Transcript

We will be happy to have a good evening. It's now 7.30 and I would like to welcome you to this, the April meeting of the planning committee, the last of the municipal year and a big thank you to members for attending and also to members of the public joining us this evening. Other members of the public will be able to watch this meeting live on the council's website and they'll also be able to see the slides for each of the applications that we'll be considering on the website too. Also the meeting will be recorded and the recording will be available in the next few days. Now all of the members' microphones are currently muted. Members of the committee, in order to request a speak, could you please just raise your hand so that I can see you and make sure our eyes have met as it were so that I can take a note and then I'll call you at an appropriate time. When I do call you, if you can unmute your microphone, speak clearly to the committee. Remember that if you're sitting at home, this is the only means by which people are going to hear you and then at the end, mute your microphone again. Please could you ensure that your mobile phones are either switched or for muted such that they won't disturb the meeting and of course it would be good just to concentrate on what we're doing here this evening. We have some visiting members with us. We have three visiting members in the back row and I will invite them to speak at relevant parts of the meeting. For the members of the public who are here and those who are watching, I'd just like to clarify that visiting members are not members of this committee but they are council members who have an interest in the items that we have this evening and we of course allow them to come and speak and to share with us. Public speakers at an appropriate time will call you to the microphone. I think you've all been shown where it is and you know how to mute and unmute that microphone. It's at the back there just along from the visiting members. When you do speak, you have three minutes. If you're approaching three minutes, I'm going to time you as well as I can. If you're approaching three minutes, I'll indicate to you that you need to bring your remarks to a close. Please do that if you're able. If you do go over, I'm going to have to give that extra time to the opposing speaker as well. Please try and keep your remarks to those three minutes. Members of the committee, you're all aware of the points about committee meeting etiquette. Please follow those points to help ensure that this evening's meeting runs smoothly. When we do come to vote, we'll be voting using a show of hands and Leanne has the unenviable job of counting up the number of hands. So please make sure your hand is very definitely up and we've got a good count when we come to the voting. Please note that you're only able to vote if you've been in the chamber for the duration of an agenda item. Sorry, Chair, just as Ken is on by myself, the camera just appears to be not going on tuned. It's just shining on me consistently through the meeting. That's a good point, no. It's a very good point. Not that I want to be seen, but is there a reason why that's happening? That's back now. It's gone back to me now. Okay. You can all hear me, can't you? Yeah. I don't want to have to start again. If you have a declaration of interest to make in respect of any of the items that we'll be considering this evening and this, by the way, is just addressed to the members of the committee, would you please raise your hand when we come to a agenda item number three? It could be that you need to stand aside for that item, maybe even to leave the room. So you'll have to make a judgment whether it's a pecuniary or a non-pecuniary interest. If I have to adjourn the meeting for at any time, I will advise that the meeting is being adjourned and state the time that we will reconvene. Assuming that we don't have to run out of the building, I would like to ask you to stay in the chamber whilst we resolve the problem or whatever it is with your mic muted. As you'll know from the agenda, we have several items to consider this evening, substantial items. If the meeting continues until 10.30pm, then in accordance with the council's constitution, the committee must decide whether to determine items without debate to continue the meeting to complete all or part of the business or to refer the business to the next ordinary meeting or adjourn, of course, to a specific date. It would, of course, be preferable to conclude all business this evening. So I'd ask members to be efficient in the way that you speak. So I'd like to first of all introduce the officers who are with us this evening. To my right is Stephen Lewis, development manager, evening goal. Online we have James Hitchcock, our solicitor. Good evening. To my far left is Matthew Sheehan, the senior planning officer. Good evening. And we welcome for the first time this evening Jake Hardman. To my left, planning officer. Good evening. And to my left in the front is Leanne Dell, who is the clerk for this evening's meeting. Good evening. So members, we turn, first of all, to agenda item one, which is to look at the meeting of the minutes of the last meeting. Do members agree to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 27th of March, 2024, as a correct record. Thank you. Agenda item two, apologies for absence. Leanne, do we have any apologies this evening? Yes, we've had an apology from Councillor Sashdeva. We've also had an apology from Councillor McKenna, and Councillor Chester is his substitute. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you very much. Agenda item number three, this is the declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest in respect of the matters that we will be considering this evening? No, I'm seeing no hands, great. Okay, so members, you will have received earlier this afternoon the addendum to this evening's meeting. If you would like a paper copy, they are on the table there. Could members please confirm that you have seen or hold the addendum to this evening's meeting? Great. Okay, thank you very much. Now, we have two items this evening that have public speaking, and it is our normal, you'll be very pleased to hear this. It's our normal practice to actually bring those items forward so that earlier in the evening. So they are items number five, which is Banstered Cricket and Sports Club. And item number seven, sorry, item number eight, which is land to the rear of sixty to sixty-four Shelvers Way. So members, do I have your agreements that we will take these items first? Okay, thank you very much. So let's turn therefore to item number five, which is twenty-two slash zero, one, nine, two, eight, F, Banstered Cricket and Sports Club. And I'll just turn to my notes here, and Matthew Sheen is going to present this to us. All right, thank you, Chairman. This is a full application for the demolition of the existing clubhouse at Banstered Cricket and Sports Club, and the construction of a new, double-storey, double-storey pavilion and associated parking facilitated by the repositioning of the existing cricket nets. The application site is located to the south, Banstered High Street and Recreation Ground. Avenue Road and the Burr Park are located to the west. The Tracery and Park Road are located to the east and northeast of the cricket ground, and the site is within the Metropolitan Greenbelt. The site is accessed primarily from the Burr Park to the west via a long access road, which terminates in centralized car park with the nets facility beyond. There's also a pedestrian entrance to the north alongside the recreation ground, shown here. The two pitches to the north and south of the parking area, so I'm here and here. Also to the north is the existing single-storey 1970s clubhouse proposed to be demolished, which is shown here, and I'll show those in a bit more detail in some photographs in a moment, which is located next to the locally listed pavilion, which is this building here. To the south of those are two shipping containers and metal storage container, which you use largely for storage of groundskeeping equipment, which are in this location here. Again, I'll show those in more detail in a moment. So on the screen we have an aerial photograph which shows the site in some more of it. It's context over here. You can see the existing parking area with the nets here. You've got the two pitches either side of those. The access to the site is here, so sort of broadly following this line of trees. You can make out the footpath, which is the pedestrian access to the north there. To the south it's predominantly quite rural in character, you notice it's quite enclosed by sort of trees, particularly along the southern boundaries. To the eastern northeast, you can make out properties occupying the trace tree, which is this sort of later 20th century residential development here. To the north you've got the recreation ground, you can make out sort of the sports pitches, little tennis courts, et cetera, play area in here. Further to the north, you can just about make out part of the high street there. This more modern-looking building is the weight rows store on the high street there. So I'll go through some photographs. So this is the first photograph taken from the existing accessway into the site. So moving further down to the end of the access that bends into the site. You can make out the existing parking area there, which is shown here in some more detail at the moment an unsurface of unregularized fairly informal sort of parking arrangement. And you also make out the existing nets facility in the distance there, an existing scoreboard shown here on the edge of the car park. So it's taken from the car park looking south, so looking at the southern other two pitches currently found at the sports club. This is again taken from the car park looking sort of back towards the access. And this is taken from the southern pitch, looking north, so you can see the car park just there and again the nets to the side. This is taken from the northern most pitch, so on the right hand side there you can make out the existing clubhouse, which was shown a bit more detail in the moment. This is again looking at the side of the existing clubhouse and you can make out their locally listed pavilion next to that to the north. And these