at least uh with the affordables um because i think there's only be 21 um so added social homes because that's what we need um so that that's a little bit disappointing but as i say the rest of it is um is quite positive in in my in my estimation you and i are in total agreement on the essence of this matter but the application has already been approved at the principal level and we're just talking about variations of details so okay council humphries thanks chair uh just on the affordable i once i must say i was very pleased to see the increase in the extra five four bed units which is something we do particularly need so that was i thought something that was very worthwhile uh changing and something that is is a real need so yeah well done on that i think that was very good uh and the s or seat pumps into the gas boilers i mean there's definitely improvements on this kind of one um i had a slight query on the active frontages because obviously losing the basements and getting the bin stores and all that on the ground floor now i'm just slightly concerned that the the frontages aren't going to be as active as they were with all the staircase and i know councilor ares always likes to see doors on the on the streets and we're going to shove them all in the corridor in the courtyard on this one so are we are we happy that the the frontages will be fine on this one because it's in the main there are still going to be um openings on the outside if you like but most of them have got steps so there had to be alternative main entrances provided within the courtyard to to meet with accessibility standards but you still view the building from the outside as having an access point yeah as well as well as instead of thank you that's that's much clearer and one other thing if i might chair um there was a comment in the objections about the construction traffic i just wanted to check on the cmp apparently people are saying the constructors currently and they're worried about it going on into the future of the build out are using haldane place instead of bend and valley for the uh construction traffic i just wanted to see if there's any detail on the cmp to specify which one they should be using just to make sure they're doing what they should be doing because obviously that's something we're concerned to existing residents already let alone before it's finished is that mr richards or mr tidley i was just going to say that there is there is a condition on here that we've approved cmp and it requires them to be in a in compliance with that so i guess this is something for our enforcement to monitor monitor yeah in terms and and if they consider that there to be a problem there but i can hand over to mr tidley if he's aware of any issues there but report it to them is he's gagging to get in sitting behind you good good evening councillors david tidley the head of transport strategy obviously this paper is dealing with changes and so the construction management arrangements are not changed as a result of this and so consequently that's what we're sticking with i think it was a me the single objection so i wouldn't want to overstate that given this quite a significant amount of development going on there was one objection um but we will investigate and ensure a compliance okay is the application approved agreed thank um okay those in favor of the application one two three four five and those against right move on to sorry for for public interest that was five votes to one um six to one well if you like i've been sorry but i said five to one because i didn't vote and i chose not to vote but it's five to one i didn't choose not to vote because i'm against it or anything like that i just thought i'd leave it to the committee okay um moving on to application number four oxford road and i'm not sure that all members will be aware that we've had a letter from the ward councillors um and perhaps mr grangell would just cover that letter in sorry miss ridgers might i do beg your pardon miss ridges might wish to cover that letter in talking about oxford road thank you um the letter came in quite late in the day um it was essentially a reiteration of the objections that were first submitted by councillor jeffries on behalf of residents there were a lot of objections initially if members have looked at what was originally proposed it was a huge roof addition across both properties completely unacceptable it's taken a while to actually get to this stage where there are just two dormer windows proposed at the rear so that's the nub of the what's actually being proposed in the end they've removed all the other elements so the objection really was relating more to what was previously proposed than than what currently is before you so we now have an application for what some might consider a fairly modest extension um any comments or is it just agreed agreed sorry who's commenting oh councillor hunt for his and councilman dear thank you chair sorry for the confusion um yeah i think the um one of the things that councillor jeffries was was saying in his letter and apologies if colleagues haven't all seen it was that um he was he had some concerns about the consultation and the re-consultation afterwards i think that was one of the main thrusts and just just for a bit of clarity on that because the first time around i think there were 12 objections and the second time around only four and as richard says it's changed quite significantly from what was first proposed but i think there was a little bit of uh confusion about people not knowing how much it had changed and might have said more if they'd known but just to be clear about how much we consulted the second time around because i gather it was a smaller consultation than it was the first time around because apparently according to councillor jeffries quite a lot of the residents said they didn't know about the second consultation um as you've been doing this long enough you know perfectly well that people always complain that they didn't know or they didn't they threw that piece of paper away to the in the bin before they read it etc i take your point though miss jeffries um on page 108 and 109 you can see first of all at the top of the page it shows you what actually is now proposed so it's just the dormer windows of the main roof and a consultation you'll see that there were 22 letters sent out and we had 12 responses the first time and then um also a petition so people felt very strongly quite understandably as well um as to what was initially proposed following a lot of revisions as is set out here as well because we did get three in the end so we finally went to the last we only consulted on the final um one again 22 letters were sent out but this time only four people still responded so there was a question really here a often rule of thumb is if you're reducing something in terms of scale there's a question as to whether or not you need to re-consult because you've already consulted on the the larger scheme possible if you like but because there was so much concern and councillor jeffries was involved um we considered it pertinent to um consult directly by letter again um and that's it really i mean we we've done that we have had responses i think it's quite evident that has happened that the letter would have set out what the revisions were so i don't think anybody's unaware of the proposal now can i say i mean that sounds like a perfectly good explanation but i wouldn't be happy if you didn't re-consult if you said there was a question just because it's got smaller and therefore that doesn't discount the comments first time around it might mean that the same number still object or it might mean that fewer object but i wouldn't don't think you can ignore the consultation so i just let me out so when you said you said there was a question about whether we should re-consult it having got smaller if it ever came up as a question here i would definitely be in favor of re-consulting that's all i wanted to make sorry can i just come back slightly on that because not every time this is more of a general point not every time we'll re-consult if something's reduced in size because it it's you know it is you know the costs involved in consultation this is 22 44 4 letters so that's almost just 44 pounds of a 234 pound fee for an application every time we re-consulted we send out 60 or 70 000 letters a year from my department i can't we can't can re-consult every time often we will do and things like this there's a significant change and it's a very much reduction and i think that's absolutely right that we re-consulted but if there's small changes and small reductions we won't so i i take your point but it's not a one-size-fits-all mr caldwell and i are going to have an argument um i i take your point the if the change is massive and the it depends on the on the level of the change i agree council of india i think i think that mr caldwell's comment ended saying there'll be obviously room for horses for courses and i think this on this occasion perhaps uh given the extent of correspondence in the first time around it might have been prudent to re-consult i think it's ultimately about creating a system of confidence in the planning process not every time you need to but i think that so long as you leave it possible to do it on some occasions fine okay is it agreed the application is agreed thank you move on to um the car parking space and swaffield road um interesting and again we've had some correspondence on that right mr richard's got any comment on it or you yes so this is an application um for nine units on what is currently a car parking space um on swaffield road um you will have received the late items paper which sets out um a little bit of activity on this one and we've received 13 additional objections to this largely from residents of um as earlsfield house who currently have um within their leasehold the right to park in the car park um where this development will take place um and i think um that's a private issue though um just to clarify because um there are only 11 um spaces proposed i believe at the minute there are 20 um permits um issued for or available for earlsfield house residents so clearly the number of car parking spaces available for those residents will reduce as a result of this however we have received uh further um correspondence with the applicants who have confirmed as we have set out in the report that this is a civil matter it's not a matter for planning to consider in terms of whether or not um those car parking spaces are are retained for earlsfield house or for the for the residents of the new development but it is an undertaking that they um have agreed to and that's why it's subject to the section 106 agreement um that that forms part of of of the permission thank you um and councilor windy thanks i've got a few questions first about the thing because i just need to understand some of the details i saw the the arboricultural report in the report section but what it doesn't cover is the impact on the trees on ochro road given that there is going to be a full site basement box the trees on ochro road are very mature plane trees and i don't know the impact is there and whether they are in any way protected under the conditions in here i couldn't see any reference to them and whether a tree particularly a tree on ochro road is so close to what might be the three houses or possibly the the car lift whether that is in any way protected compromise or so on so the report is silent on it and i just want to know a little more about that the second thing sorry to interrupt they're pretty mature trees aren't they they are very mature trees indeed yeah and and the second point i want to get some clarification is what's the window to window distance between the proposed townhouses and the proposed flats and i would rather that it was kind of balcony to balcony distance rather than window to window um i mean it might be adequate but but it is suggested that it might not be in the correspondence and the third question of clarification is about the pathway there's some correspondence again about its adequacy in terms of wheelchair accessibility and whether it's lit and so on now the previous pathway actually existed um which didn't go through this land it actually went through the land that higgins are currently developing for the council so i think the report is slightly inaccurate about the path that previously existed it didn't exist through this land it exists another land and whether the pathway proposed is only on this land or does it straddle the old boundaries and new boundaries when you look at the cgi on page 121 yeah um you're talking about the distance between the flats the houses on the left yeah and the flats on the right is that what you mean yes yes yes okay do we know that miss ridges on page 133 under paragraph 9.5 it refers to the