are some of the storage containers and sort of storage facilities on site which I mentioned earlier. So he's looking at the existing pavilion to be demolished as a head on photograph there. We sort of notice single storage scale and fairly dated sort of 1970s kind of appearance with a small sort of patio area in front with small trellis sort of fencing surrounding that. This is showing the two buildings in together in their context. So this is the locally listed pavilion, which is the moment is used for the primarily sort of changing and other uses associated with the club. This is taken from the north, so sort of on the edge of the sort of cricket pitch adjacent to the recreation ground. This is taken from further north still, so sort of more within the recreation ground really. So you can make out the the hedge line there and the net sort of sits slightly above that. So the proposed pavilion would sort of be going in that location. And this is taken from further north still. So this is the avenue off to the north to the northwest of the site. And again you can make out the the hedge line there. So the proposed pavilion would sort of be in that that location which I've shown a bit more clearly in the proposed plans shortly. And this is taken from even further to the north. So this is the recreation ground. You know the sort of modern kind of cafe kind of facility there and the cricket pitch is off to the right hand side of the photograph there. So this is existing pavilion, which is to be demolished. As I say it's a single story structure and it's been in place for over 50 years. The building currently does not comply with modern standards of sporting, of various sporting bodies including the ECB and the Surrey Cricket Foundation. The applicant advises that the existing facilities are too small and inadequate for a size for the size of club and the broad nature of the membership which is one of the leading cricket clubs in the county and runs cricket from ages five all the way through to adult teams and has over 50 up to 51 teams in total across all ages and genders. So these are the existing elevations and floor plans for the club house to be demolished. So as I said it's a very dated single story structure and the internal space largely turned over to sort of functional uses and doesn't really at present have any particular space for changing etc. So it's proposed to create a new part single part two story club house in a more centralized location within the site between the two pitches with the roof tourist to the east above the single story element. The building would have a shallow pitched gable roof. The materials include red brick work around the base and the main elevations would be large timber cladding, grey windows and doors. The roof is proposed to be the grey metal tile system. So these show the conceptual ICGI images of the proposed building. So this is looking at it from from the south and this will be looking at it from from the north. So internally the ground floor will contain a mix of community space and associated uses such as a bar area, kitchen, various elements of storage, lift access, plant room, etc. which is predominantly contained on this side of the building with the remainder accommodating changing spaces which is shown here on the left hand side. The upper floor would facilitate further community space which is shown in here as well as access to the terrace which would also be accessed externally via two staircases here. The applicant advises that whilst the primary focus of the club is provision of cricket the club cannot survive financially without running other revenue generating activities such as space for hire for local businesses, clubs and societies and community spaces are designed to partly facilitate this. So the appearance of the building will not be wholly traditional in its design or its form however the surrounding area is characterized by a mix of both traditional dwellings more modern buildings along the avenue such as the waitress building on the high street and the extension to the pavilion and the lady Neville recreation ground. The tracery which is a residential development to the east a flat roof terrace properties with a mix of brick and some form of white cladding or white render. The existing club house is also flat roof 1970 structure which is a poor appearance. In this context the club house is considered acceptable in terms of design and impact on the character of the wider area. The conservation officer has satisfied that the building will not harm the setting of the local listed pavilion. So the design and positioning of the building has been greatly informed by the specific requirements of relevant sporting bodies who require amongst other things specific numbers and sizes of changing areas and other key spaces. These include dedicated toilets and showers in each changing room and also a minimum of 20 square metres of changing space in each area. This considerably increases the overall space required for both male and female users and there's been a significant growth in girls and ladies cricket at the club in recent years. In the interest of inclusivity it is required that the club house has views of both pitches. A therefore centralised position between the two would be an appropriate location to achieve this. Building regulations require certain sizes of corridors and appropriate accessibility for wheelchair users which has been incorporated into the design also. So for those reasons the sighting of the building is considered to be appropriate. Regarding impact on neighbouring properties given the level of separation between the building and the nearest residential properties the development would not result in overlooking significant loss of privacy or loss of light nor would it be particularly overbearing in its nature. In terms of any impact from proposed lighting whilst details of this have not been submitted should permission be granted. Condition 11 would require the provision of a strategy, a lighting strategy for approval to ensure this is kept to a minimum and away from residential properties. Regarding noise, firstly there is no intention to increase the level of cricket provision above current levels therefore increase noise from cricket activities is not expected. It is proposed to make the club house available for non cricket events and there is potential for increased noise disturbance particularly late at night. An acoustic report from the applicant sets out mitigation measures which would help reduce the level of noise from inside the building. This has been reviewed by the council's noise consultants who recommend the condition to secure detail of how these will be installed and implemented and this is set out within condition 15 which is in the addendum for this item. In order to address external noise from patrons leaving the building and the car park, it is proposed to secure measures for our noise management plan condition to limit noise disturbance to residents. Again these details are set up, the details of these measures are set out within condition 16 in the addendum for this item. As well as conditions control hours of use of the club house for both cricket and non-cricting uses, these are set out in condition 14. In terms of access and parking and existing access arrangements would remain and these will remain from Debur Park. Parking provision would increase from 27 to 47 spaces. There are also 16 spaces available informally along the access road which will also remain. There is not anticipated to be increased vehicle movement for cricket use given that it is not proposed to change the operation of this. The increase in provision would ease pressure for parking on the surrounding road network. While some increase in parking may occur for non-cricut use, the increased number of spaces would be sufficient to meet these requirements and would require with the maximum standards for sports and community facilities. It is proposed to remove a grade B tree from the site which is this site history here and three grade C hedges would be impacted which are shown here in red. This hedge would be removed and part of the main hedge in the middle of the pitch would also be removed to facilitate the proposed club house. A landscaping scheme would be secured by conditions compensated for these losses. Regarding ecology matters there is a likely absence of protected species on site. There would be a substantial amount of biodiversity net gain across the site in excess of 40 percent in the form of landscaping and mitigation and enhancement measures that would be secured by a condition and this is condition nine within the agenda. As I stated earlier in the presentation the site is located within the Metropolitan Greenbelt. The National Planning and Policy Framework is clear that appropriate provision for outdoor sport and recreation is not inappropriate within the Greenbelt subject to the preservation of openness. The replacement of a building is also not inappropriate subject to being in the same use and not materially larger than that being replaced. The proposed building would be almost 300 percent larger in floor area and 180 percent larger in footprint than the existing club house and two stories in height in a more centralized location within the site. There would also be an increase in the amount of parking and greater intensification of the use from non-cricketing activities. For these reasons the development is deemed to have a greater impact on openness than the existing club house for which very special circumstances would be required. The increase in size of the club house is required to meet the needs of one of the largest clubs in Surrey with 51 teams across all age groups and genders. The facilities would meet the requirements of relevant sporting bodies in terms of changing, toilet provision and officials changing. No significant changes to the existing facilities have taken place for a number of years during which time the size of the club has increased substantially. Therefore it is understandable that a significantly larger club house is proposed which will meet these latest standards for crooked facilities as well as safeguarding requirements and help secure the long-term future of the club. Allow it to continue to meet its aims of growing girls and ladies cricket to develop younger players