distances as being between 14 and 18 meters okay okay um in respect of the uh route through um on page 129 paragraph 2.4 it's acknowledging that this will there is a route being re-provided but it does acknowledge that this was lost as a result of the adjacent development so that it was the route through that was sitting in the higgins development so as part of this they've offered it offered it really as a as a means of linking oak and shore and um swayfield so this is a welcome public benefit as far as we're concerned because it separates the two sites quite nicely and it gives back that access with light lighting and so on um i think it it again the the route through will be between 1.8 and 3 meters width so it's quite a decent amount as well for um i think mr richards you there's a 1.5 figure quoted in the report and then a 1.6 figure quoted in the report of the narrowest now you're saying it's 1.8 what is it at the narrowest forgive me i mean i mean i was taking it from what i can remember reading the report myself the point in the report so paragraph 2.4 on page 1.129 says 1.6 at its narrowest and on 119 and then it goes on to say three meters and it's widest and yes and then on 119 it says 1.5 to three meters so in a sense what i'm asking is at its narrowest is it 1.5 or is it 1.6 and is it basically adequate for a disabled person in a wheelchair i mean that's the more important consideration i'm looking for i i believe it would be wide enough along the route for wheelchair users or buggy users um because i think most doors door widths would be um one point much less yeah in internal doors for for um we can help with the double buggy measure that he always often uses mr tiddly might help with the double buggy measure that we allow for pavements to have so which is to just say whatever the figure is 1.5 1.6 these to translate for people who are not the over we're doing five six foot is that big enough for any double buggy that i'm i've ever seen it's not six foot five yeah i said five or six foot big enough for any double buggy i've ever seen it's frank okay the other question is about the building line with number 85 sawfield road um the plans show that the the block of flats will be proud of the building line for 85 sawfield road and it's pretty unusual that you would have a neighboring property proud of of an established building line i don't know what the justification there i presume you're talking about the rear building line which does project beyond sorry on the street afraid i don't have a plan specifically of the street to hand to look at that and to verify but i'd imagine it's to do with the curve or the movement of the buildings along the street so it it's the building is in between a terrace and another building being built and so sometimes there is a variation in terms of building lines as a consequence sorry to interrupt my recollection is it's in line with the corner development and then it steps back and then it steps back further into the terrace so on page 122 you can see that there's the building lines thank you i i walk along this virtually 10 times a day a week i know i know he was it's okay i know the road extremely well the higgins development is right on the building on on the property line the um the shire place buildings are set back with a front garden and this is more in line with the egan's plot than with the shire place gardens i just think it's not right that the front of the building should be not respecting an established residential building line i think i think it looks quite a good development actually myself um and those people concerned about the the pathway for instance it's the pathway very close to where i live which runs into northgate road of similar scale there's no no crime problems associated with it i don't think it's sorry um are you suggesting that softwood rose is not a nice place because big as i would have thought the gap is quite a reasonable place indeed local residents think not okay um are there any other comments or finally it's my comment about the the parking well actually there's basement box there's also to be fair your comment about the trees i think yes yeah um with regard to the trees there aren't any specific conditions for protection of trees i'm aware of the tree that you're referring to in oak and shore but i believe that's far enough away from this particular site it's outside of this red line certainly and it's along i think it's along the road on oak and shore i don't know whether or not it would be reasonable to impose a condition requiring protection of that tree bearing in mind the site itself is some distance away albeit that there might be that might be captured in the cmp but it depends on what the route of the construction traffic would be and so on so i'm not sure whether it would be reasonable perhaps we could ask um our legal advisor but i don't know if it's a the tree that you're concerned about is insufficient distance within the site boundary to warrant a condition that would require protection sure i mean okshaw road has been uh sorry okshaw road has been a cul-de-sac for a very very long time and therefore the pavement at that end is quite narrow and the tree is on the pavement what i am really concerned about is when the basement is dug relatively close to the basement to the tree root structure what measures are we going to take to protect a tree which is part of a series of trees roughly all of same age um and whether we we are prepared to see it compromised and i'd hope that we're not um and i i would have hoped that the paper would have covered the the risk to the tree given that the route to the car lift is going to require them traversing the pavement the council owns certainly does suggest to me that uh you have a campaign on your hands to get to get all the trees in that road which are all mature and fairly and large to get them all seen by our tree experts and made tpos or not as the case may be but i don't think mr richards has the answer specifically on that you've made the point and i'm sure if we proceed that uh the condition of the tree will certainly be raised by miss richards but i i guess it will be all right but that's not good enough guessing i suppose go on miss richards i thought you were leaning forward to say something okay you i was wrong any other comments council white council humphreys yeah obvious comment about a bloody basement going in um for a car park geez um and you know and it's obviously not linked to well it's not linked directly to to the new development and the fact that there's no affordable housing handily we've just got nine houses again um but uh i mean are are the other leases legally i mean are they legally enforceable such that if uh car parking space wasn't provided because of this new development would would i think we've got to be fairly clear here council white the leasehold arrangements with the property owner are what they are i'm sure mrs richards hasn't considered that part of her job to look at it or or to give advice on it that's a private as she said a private matter between the leaseholders and the property owner um i don't think we have a view about that do you are you waiting for me to say something but no i think it's just frustration i was coming forth with but anyway okay council humphreys thank you chair i mean there obviously are issues with the parking and that does need to be resolved because you know if we all know the series we can draw on planning permission for something doesn't mean it's going to necessarily be built if they can't source out the other legal issues but it does seem odd and the explanation in the late papers seems to make it even more confusing about who has and who hasn't got rights to those spaces and the applicant says this and the residents say something else i'm not totally happy i know we're being told it's not a matter for this committee to decide but it doesn't fill me with confidence that anybody knows what they're doing to to bottom this out properly and that undermines my confidence in the rest of the scheme i i have to agree with with council of cabindia about the the building line at the front because yes uh i want to clear it was this this committee that approved making the site next door bigger uh but the context between that and the the terrace houses further down i think this transition doesn't necessarily work their way it's a shame as mr caller says it does step back it's a shame it doesn't step back enough to line up with the building line of the houses uh uh the traditional houses further up the street and that would have maybe perhaps made it blend in better it it seems very much looking at the looking at the plan on page one two two uh this is obviously very much where the the developer is uh is maximizing the benefit for the residents of his own development which is fair enough but at the expense of anybody else on the outside because everything's pushed right to the boundaries to extend the space of the gardens and the immunity space in the middle for the residents of this development but that means it does have an impact on the residents next door and all the rest of it which is which is unfortunate uh there are still issues though rather not with the the parking arrangements because there's this thing about the parking space outside on the street so could we have a little bit of clarity on how that's going to work i understand the development next door has rights to park in front of where this access is going to be in fact i'm not sure but in that cgi on page one two one is that car not exactly where we're talking about there being an issue with uh development so how how practically is that going to work could we get some clarity on that please if i may say so chance humphries in the friendliest possible way when you were doing this job um a couple of years ago if you were faced with a similar situation someone who owns a site somewhere else um and that they have whatever they provide somewhere else you wouldn't have considered it as a as relevant to a planning application on another site what was or wasn't happening on the previous site i just don't think it's part of our role as a planning committee to give a view on that it may be indeed rather than maybe it's certainly our view to give a role to give a view on the role of the parking situation in the area in general and for that i could happily turn to mr lutidly and say what is the parking situation there if we had an application for new housing but we don't we've got an application for what the person wants to put there and it's not our role to defend the rights somewhere else is it that's a new interpretation of planning law if it is not at all chair i completely disagree i think the fact is that it's pertinent to this application that what the applicant is trying to do is is hidebound by the circumstances around them do you remember was it last month we had a discussion about the loading bay in falcon road with a stop there no sorry wasn't that one it was the one on richmond road where the majestic wine warehouses where there's a loading bay on the the red route and was that adequate for the servicing to the businesses and the new residential properties that there because the car place was car free and i think it's somewhat the same situation here it's whether that parking space on the street which is it already there in planning terms is going to impinge on what they're proposing to do if it's not possible to do it i think that's perfectly relevant i couldn't make sense of that to be quite honest i really didn't mean that i don't but perhaps i can ask mr caulder about about his view about um our attitude on one site given the owner's commitments on another site well i was going to hand over to mr moores just to go through what we can legally look at what is part of this application and what's outside the requirements if that's okay with mr moore's no no it isn't it isn't okay at all um no it's fine i kind of lost the thread of what um council humphries was saying i'm afraid um maybe i should make it clearer then keep it simple so let's not let's not over confuse things uh there are several issues on this side which have been raised in objections they're in the report about access to the car parking lift for example at the back there is uh issues with the the parking space that is already given permission for the site next door which overlays the entrance to this alleyway in the the side between the two developments and is that going to be an issue for access uh and those things together i think are perfectly pertinent questions to ask as far as how it impacts on the protect the possibility of the development and their genuine concerns have been raised by residents in their objections and we we'll be missing it failing in our duty we didn't address those concerns oh sorry those two i agree with you absolutely but i thought you