and being a leading Premier Division club as well as the increased benefits of the wider community by opening it up to the other users. The site would be well screened from wider views to the south by trees and the site is on the edge of the designated urban area of Banford. There will be substantial benefits in terms of biodiversity, net gain and additional landscaping. The impacts on the character and heritage assets impact on neighbouring immunity, the surrounding highway network, access and parking considerations, impact on protected species and trees, flooding, drainage and crime are all considered to be acceptable subject to recommended conditions in the agenda and the addendum. And it is considered that these benefits would outweigh the identified harm to the openness of the Green Belt in this case. So for these reasons the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you very much for that presentation. Councillor Stevens has come to this meeting a little late and he did... Hang on a second, we've got the problem with this camera again. Now it's just moved, hold on a second. You can see me now, that's it. I'm trying to avoid it really. So Councillor Stevens did say he might be late. Two questions for you, well, first a question then a comment. So do you have any declarations of interest to make in respect of any of the items we have this evening? No, and I'm also able to be able to avail this as well. Okay, that was my second comment. Okay, thank you very much indeed. Okay, so we have three public speakers for this particular item. The first is an objector, Mr Ray Smythe. I think you're over there. Sorry, okay, I've got it wrong. Mr Smythe, if you'd like to come to the microphone. Can I just ask, is it possible to have a glass of water? Yeah, of course we can. I say that. No, I think I'll let it come. Someone will get you one. It's coming now. I think you're going to have two. It's gin really, but no. So you've got the microphone on. Whenever you're ready to start, remember it's three minutes and I will ask you to draw your remarks to a conclusion if you are certain of that. Okay. Sorry, can you hear me? Yep, perfectly. Please start whenever you want. Thank you. My name is Ray Smythe. I'm a resident of Duper Park in Banstard, very close to the premises that are under discussion here. I have detailed points of opposition to this application, and I've set those out in my letter to each of you, which hopefully you received data the 12th of April, and I do not propose to repeat those points here, but hopefully you'll give those your consideration. I wish to focus instead on your role in assessing the very special circumstances that need to exist in this particular application. Mr Parker has advised you in his written report that the development constitutes inappropriate development. That's quite clear in the Greenbelt, and it should not be approved unless exceptional, so very special circumstances apply. I think you're aware of this. Very special circumstances is, as it should be, a very high standard. With the greatest of respect to Mr Parker, I believe that his analysis of the presence of very special circumstances outlined in his report is flawed. One, the clubhouse does not, as he states, that his states need to be located between the two cricket fields. This is merely a preference of the club, the ECB and Sport England. The positioning of the new premises will eliminate the only distinct view from the recreation ground that is not currently obscured by buildings in the area. Two, the proposed first floor does not provide facilities that are essential or necessary for cricket. They are entertainment facilities. Three, the financial standing of the club is not really a material consideration for this committee. It is worth noting, however, that the financial burden of the funding for this development could be reduced by over 50 percent by scaling back of the ambitious plans to make it a single-story building remaining on the current site. Four, there is no evidence of any need for facilities to be provided for wider community use in Banstit. Those that already exist are greatly underutilised. The biodiversity gains that have been mentioned to potentially result from the club's proposals are initiatives that the club can undertake in any event. They are, in my view, merely greenwashing. In summary, I believe that the attempt to demonstrate very special circumstances fails entirely. Members of the committee, you are gatekeepers of our Greenbelt. This role is crucial for preserving the openness and support. And this role is essential for preserving the openness and inclusiveness of the green space in the central Banstit village. Please do the right thing and reject this application and require the club to think again about how it tackles the problems that it has. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Our second speaker is Mr Martin Long. Thank you, Mr Long. If you turn your microphone on, whenever you are ready, please do start. I will ask you to draw your remarks to her close when we get to three minutes. Thank you. I represent the 107 objectives, all of whom live in the borough and the vast majority of whom live in Banstit village. The report does not mention that of the 157 letters of support, only 10% are from addresses within the borough. The report states that the application would normally be refused as inappropriate development within the Greenbelt. Two principal factors are stated as providing the very special circumstances to outweigh this. First is the assertion that without this development, the financial viability of the club is at risk. I searched in vain in the application documents for a financial viability assessment to properly demonstrate this. The second is the benefit that it was supposedly provided to the community by a way of non-cricket lettings. There are three other community venues in the village, all of the superior access. Again, I searched in vain for a needs assessment to properly demonstrate that a fourth facility is actually needed. Is there actually enough demand from other clubs and societies in our village to justify overriding and important planning policy? And if that fourth value is built, what impact would that have on the viability of the established community facilities? In such circumstances of substantial local rejection, it would normally be required for the applicants to demonstrate what alternatives have been looked at and the reasons why they have been rejected. The open terrace is a particular concern, both visually and due to noise. The location of this proposal, the sheer size and proposed use as a revenue streaming venue function are at odds with a village cricket clubhouse, together with the loss of the green belt and the removal of a long established mature hedgerow is not in keeping with national and local government plans. Once our green belt is gone, it's gone forever. The noise pollution from a number of unspecified events will affect not only local residents but also farm animals in adjacent fields. The noise is linked to the high level terrace and the very late opening hours. The construction of a new car park for the cricket club on public land is also unacceptable. The Lady Neville Park was given to the people of Banstit not to Banstit cricket club. Any application for a car park should be solely on cricket club land. In conclusion, the consensus is that a vast two-story development would be a appalling blot on the green belt, the surrounding tree line and the view from the park itself. A single-story creek clubhouse is all that is needed, not a vast function venue with an all-round terrace. The impact of noise and traffic that this new facility will have on the local residents is unmanageable. We therefore request that this application be deferred until such a time as a financial appraisal, a local needs and viability assessment and assessment of alternatives have been provided. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our third public speaker is Mr Ian Thorpe, the agent. Whenever you're ready, Mr Thorpe, Mr Smythe spoke for three minutes and 24 seconds, so I'm going to have to give you some extra time. Mr Chair, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity. Banstit has been at the heart of Banstit cricket and sports club. It's been at the heart of Banstit village since 1850. It's a community amateur sports club run by volunteers and for the last 170 years, it's maintained and preserved the buildings and ground for the benefit of the local community. It is very much a cricket club, not an events business with Premier League status within, sorry, cricket, with two pitches servicing for league teams and the growth over the last 20 years in particular has been enormous with over 350 young boys and girls now part of the junior section. So as the club has grown, so too have the demands on its own sporting provision. And quite frankly, the existing facilities are no longer fit for purpose. Those of you that will have seen the clubhouse or the images will see that it's a temporary prefab unit. It's over 54 years old and I know this because it was erected a month before I was born. So when people say it's had, it seemed better days, I know how it feels. It would no longer be seen as compliant in terms of providing appropriate toilets, changing and showering for all players regardless of gender or age and that's particularly relevant considering the growth in popularity with regards girls and women's cricket. In addition, the facilities for disabled visitors and members are woefully inadequate. So at a time when cricket is rightly being asked to be more inclusive and diverse, the existing clubhouse restricts us from doing so. The proposed new clubhouse addresses all of these key concerns. It will be erected in the middle of the two pitches over 80 metres from the nearest home offering views of both pitches on car park land owned by the cricket club. It will be constructed from modern materials that minimise noise and light pollution in keeping with the surroundings. It will be fully ECB compliant offering welcoming facilities for players, social members and visitors alike. It will operate within the current opening and licensing regulations with no desire to extend these further and it will continue to run club events, quiz nights, parties and other fundraising events as it does