were referring to i thought you were referring to the the parking rights if that's the right word of people in you weren't i do beg your pardon in that case um so the issues are about access to the car lift lots of parking space at the front which is going to cover over the alleyway i think is mentioned in the report i can't remember which page i won't ask mr moles then but i think i'm glad that i was able to elicit that clarification chairman thank you i think miss richards does have the answer oh i just wanted to say that this was something that we as officers have picked up on that the entrance to the lift um and if you can go back to the higgins scheme you can see that there are parking spaces proposed in that location currently um for i think to do with the health center now again it's a similar situation as with the provision of the 11 car parking spaces being only being offered because they are legally required to do so because of the uh clauses of their leasehold um how that works and how it it arrives at that point is outside of the planning um regime you know but we are assessing it for what is are the 11 units sorry 11 space is acceptable in the basement is the development above ground acceptable and so on and so on and movement and and in consultation with our colleagues um similarly because those car parking spaces have been approved as part of the higgins again this would be a negotiation between this landowner and with the the neighboring landowner to see whether or not there can be any rearrangement of those parking spaces i've looked at that back area and there is probably you know space to maneuver there in terms of where those parking spaces need to go so i don't see that there has to be a hold up of this if permission is granted just based on on on what has previously been approved at next door i think there are ways of of negotiating between the two landowners and that's as much as we can comment on it okay can i still give my concern really is about wider than this but let me let me try and say earlsfield has got 20 leaseholders and 20 people have parking rights in this car park it seems that 11 of them will have their parking rights respected and the remaining will lose their parking rights and therefore they will add to parking pressure on the adjoining roads nine properties that are being proposed here will either not have parking in the basement or they will have to turf out what those 11 and so they will also be adding to the parking pressure in the area the new doctor surgery is inevitably going to have its own parking pressure visitors as it's already the case that soffit road is parked up relatively frequently with patients visiting the doctor because parking along garrett lane is now impossible because there is a cycle lane in front of doctor surgery the new housing proposal in the neighborhood is relatively modest car provision car parking provision which inevitably at that time said there'll be parking pressure and this paper does not address the parking pressure that might result as a result of this development in the wider area what it doesn't also address in my view is that the basement box will be and what it does to the rainwater circulation that currently happens in the car parking what does the rain that the the basement box do but the impact of the basement box and the access to it from all sorts of places is also not adequately in my view addressed in this paper and therefore i i would suggest that we defer this to allow for some real clarity as to how you get into that car park will that mature tree be compromised will there be permissions granted by the council that owns oak show road pavements and and all of those matters and then actually a genuinely assessment of what the parking pressure how the parking pressures in the area might be better managed if this development were to go ahead i just don't think it's sufficiently here i accept the whole legal argument between leaseholders and freeholders and all of that that's a matter that they must resolve but what we have to resolve for the neighborhood is that we are not adding to what is already not an easy place to park particularly if you are a brockle bank practice patient you can't really park very nearby and softfield road is as close you can get to mr tidley what's what have you got to say about not all the details of it not the not of the lift and the access to but about parking the situation in that corner of garrett lane softfield road area thank you thank you chair i think maybe the starting point is here is to look at the london plan and look at the council's policy this site is located in an area of petal five and it could you could argue that corners it's not far from petal four but in no circumstances the expectation is development would be car three and effectively there would be no parking provided with development and also that because the development in this case is under nine units it wouldn't be excluded from the controlled parking zone and so consequently it's i wouldn't say it's irrelevant that there may be parking pressures caused as a result of development in the round but those parking pressures would be addressed by reviews of the controlled parking zone the hours the eligibility criteria the price of permits and potentially a future um local plan that lowered the threshold at which developments were excluded from the cpz from 10 units to say five units or something like that but it wouldn't be something that we would would say what i'm talking in the round and not really this individual application just needs to be considered on its own particular merits is here so mr tiddly in principle the owner of this particular site of land actually doesn't need to provide any parking he could just put in a development for two very expensive large townhouses and and and just get rid of all the parking there's nothing we could do about that i mean he's not but we there's nothing we could do about it in planning in policy terms there would be no objection for me for that whether there was a wider objection so that's position on the parking uh whether that's whether people like it or not that's the position on the parking cancer is we spent a lot of time talking about cars i'd like you to start thinking about the people have a look at the top left-hand corner on page 122 and look at that wretched little house squeezed into the corner there now i think that although one might be grateful for