today. So with this in mind, it's hoped that the facility will be more than just a cricket club to the local community offering a space that may be used for parties, training opportunities, fitness groups and well-being sessions. With this proposal, Banster Cricket Club is seeking to offer its members and the local community a clubhouse to be proud of, a clubhouse that is compliant and sustainably responsible, a clubhouse that supports the growth of cricket for all, young and old, male and female and a clubhouse that co-exists sensitively and harmoniously with its neighbours and it's for all of these reasons that we respectfully ask for the support of the committee with relation to this application. Thank you very much indeed. So we now open the meeting for members to address the committee. I see Councillor Hart was first and then Councillor Fairhurst, so Councillor Hart first. Thank you very much, Chairman. I've been a resident of Banster for approaching 60 years now. I've seen a lot of changes in Banster High Street. I can remember the old Victorian village school and the fuss that was made about the demolition of that for Waitrose and there are two jewels in the crown of Banster village that still survive, which is the church and the surrounding churchyard and the, of course, tonight, the Lady Neville recreation ground and the cricket pitch, both of which, of course, are green belt and are also being considered for becoming part of the Banster conservation area extension. Now, I think most members of this committee would agree with me that we really want to see Banster cricket club thrive. It is, I think, in its 180-second year of existence, it had W.G. Grace play there. The locally listed Victorian clubhouse, which we saw a picture of, is an absolute delight and is exactly what every one of us would think a rural, sorry, cricket club should look like, whereas the so-called temporary building, which is now mainly used and which has been there, as we just heard for about 50 years, certainly does not fulfill modern standards and I would agree needs replacing. The problem I have is whether it is appropriate to replace it with a larger building, which is two stories high, in a much more central location. I wouldn't have a problem so much if it was on the site of the existing clubhouse, but this is in the middle of the site and it will totally dominate the area. In fact, most pedestrians who approach this area of green space coming from Banster High Street are approaching from the High Street end, pistachios in the park end to the north, and so they will be looking directly towards this new clubhouse, two stories high, emphasized by the fact that the hedge in front of it will be removed. I have serious problems with the way this will affect the setting of the historic clubhouse in so far as the new clubhouse is large, clad, it has a metal roof and I would question, as did one of the public speakers, the necessity for it being two stories high. There is also an issue with the degree of the increased degree of parking on the site. At the moment, we are informed there are 27 spaces. The proposal is to increase that to 47 spaces with a further 16 in formal spaces, which makes 63 car parking spaces, and the disturbance on the residents, particularly of Dubur Park, which is a very quiet little cul-de-sac, possibly travelling up that road at night along the side of one of the gardens, I think will be detrimental to those residents. Now, some of you may recall that we had a similar planning application a while ago, where we were looking at creating a new clubhouse for Walton Heath Golf Club, and again, we were faced with this issue of do the special circumstances for building a metropolitan green belt overcome the detriment, the general presumption against development on green belt, and we were told on that application that there was a necessity for the club to prove that the financial existence of the club depended on the creation of the new clubhouse. I don't believe we have been given evidence to so far by Bensteed Cricket Club that the actual existence of the club depends on this. We certainly want the club to continue, but we haven't been demonstrated that it depends on this, and I would agree with the public speaker that I think perhaps this is a slightly commercial activity and a little bit ambitious, and I would very much prove a further application for something less ambitious than this, but I would be glad to hear what other members say, and if I can, I would reserve the right to come back later. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Fertheust. Thank you, Chairman. I'm just wondering if we could drill down into one of the nubs of this issue in terms of these very special circumstances by which green belt can be used, because a tricky element of this seems to be that it's open to interpretation, which I understand. I wonder if the officers have any information about other applications across the country where this interpretation has been applied or any sort of guidance you can give us as to how the officer recommendation came about that this indeed would be very special circumstances. So we'll turn to Mr Lewis. Okay, so to begin quite a broad area to go into, but to begin, officers have identified this as inappropriate development by a reason of its scale. There are facets of developmental types of development, which are considered to be appropriate for green belt, and that includes recreation and sport to a point. Clearly a direct replacement of an existing clubhouse for something of a similar size would also be acceptable. So there's two elements of green belt that come into play, and I think Michael's assessment talks about those. This, as Matthew outlined in his presentation goes way beyond that, in terms of the percentages, it's much larger. So this is why officers have said we think it's inappropriate. Once we reach that inappropriate classification, there are a number of points that need to be considered by all decision makers here today. First is that the government say that you should give, I believe, it's substantial weight to the green belt harm in your deliberations overall when you're thinking about the planning balance, but it also said that it will only likely be, I'll find the expert of your eye, but you should find very special circumstances. Very special circumstances are a judgment for the decision maker as to what will be accepted and how much you give each of those. There are some areas where we would give little or no weight to some matters, and there are others where we will give greater amounts. I don't necessarily have to my fingertips examples of other quicker pavilions, for example, or other sports facilities, but we must take it on a case by case basis, look at those. In terms of how the officer reached this judgment, I think it's just important if you refer back to the report, and the very special circumstances start at 6.61. First of all, it summarises what the applicant puts forward as very special circumstances. These are not the arguments of the council officer. This is simply what the applicant should be considered, and within are a number of points that I know other speakers, members of the public and council, visiting council of councillors may have raised today. As I say, those are the matters that they would like to put forward, and then you have the officer's own assessment on the balance and exercise at 6.63, and it goes through each of the things that he, as a professional officer, considers what weight should be given, and you will notice that in terms of some of those, he gives a fairly neutral weight to it, i.e. the fact that it doesn't harm the locally listed pavilion, he's not giving weight to that fact, he's simply saying that's a neutral circumstance, but there are other areas by which he does deem acceptable, or he thinks that very special circumstances amount in his view. So I would just note that I don't believe, having just reread that paragraph as the speakers were talking, that the officer mentions a financial viability appraisal factored into his consideration in reaching very special circumstances. I note the applicant may have raised that as one of theirs, or indeed earlier in the report, it's noted about why the applicant has brought this forward, but as far as I can see from Mr Parker's report, he's not considered that, or gave that weight. It is really for you, as individual decision makers, to consider that, to take the officer advice that we believe it is inappropriate to development. If you agree with that, then follow through the process and consider whether the matters being put forward in your view are enough to outweigh that harm, and essentially, that's the judgment you're here to have a look at this evening. Thank you, Councillor Blacker. Thank you, Chairman. This application is really a double-edged sword, as far as I'm concerned, because all of those who know me, I have always supported the green belt and fought very hard to keep it, and not always winning against great odds. But I've also been a sports person all my life, and I have three daughters and five granddaughters, all who play sport, and I spent many, many days karting my three girls around a place course for Surrey. I played tennis at Banstid Downs Lorne Tennis Club. My brother and I helped them move from the cutting to the current site in Bolton's Lane. I also played for Banstid Coles, cricket for Banstid Coles. So, I can see both sides of this argument, and as one of the speakers says, once green belt's gone, it's gone for good, and we are losing it too fast. However, this is for sport, and I don't think anybody can possibly have anticipated the growth in girls and women's sports, and I haven't been to Banstid Cricket Club, and I mean to riot cricket club, and amazed at the number of girls that they're playing cricket, and some of them are really good. Every ground you go to now, there are girls playing football in teams, and therefore that is one reason I would suggest that they need a bigger clubhouse. I think the officers will confirm that the original application for the clubhouse was even bigger than this, and we've actually had it reduced in size. So, my inclination is to go for sport, because I want people to play their sport at all levels, and when we look at elite cricket and elite football, none of them will be elite players without