that if one was homeless um it's a sign that it's actually a greedy development to have something which is so cramped in its living area and the external space is going to be like a sort of corridor green corridor overall i like the design of the of the um of the elevations um and i think it has a lot to commend it but that is a dreadful little house and i'm surprised that any of us would overlook the fact well you're talking on page one two two that's just we're talking about the house immediately under the words proposed yes yes that house in the corner have we got any can you say anything mr richards about that particular house scale the the the open the garden anything like that it meets with standard i mean sorry it's been assessed in terms of what the layout has been presented to us um the layouts reflect the parcel of land shape um and also we have to consider what it would look like on the outside when you look at the elevations as well well if i can come back on that i mean is it that that that house is inclining me to agree with the proposal over there to delay this and get them to do try a bit harder with some of the aspects of the parking and that house so what have we got here we've got a proposal to defer is that right yes i'd support that second okay sorry can i just confirm which house house three that one there they're talking about page one two two top left hand corner immediately below the word proposed and you're concerned about what it's a 77 square meter unit good lord you can't just think in numbers when you're thinking of homes i mean that's a horrid space it'd be very difficult to organize the furniture i dread to think what happens upstairs it's it's certainly smaller and more crap than the ones immediately alongside it that's undoubtedly the case of nature of the of the shape of the site but it's by no means particularly small compared with all sorts of places no it's not particularly small it's just poorly designed it's not that is a really filthy tactic which we'll discuss later elsewhere i agree with that don't say that again i'm not sure that this is a reason even legally to refuse this but to delay it and say try harder i think there is a reason for it can i sorry i just want to say that the entire scheme would have to be redesigned now um which is obviously i don't really know this this is responding to the site and its form it's gone through a number of iterations and revisions um through pre-app and everything else to find the best layout i'm struggling to understand what grounds to defer would be right we've got a moving and seconding now on what grounds do we need ground yes to defer so it was a deferral that um to allow for engagement with applicants to fully understand the parking implications no i can't agree to that the part it really as mr tidley said there's if it was just an application for housing on its own we would say if there's no parking in a in a pitot in this area that's just kind of i mean i can't accept that well you you can accept it i'm saying i can't that's my position what i'm saying is i'm seeking clarity about the parking situation yes both in terms of parking currently available on this site and in future will be available in this site for the current users and future users of the site the paper is not clear enough about it i'm not talking about rights it's about the adequacy the second point is about whether in design terms the proposed the the proposed house number three is the best that can be done in that house and whether a review of that house to improve its aspect and design would be would be to the advantage of the site and is that seconded any other comments well i make a comment there's a there's i think on the whole it's quite nicely designed the whole thing we're talking about a number of housing houses in a area that has a housing deficit um i think you need to be very careful in consideration of that in terms of what alternatives we might get so i would certainly oppose that but we've got a mr moores so just to uh hopefully give some clarity to members on the the proposal to defer um in relation to the parking element i've got a concern about deferring deliberation of this application on a matter that's not a material planning consideration the future and existing users of this particular car park members have been very clearly advised both in the paper and this evening that the private arrangement between between the free holder and the lease holders is not a material planning consideration if if members want further clarity in relation to parking we have to be very specific and i think it relates to a cumulative impact of the development in the area on the available parking now bearing in mind what they've got mr tidley's been advising members we don't have the policy backing for this so i'm not entirely sure what further information members are seeking this regard that will benefit a decision when the matter comes back before them and secondly in terms of the design element can we be very clear on what it is that members find objectionable about the design because it clearly can't be anything to do with the size of the unit it meets all of the national and local space requirements in fact i think if you look at the the table that is on forgive me on page one three three and if that unit in the corner is unit three it's actually four square meters larger than the the two properties of which it forms a terrace so what is it that members are very unhappy with about the design and i think that's will give both officers and the applicant some clarity as to what it is that they need to look at thank you counselors sorry i'm beginning to understand that deferring it due to the parking is not sound so i'd be reluctant to fail the whole um design because of that one house so i would withdraw my support for a delay to this however it demonstrates that to use square meterage as a measure of design is just so limited i mean that's all you're talking about square meterage size of and not aspects views convenience aesthetic issues or even comfortable issues but that's okay that's just my opinion and i understand sadly that we can't do anything sorry anything about rubbish designs like that this is an unfortunate situation to get into where essentially there is reservation around the members about lots of little things and maybe you know the whole panoply of the planning law and and and and rules is kind of marshaled to stop what is