clubs like Banstid Cricket Club, and the various football clubs with juniors playing. Without them, there'd be no elite football, there's no elite cricket, and I love watching it. Now, I do have a couple of questions for the officers, if this was to be granted. The first one is in the Addendum, page five, where it says opening hours live music, recorded music, and the sale of alcohol, Sunday to Thursday, 11 to 12, and Friday to Saturday, 11 to 1 a.m., whereas then it says below the license allows Sunday to Thursday till 11, and Friday to Saturday until midnight. Now, bearing the location of this clubhouse, I think allowing any event to go on to one o'clock is just unfair, and I would like to see that changed in our conditions back to midnight and 11 o'clock during normal working days. No one likes change, especially if you've lived in an area for a long time, and as most of the members know, I was born and bred in Banstid, I spent the first 22 years of my life there, and I love the place, but I also love my sport. And very clearly, the existing clubhouse is just not fit for purpose, and it needs a new clubhouse. I accept that it's part two stories, and it's got a large balcony. We've got conditions, that conditioned times that people can use the balcony. Inside, if there's an event going on to midnight, then they've got to close all the doors and windows, and provide internal ventilation. There are also noise sensors conditioned that if they exceed the noise levels, it turns the speakers off. As long as that's adhered to, then that's something that I would support. The other question I've got, which has come up tonight, is within three months of the first occupation of clubhouse here by approved, the existing clubhouse removed, and the site should be laid out for car parking. It doesn't actually say it quite like that, but that's the wording. That's what the wording means. Now, in the main agenda, it says they've got to build a car park before they can occupy the new clubhouse, and there has to be a compromise here because that is not fair on the residents. So I understand they want to use the clubhouse and support that, but then I do think that if they're going to use the new clubhouse straight away, then the parking has got to be restricted. You cannot expect them to have 47 cars parked all over the place. So I think until the clubhouse is built and the old clubhouse demolished and the car park built, there has to be a restriction on parking, otherwise people would park all over the place, and it would also encourage the cricket clubs to take it down more quickly. So the other two things I'd like to be considered, and I'm going to listen to everybody else before I make my mind, but as I said, as a keen sportsman, even if I'm not very good, I would tend to support the cricket club because I want it to continue and thrive, and they're going to spend a lot of money on this clubhouse and they're going to need it back, and it will provide a fantastic facility for all the players, young and old. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. So let's pick up the items that you've raised there. I think we'll turn to Mr Lewis. The hours of use, could you perhaps clarify what is proposed and look at what might be amenable there? Okay, I would need to refer back to you then to find the number of Councillor Blacker knows the number of us who's heading might save me some time. I think that's page five. What condition number is it? So this would be condition 14, the clubhouse shall be permitted, shall only be used or operate as follows, and that gives the hours of 8am to midnight, Sunday through to Thursday, and 8am to 1am Fridays and Saturdays. That's a change from what was originally in the officer's report. That was following some discussions with the applicants, and I believe those hours have been reduced, I think overall, since the report was to bring it more in line with the licence. I think the reason for the later hours of the weekend was really by the nature of the fact that it may well be used more extensively and would give greater opportunity and with those controls, which there are presently known upon the site, that would be a manageable time. So the consideration would be whether those hours as shown in the addendum you find acceptable considering the mitigation that would be alongside it. Ultimately, the conditions and the contents of conditions are consideration for you as decision makers this evening, and if you felt that those hours were not something that you could bear, then you could consider a variation of those two hours that you would more persist. Obviously, the applicant would have the right in which to appeal any condition or apply to vary those in the future, but nevertheless, if you look at those hours and you think that they're too long or they would be more suitable regime, then you could consider those. Shall I move on to the parking as well? Sure. Yeah, you're gone. Thank you, Mr Lewis. I'd love the hours to be two o'clock in the morning, and they could have a real party there, but it's just not fair on the residents. They clearly large number are against it, and I think we have to appreciate that and take that into account, and I think suddenly changing to one o'clock is wrong. So I'd like that change back to midnight, and I think you've always got to have the caveat with these things. Is this something very special? Then they can apply to have it temporarily waived. It's like when you get an event license, you get a time scale and a time limit on your event, and I think that, I just think that leaving it to one o'clock is leaving it open to abuse. So this is for Saturdays, and I'm sorry for Fridays and Saturdays. Yes, Fridays and Saturdays. You are proposing. That goes back to 12 o'clock. That goes to 12 o'clock, so every day is... And Thursdays and Fridays goes back to 11 o'clock. Sorry, yes. Sunday to Thursday goes back to 11 o'clock, and I think that's... The cricket couple survive with that, and it's much fairer on the residents. Okay. Thank you. Should we just deal with the car park? Okay, with regards to the car park, this was condition number... Can you just remind me which one you're looking at? It was this condition 17 within three months of the first occupation of the club house here by approved. The existing club house should be removed from the site and space should be laid out. So, in effect, it would mean that the clubhouse, the current clubhouse, could still be used until such time as the new club house is made available, and then obviously the new clubhouse, the old clubhouse, if you like, which encompasses part of the new car park, we could obviously then make way. So, clearly the applicant has sought to phase or to have the parking provided post-decision to a post-construction to allow them to continue to use their current premises. I would say that ultimately it is a matter for you to decide as a committee as to whether or not you think that's fair. I would also highlight that there may be a compromise that would be available to members as well. They could ask for a phasing plan and timescale to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and it may be that interim measures the club could provide or it could be that they could provide a limited number of, they could provide a number of spaces in that time or lay a certain number out and then obviously come along and complete the car park. So, there may be a number of construction management possibilities and maybe you might like to think along a phasing agreement or alternatively, you know, you could consider this is okay or you could go back to the original state of condition, which was to demolish prior to the use of the clubhouse. Mr. Blacker. Thank you. I think I think the problem is, I understand they've got to phase it. I mean, you know, I'm in the building industry. I know we've got to phase it. It can't all happen at once, but what I haven't explained is they're building the new clubhouse on the car park and therefore there's going to be a period of three months where there won't be a car park. So what I want to do is I want and we can have a condition it's got to be a properly phased plan that's going to be presented before the any approval is valid. I want to know where the cars are going to park and I think we should say you cannot have any outside events in the clubhouse. It's got to be used as a cricket clubhouse only until a car park is constructed. Otherwise, you know what they're going to park all down the borough road, all down Avenue Road, because there's going to be no room. So I think that's quite unfair on the residents. So what's your proposal? Well, Mr. Lewis has suggested a phased plan to be presented and a phasing plan and I think that's acceptable, but it's got to say until the clubhouse is open to outside events because you mean you mean that until the full provision of car parking is available and they're outside even. Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay, so we'll come back to the officers on those in a minute. Okay, thank you. Okay, let's whilst Mr. Lewis is writing things down, we've got a couple of other speakers, Councillor Baker and then Councillor Harrison. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, as other Councillors have said, this is a difficult one. The preservation of Greenbelt is actually vital, but also the sort of future-proofing, longevity of sport, be it financially or be it usability with the members or future members of those clubs, I think is really important. The existing clubhouse has been gone over, it is completely unworkable for a club of that size. I look at two local wild clubs near to here, Solford's Cricket Club, which has gone through albeit on a smaller scale recently and is currently building a new clubhouse, which is going to make it a lot easier to use for its burgeoning younger teams, male and female. It's been mentioned all, they've got a growing sort of girls contingent in various clubs, the various ages who play there. The provision of proper changing spaces is absolutely vital. We're not, you know, things are moving on, everybody's aware of what's happening in the world around us at the moment, so things are happening at a faster pace and we need to make sure we keep up with it to make sure these facilities are still relevant. On the other end of the scale from Solford's Cricket Club, you've got Bath, Cricket Club, which I spend quite a lot of time at. On the riverside down there, to ensure their viability, they built 140 student accommodation there, which is right at the other scale. And that is in a protected area, if you like, as well, within sort of central Bath. Though I understand the concerns that have been raised by residents here, I do think that the provision of the responsibilities for the members, future members and younger members, I think, will have to outweigh this. I think taking a story off it would still leave a much larger building, albeit slightly shorter, but it would still leave a larger building there. I think it would still raise issues. The moving of a hedge, though, it's, you know, not an ideal, the fact that we're going for sort of 40% net biodiversity gain is quite a large gain in any of our applications that I oversee come before this committee. So I'm still interested to see what other members have to say, but I think this has its merits. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Harrison. Thank you, Chairman. And I'd like to thank previous speakers and particularly the points that the public speakers have made as well. I think Cricket has moved on, and many sports have moved on, and I think the scale of what's proposed isn't out of line with what modern sports clubs need to do to retain their membership and development of the sport. And Councillor Baker mentioned perhaps going down to one floor, one level, but of course that would probably require more footprint. So I do think on the whole we do have to, you know, look to it. I am concerned, as Councillor Blacker raised, about the hours of operating, and I was, and I would support the suggestions he made. I was, the report I find quite confusing in relation to the extra use. It says Paragraph 6.13, the site is likely to be busy or there's an intensification of use. Paragraph 6.30 talks about not looking to increase the amount of large events. But on the other hand, 6.62, as many speakers have identified, have talked about the importance of fundraising and the financial case. I do think it's unfair on the residents to not to put some form of cap on the number of large events. And I think we should incorporate the condition as well as the general hours of use about these large events, which the licensing regulations have put on. I think we should, you know, we shouldn't rely on licensing, which can be changed. We should have our own conditions if we think those are appropriate. So I would support the comments to conclude that Councillor Blacker meant it made about the hours of use and some late night events. Can I just check with you? Obviously in the addendum, under noise impacts, it says the license allows for no more than 12 events per calendar year. Outside of the premises license restrictions. Yes, but I think we should have a similar condition on ourselves. And I think if we have a maximum length for use of the building, then I don't think licensing conditions can override our own conditions. They may have a longer length, but I don't think they can override what we are putting in place. Let's check with you. Thank you, sirs. And then just clarify that position. No, more than happy to clarify, Councillor Harrison. Both are separate legislative requirements. So the granting of planning permission would not grant you an alcohol license. And likewise, the grantee and alcohol license would not overcome any state of planning conditions. Ideally, they should, of course, both be the same. Councillor SRI. Okay, Councillor Schuster. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of things I wanted to just clarify in my mind about this, because I've been substituted in, so I haven't had chance to study this quite as much as other members. So firstly, just to be clear, so this new building is moved across from its existing position to a position which is in between the two green areas and is as such, from just looking on the map now, it seems it's on kind of what you might call virgin green space. Is that correct? Yeah. So we're building a large building and a tarmac parking area on green space from scratch. Is that correct? Well, I think the office is ought to just clarify that, because there's existing car parking space there. But would you like to clarify that? Someone's going up on the plan, I think it might be useful and helpful. Could you refer to the drawings as well, which you've got in your pack? That's what it looks like to me, but just wanted to check. Can you show them? Yeah, just bring it up. Probably want the plan, and then you could. So I'll just clarify on the existing site layout. So here you've got, this is where the existing car parking area is here, with the nets here. And the existing clubhouse is here next to the pavilion, so it's sort of a combination of existing built form in the form of the clubhouse, with the sort of temporary structures next to it. So it's a combination of sort of built form with some kind of grass area around it, which you can show on the photograph again in the moment. But the proposal is to remove that and create the new pavilion in this area here. So it's sort of broadly on top where the existing parking area, sort of informal hard standing is in the middle. So you can see that there. So the proposed clubhouse would sort of be sitting where this unsurface parking area is, parking next to it. Let's go to the proposed plan. Right, so that's the outline of the proposed clubhouse. So it's sort of broadly where that car park is with a little bit of parking next to it, and the car park would be extended, sort of broadly where the existing clubhouse is proposed to be demolished. So yeah, it's sort of an increase in parking, sort of replacing where the clubhouse used to be for the most part. Okay, thank you. Exactly. Okay, so we've talked a lot about the needs to expand facilities to accommodate female cricket, which I completely approve of, obviously, but I'd like to just clarify, I'll be saying that the size of this development is essential for to allow that to happen, or is it that it's essential because we need it to make it financially viable, although we're saying that's not actually a consideration. We're not saying that's a special circumstance, but I'd like to understand all this talk around inclusivity and allowing girls to play, are we saying that if we don't have this expansion to this level, that won't happen, that won't be possible, because I think they'll have a little bit misleading otherwise. That's a great question. So do you want to answer that? Well, Stephen. No, I can try and answer all of that. So Matthew, in his presentation, ran through a number of strict requirements that the club would have to provide minimum space, change rooms. I believe it was 20 square metres per change in room. I think there's four changing rooms required to deal with, obviously, the various teams that are visiting, but also gender-in-back, also to ensure that gender is provided for both and workable at the same time. There's also probably requirements with regards to umpires and various other areas, and I think Matthew went through them. He might be able to have a look at his presentation and repeat some of those to you, and then obviously that it is preparation of various other items, storage and what have you. I don't have a minimum figure of what the club needs to provide to operate at the ECB level or to meet all of the sporting requirements. I don't have that information in terms of what would the minimum square metre be, but clearly the club have considered in their own financial viability appraisals to decide what they think they need to do to make that work. That's not something that we contend form as part of our consideration, but clearly for the club to think that they would need to bring it forward to be able to pay that and do those things. This is what they feel they need. We don't have any reason, particularly to disagree with that. Could some of the floor space potentially be more minimised than what they're proposing? Yes, I believe it probably could, by virtue of the fact that we've come down. If you look, I think it's paragraph 2.1 of the report, it's already being reduced and in size, but that's not really the judgment that we're looking at. We have the building we have in front of us and whether that building, as proposed, is acceptable. It's clear that it would provide a good facility with a degree of future-proofing for what has proved to be a popular and historic club within the local area. It's a judgment and a balance for you to make as committee members today as to whether the benefits of that overcome the perceived harms and indeed the harm that officers have identified. I accept all of that and I understand we're looking at the application here in front of us, but I think if we're saying that we're not taking the financial viability as a very special circumstance, then that needs to be separated from what actually is crucial for it to be compliant. I think it's a little bit of muddling up of that. The noise element, the external terrace, is that completely new? All of its news. Is there an existing external terrace? You mean on the existing building? Yes. Is that a major change? Sorry, I'm just trying to catch up. I think you'll see that there's a terrace there already, right? Yeah. There's not a terrace in the search, but it's the patio cadet. It's the front of which is enclosed by a fence, which is much smaller. I'm just thinking although they're saying that they're not going to have an increase in the number of large events, it's increasing in size. It's increasing for quite considerably. The car numbers are increasing quite considerably. There's an increase in the external area that people will inhabit while they're partying. So controlling that is, I mean that's quite an undertaking. I know from an experience, experiences in my own town, there's been the businesses there that have been granted permission to do certain things. They've been licensed to operate in a certain way, and then they've not been able to meet those conditions and through no fault of their own really, because it's just the way it's been designed in. They've lost the viability of their business, so I think we need to be really careful to make sure that we're not setting someone up to fail here, because it's really quite a big