essentially a modest kind of stop check your pick your drawings and come back and try harder attempt this is not trying to stop a development but the whole forces on that side are marshaled against a reasonable hopefully a positive outcome both for the neighborhood and this particular group of people agreed at the moment and i just think it makes the whole process look like rubber stamp we might as well go home because officers have written the report they've got all of policy justification for what they've written in there and therefore they will inevitably give advice that you can't change what we have written and save yourself time go home that's what's happening i think i've probably made that kind of argument about officers recommendations for many on many occasions when perhaps there was someone else sitting where i'm sitting the fact that but you've made it fairly clear what the officer's advice is you've we've all accepted now that there are no planning grounds the others items are aesthetic grounds which like it or not is not part of our remit except to be fair the tree and the tree um i think i understood from from mr richards the tree was sufficiently far away to not likely be affected is that correct mr richards the tree that you're referring to is across the way to the south by some distance from the site itself and also as i recall although i haven't looked at this but i'm pretty sure that tree is very well protected under the athlete scheme so there's already protection afforded to that tree in terms of in terms of construction work and vehicle movements around the site it's not clear advice is it it's some distance away if i remember correctly it is protected and that's not sorry counselor i am looking at a an aerial photograph as i'm explaining that because i wanted to make sure myself where that tree was located as i'm giving you advice you could have said that apart almost anything and people wouldn't necessarily know the answer because what you raised very good now you're still moving council humphries do we have to we have you got something to add something slightly different if i may chair uh trying to trying to be reasonable about this i think we're all agree that there's there's some merit to the scheme and there's a scheme in here i just think from what we've had through the debate so far there's some debate about all sorts of details and to me it you could sum it up by saying it's almost like a degree of overdevelopment they're trying to pack too much in councilor air's point would be addressed if we had two units at the back instead of three and you could make better use of that space we often say don't we in small sites have to work quite hard to make it work we've already heard there's concerns about how it's pushed forward to the max on the boundary at the front and not not respecting the building line of the rest of the street i think it's it's all sort of indicative of a general feeling of unease nothing perhaps as we've heard big enough to warrant a refusal at this stage but i think there's there's stuff to look at there which is too much disquiet from all sorts of areas rather than one particular thing and i thought we could have something a better scheme there that we could happily approve there's there's a movement to defer this the secondary was drawn is there another second those in favor of deferment those against um two to four i think two votes to four and one abstention is um so we get to the substantive which is to approve the application those in favor for those against two one abstention okay we move on to i don't know how to pronounce this but let's assume jet the road it's not my neck of the woods i must confess the application of jet the road mr rich has anything to say about it or just as it stands as it stands i think so too is that agreed no there's a hesitation who's who's putting a hand up to say something counselor humphries counselor is i think the elevations of this are quite good and i commend it's a bit of artwork on the front that's a nice change to see the panel of terracotta work but i'm afraid now i i get very hostile to this scheme the internal planning of this is really a joke now miss nick caulder has comforted me by saying that the building inspectors will sort it out on site well good i'm glad they will because but it's a very it is a very bad plan and i'll tell you for why first of all you shouldn't have internal bathrooms unless you really have to you should try and have bathrooms that have windows and natural ventilation that's one the ground floor has no natural storage no utility room but it's completely open plan that everybody knows that if you've got an open plan kitchen dining living room you have to have a utility room um the it's the same argument as the last one obviously it as far as i'm concerned we accept this plan we approve it i do approve it but i don't understand why internal planning is so poor almost every scheme we look at the internal planning is really naive and some and sometimes just plain daft so i don't know why we can't upgrade the kind of internal planning we have it's not just a question of square meters and uh meriting size and all this i mean anyway so that's all i had to say but i will vote for it can i ask mr calda um i i'm i imagine this is very shorthand but planning's involved in usage appearance scale height also densities all sorts of things actually we don't expect what do we expect in planning law apart from things sheer things like size do we i mean it's a matter of taste what people do internally isn't it i mean these i mean accounts the heirs may be absolutely right and i may agree with all the designs i may not but there are limits on what we can say about internal design surely yeah indeed um we we do look at room sizes we look at overall layouts but with it within a development you won't just say oh it's an open plan kitchen diner therefore they've got to have separate other rooms on that floor it's more about the room sizes and how they operate as you said building control how they operate the key is you there yeah but building control will ensure that there's means of enclosure and there's fire safety issues and ventilation mechanical ventilation if you've got an internally located bathroom obviously ideally you would have a window to it but it's not a requirement it's not something we could refuse on on the basis of a planning application so we have to look at what we can control