increase, and to actually be able to keep a cap on the noise levels and maintain viability as a business. Shall we ask the officers about how that would be done? Would you like to address, because Michael, Councillor Blacker alluded to noise levels and how that was going to be controlled? I think it'd be worthwhile explaining how that could happen. In terms of how noise levels would be controlled, so there are various conditions set out in the officers report that pertain to, I mean I won't go through all of them now, but you've obviously all had sight of them. So there is ones there for a requirement for the hours of use. There's also one for sensitive management of lighting, that kind of thing. There is also to do with the acoustic requirements under condition 15. I mean I look at this report and think that condition 15 is primarily dealing with the internals of the building or the building itself, and then number 16 is capturing a management plan to deal with the kind of breakout noise, if you like. I would just point members to a number of points firstly. I mean in terms of condition 16 before I do actually, that's asking for an all-encompassing noise management plan. We clearly don't have that management plan yet or its entire content, but if members felt there were particular requirements they'd like to see, then that condition could be amended to include some specific methods of noise or management, the noise attenuation or management that you would like to see in there if you deemed it necessary. I would just remind them as though that planning is not necessarily the first poet of call for statutory noise nuisance. There are other primary legislation in the form of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990, and planning attempts to capture the potential impacts coming out of development, but the misuse of a premises or the misuse of a building or a use is not necessarily a planning matter. It may be a criminal matter, it may be an environmental protection matter, and there would be other forms of legislative enforcement beyond planning. We should do our best to try and prevent noise, but it is not necessarily a guarantee that it would old misuse and there are other legislation available in order to pick up that kind of issue in the future too. Thank you, just one more thing. Thank you for your explanation about these very special circumstances, just having a look through that paragraph that you refer to. It seems to me that a lot of that is based on the BNG, the biodiversity net game, being high. I'm very pleased to see that it is such a high BNG proposed, but I find it hard to see that that would be enough of a very special circumstance, and also removal of an ancient hedgerow, that's really you can't compensate from that very easily. So yeah, I'd like to understand a little bit more clearly exactly what those very special circumstances are. Thanks. It's entirely up to the given of the decision-making to decide what way to give to it. If you're feeling on the matter or your judgment on the matter is that biodiversity net game doesn't form a significant level, then that's for you as decision-making to place less weight on that or more weight. I guess we would all place different weight on different elements of that. Otherwise, we'd always come up with the same answer on each occasion. So it's for each of the decision-makers to look at the very special circumstances in front of you and apportion your weight and balance as to whether you think overall it provides enough. What I would say in this case is that the application is not subject to the recent biodiversity net game requirements in the environmental bill or environment act because it was lodged in 2022 and therefore our policy requirement actually is quite low. So this is a significant uptick on that. I think the officer talks about a number of areas in there as to why he portions and gives weight. It's his professional opinion of the matter and it's his judgment of the matter and we're all entitled to different judgments of that and it's for each of you to decide whether you give that the same weight or you think it should be given more or less in each circumstance. Thank you. Councillor Tora. Thank you. I've been scribbling away. It was very interesting to hear the speakers and their points of views and when we were on the site visit we were seeing dog walkers and that walking across the Lady Neville ground and we established that that was a ground that was for the Badnsted residents. So it was a public area and that the field pitch behind was actually then now owned by the cricket club. So that's the difference on it and that they want to now build on that ground which is the green belt and build a car park on what is the Badnsted residents kind of ground, decrees to them as you say if it's like a historical thing. I have concerns in that yes it's this weight of the sport is growing and it's great to see that they need new facilities and better facilities but to build something as large as this with an elevated roof terrace which we all know will then make voices carry across the area. I have concerns about yes they might it's a good viewing point to see both pitches but is it wholly necessary? No in all the years of cricket you don't need to be elevated like that you might need it at lords or the oval but you don't need it on a green and seeing the original pavilion and then looking at this new one I think it's ugly. People may have looked at the 70s building and I'm at the same age as that building ugly. It's just the history of it you think you could build something better and I can understand the problems of building it on the existing site and wanting it to be that large and then it would affect the residents particularly on the de Burrode. It swings around abouts but then having it in the middle on the green belt getting rid of a hedge and being what I think is an I saw the cricket is a lovely game it's a beautiful game it's a quiet game unfortunately more and more it's like pubs now selling food when they used to just sell pork scratchings. Everyone's trying to get into this thing of having an entertainment area where they can provide and as one of the speakers said bandster doesn't need another community hall it should be just for the cricket and if they're holding events it should be for the awards at the end of the season. In terms of the car park and what Councillor Blacka was saying you kind of think it's a bit like the old joke about flying to the the sun and you fly by night you build in the cricket you build when it's not the cricket season you build during the winter season and then you'll have less of a problem with the car park situation and also I'm concerned about the 16 car parking spaces they're saying about on the road driveway in because actually that's quite narrow you can get to cars past but does then have cars parked which I'm sure they do on match days all along there and having an increase of cars in a car park I think that's going to make it really congested and it's not great for the residents so it's two minds but I'm not happy with the way it's designed and the height of it and the size of it as it's currently put to us thank you. Thank you Councillor Blacka. Just very quickly when we're on the site visit I don't think the whole of this hedge is to be removed is it I think they're moving part of it so that when they're in the clubhouse they can see both cricket pitches so there could be a woman's match on one and a men's match on the other. Let's get an answer. That's correct I mean it's proposed to remove sort of central section of the hedge but a larger proportion of the hedge would still be retained so they're not removing the entire historic hedge from the site. Councillor Warsh is a visiting member but Councillor we welcome you tonight. Thank you, Chairman. I also thank the visiting speakers to put forward their views and also the comments made by this committee. This committee doesn't actually have a member for Banstered on it and I am from Banstered. I recognise this is a contentious application I would call it Marmite you either like it or you don't. I don't follow cricket at all but many local residents do and support the club by either playing or being social members. I think it was the third speaker said they've got a large number of people visiting because it is actually within a superior league and it does create some fantastic cricket players but I say I don't follow crickets on I haven't invested interest in that. The issue is Greenbelt and overcoming the potential harm. I've lived in the village for more than 30 years and see it gradually grow to the benefit of the village and I was actually party to the waitress conversion when it burnt down and actually it was the fastest application that a retailer had ever had and they congratulated the borrower for achieving a change. Again that was very much Marmite. People who like it or still don't like it or people love it but it's obviously working through the special circumstances that outweigh the potential harm to the Greenbelt. I support the protection of the Greenbelt and I was one of the key things that makes the village so nice but it is also one of the key things as Councillor Blacker said is sustaining the cricket club for another 175 years it's got the flattest pitch in the country and that's been a peculiar weird one but that's true but it's essential for the cricket club to continue to be in the heart of the village and comments made is the actual other facilities within the borough we've got the the borough owned I'm going to call it the horseshoe others call it something else we've got the bouncer community centre and we've also got the institute which is in the All Saints Church those are oversubscribed you actually have to book I know I'm a trustee of the BCA and you have to book things over a year in advance to get a booking that is actually something it's a difficulty and they can't expand I did the borough did have an idea of redeveloping that area but we knocked that on the head but obviously it's key is actually seeing the club grow continue to grow it's grown significantly over the last few decades with boys and girls teams growing it's supported by Men in the Village by Sport England by the English cricket board and it is supported by the majority of the village I recognise there are and