and we can't control all the internal layouts can i come back certainly you may it's not a matter of opinion whether a bathroom should be have an external wall and natural ventilation if we're trying to pursue green policies we should have always external bathrooms and not have to rely on nasty noisy extract fans i mean that is not opinion i mean that's that's fact it's not taste either it's also not a matter of opinion whether you need storage on the ground floor but it's not a matter of law unfortunately we what i'm trying to glean from this i mean maybe it is or maybe it should be but we don't actually have any powers to control is that's basically what you're saying yeah there's internal layouts guidance there's the gla guidance there's our own local guides but it it doesn't say that you have to have these things but many of them are covered and you know this is best practice years and years ago we used to do things like look at the the layers between flats to make sure all the kitchens were on top of each other and that's yeah but it's not in the ideal when we were more increasingly trying to maximize space you will have situations where these don't all line up i understand that i understand that completely but that's not the case of these rather big houses i i think you've made your point eloquently as ever i don't mean that at all patronizingly which you occasionally accuse me of but i don't mean that council given dear thank you can i can i firstly say that i've had quite a significant amount of correspondence on this site from local neighbors in the area and if you read the report correctly there have been several applications and several pd changes that have been made to this property particularly the conversion from hip to gable was done under pd which has made the roof of significantly larger and created in that very tight corner if you look at the map on page 148 it's quite a tight corner with several properties with tiny gardens backing onto this property with its own tiny garden the concern that has been expressed locally is particularly about a pair of juliet balconies on the third level of the of the proposed building so the roof's been expanded and converted into into a kind of a dormer with two dormer windows in the front and there's juliet's at the back and they cover over the tiny gardens in in that area and the concern is about privacy and outlook from from people over there i suspect their argument might be weaker if those two juliet balconies did not exist and normal windows existed and and i think that's the concern so that's the point i'd like the committee to note that this is an over development of a site which uh various steps that have been taken have been taken i'm sure perfectly legally and i'm sure i'll be giving chepron worse on what was done and has been done i know that i'll have legal advice on on it too but what i am saying is that from the local opinion in the area the the the the roof rooms with the juliet's of the rear is is the bit that rules them and is the over development and for that reason i'd move that this be refused on the grounds of over development councilman frizz oh sorry thank you chair uh yeah i i agree with uh what council beginning was just saying in the sense of the type we always told army to to every site we don't judge on its own modes if you look at the plan it is a really really tight site there and i think the thing that i'm particularly concerned about the distances are small it says on page uh one five five uh three three uh window to window from howden road to this one it's eight point five meters that's very close that's window to window that's not that's you know it's very very tight so i think any uh implications of overlooking as such like are obviously bound to be uh uh magnified even more by those really small tight close distances and it's it's unfortunate isn't it because as as we've heard the the history we've gone through various iterations of what's been under permitted development and all the rest of it which is nibbled away or nibbled up the scale of the building as it is already and now we're being asked specifically for the details to the to the the roof at the back and i think in my view it's it's it's a step too far it's making it that much bigger even more on such a tight and i think the sense of overbearing and uh overlooking uh on those neighbors on all the neighbors all the way around on on on both sides and at the back of the other road as well howden road it's just too much and for for me i think they're just trying to get too much out of this uh one's very very tight site how big a house is it this mr how big is the house 160 square meters originally yeah on page 152 um it said that the existing house was 160 so each sorry catching on the spot the original page 152 at the bottom so how does that relate sorry it was just in that paragraph uh subdivision of the existing house which says it was 160 square meters as originally constructed but bearing in mind that there have been extensions built to the house subsequently under pd as we've just found out so the two the two resulting properties will be 119 square meters in total i'm well within policy i'm well within policy okay um right the application the the recommendation is to approve um those in favor one two three five those against two thank you we move on to um the next items which are the enforcement on page 163 this is an interesting one i think but uh you've got anything to say about it mr abold or as just as it stands um pretty much as it stands i mean in a nutshell um single-family dwelling converted into four flats um three of the flats um pretty much meet our policies um two are a little bit small um one doesn't have outdoor space but we're located directly opposite ballasee parks there's good access to high quality green open space the only issue really is the basement flat we're in flood zone and 3a and we have a strong and principal policy against self-contained residence units at basement level in flood zones for obvious reasons so we're taking a proportionate response and just looking to enforce the basement flat is that agreed agreed thank you and then moving on the there's a tree preservation order which is agreed no doubt agreed thank you and decisions paper for information closure of investigation files for information and closed appeals for information any comments any questions about any of those no thank you and good night [BLANK_AUDIO]