as I said it's it's it's a marmite application that there are people who will not like it I don't like the the the issue of developing in the Green Belt but the key thing is is it suitable is it there there's actually a cricket club there it was actually I think believe Barclays donated the porta cabin so they're to blame for that monstrosity but the western side of the cricket pitch but it's actually a case of creating the facilities which are clearly beyond their useful life the existing facilities are a poor standard they need urgently replacing to provide modern standards changing facilities need to provide changing showers toilets for the many boys and girls teams and the men and women team and actually today's environment we've got to give safe spaces for those facilities and the club at the moment doesn't provide that it's been suggested that the facility is an event centre it's not it's primarily an excellent cricket club and it's actually the members people watch it do enjoy it and one issue that is there is noise and being honest the noise is a big issue but the control is key in two parts vehicles accessing the site and egressing the site I know that the the residents of Dabur suffer badly I know that actually and one of the one of my friends lives in Dabur and he curses the parking errant parking when it happens but unfortunately it's not restricted in that area and so that happens and it's not the issue that the club can prevent I I have put thoughts together in terms of how we deal with that in terms of the noise abatement and but I think that's dealt with quite adequately and Mr Lewis has said conditions 15 and I've read them detail 15 deal with that and actually making sure that that's there but there's also something that the club can do and that the club is part of the community is run by volunteers and they throw their hand in to help the cricket players and that's an important part of the community and many many villages are proud to have a cricket club and should be how to keep a cricket club as it's a traditional English sport I think it was invented somewhere else than England but hey but the thing with that is that how does the club ensure the noise is cut down or is to a minimum as Mr Lewis said it's covered by various sections of legislation and note within the report that the the issues the licensing they currently have 11 o'clock to 12 o'clock and Sundays through to Thursdays and they have 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock on Fridays and Saturdays I don't know of any events that's my personal knowledge of any events that have gone also 1 o'clock but then again I live a little bit further I do live in that part of the village and I have had a comment made oh we really like this to be done by another part of the village but that doesn't work we've got the best cricket pitch in in the southeast and it's suggested in the country so we do need to look at it but I think that the proposal for parking addresses the way would parking that currently occurs and an increase in the car parking from 27 I see the addendum is actually the right way round because actually from 27 spaces to 47 is actually addressing that recognizing that they're redeveloping a port putting car parking in the places of where they're currently done but obviously that access road with the current the cricket club currently knows doesn't need to be addressed but that's something that with the community I think the cricket club can address it but in summary it's a balance and I go to the first point I made it's a marmite application but it's actually about providing cricket for the future not for ourselves there are the club has been going so long with parts of the village wanted to continue going not fold like many others have happened there's bants that is a successful village it's actually referenced back in the doomsday buckets that old but I think there are some lovely parts of the village at that end of the village the oldest parts of the village are there like stone lanterns and the old judge's house that there's something that as council harphead it's going to be encompassed or portion encompassed into the conservation area it's something that we we need to we need to see the village grow we need to protect the village we also need to make sure that it is fit for the future and that doesn't mean to say building over the green belt it's actually making it complementary but also addressing the concerns that residents have and I recognize that some residents do not like this but there are significantly more that are that would be fantastic because we they can't get things booked in the bca or in the horseshoe or in the institutes like gold sometimes but but it's a balance thank you chairman thank you i'm not seeing any more members wishing to put councilor harp thank you chairman i've i've found the debate really interesting i i would just take up one point that um councilor was just commented that i think i think he said that most most advanced residents were in favor of this scheme i actually went through the public comments that have been submitted online to to the council for this application a couple of days ago there were more than the public speaker referenced it had gone up when i looked at it to over 300 public comments and although if you took the simple number of of comments there were slightly more in favor of this scheme than against if you actually drilled down and you read every single one of those comments as i did um it was very clear as the public speaker said that um the vast majority of local residents um and by local i don't just mean bouncy village but the north of of arbora are opposed to scheme and the numbers uh in in favor of it have been very much plumped up by people coming from london even from other counties who presumably are members of other cricket clubs or cricket clubs that they'll play here um i am grateful for the for the committee's comments i would totally agree that this is a very difficult application on the one hand we have to preserve green belt just just because you're going to you're going to now introduce a reason i am i am no i don't but actually council of call cut has asked to speak so let's let's hear him speak well shall i shall i finish my non-bit about you can do that and then i can then i'll come back again look yep so i i would just sort of say um it's very interesting that although we talk about this being supported by the local community the banceted village residence associations have lodged an objection the park road village the park road residence association of lodging objection and as you will see from the addendum uh the cpr e which is the council for council campaign for the protection of rural england have also lodged an objection so um i will certainly give way at the moment but again i will come back in a minute thank you very much for your um your understanding chairman thank you let's go to council of call cut and then we'll come back to councilor hott thank you chairman um i um i thought the the comments made by the public speakers were quite um quite interesting i you know obviously prior to this meeting i went through the agenda item in a lot of detail and and actually went to uh to visit the site and got there early so that i could sort of pace out things and and have a word with a few dog walkers um but even with the conversations that have actually gone on um this evening um i'm i'm still picking up um a feeling of lots of unresolved nagging concerns i mean the special circumstances for building on the green belt um is something it's cropped up quite a few times um i'm not got no real objection to renewal of the pavilion having seen what's there at the moment but i still have some concern about whether it really needs to be two story i just get the impression it might be far too dominant right in the middle of that open space um and and also um the comments about the operating hours being too long but it seems like that can be addressed by by other methods um the if i've understood this properly um the new bigger car park is on public land um and the and the new pavilion is going to be on privately owned land um which strikes me as as a bit odd um but the two other things that cropped up one on on my visit there um i had two dog walkers walking through there that were um concerned about it and um and both took the trouble to highlight that there is a public footpath that runs right across the um the the cricket pitch that we basically saw most of and they were both concerned that um who who gets right of way across there when they actually want um to take their dog for a walk so i don't know if there's an expert here that can clarify that uh and the other bit that came up at the time when we had a look was this access road which is used informally i think people said for extra parking has anybody taken any measurements to find out whether um if there are lots of people parking informally down there whether and even round the bend if it's informal they could be parking anywhere there uh emergency vehicle access um would be a bit of a problem so that's the last two points public footpath there's a there's a few issues you've raised there i mean what which we can go to the offices and just clarify because you've you've said a few things about the access road for example which of course is isn't part of the application the application itself of this so do you want to address on those Steven yeah i think i've got about three things to cover the with regards to sorry with regards to the current access in the parking that goes on informally down the spine road if you like i understand that is an existing situation which persists from time to time as an overflow measure or when people are using it um clearly the width of that access road is not to be altered or changed so there's no change overall um i think like many sports and recreation clubs that sometimes when they have high level of demand they'll make use with what they've got we had an application a couple of committees ago where we had a sports and recreation use with parking and we could see all kind of man of informal arrangements might go on with respect to any potential conflict with regards to the footpath and the access um it's not uncommon that a footpath will run alongside or be cross or be over there um it just requires sensible use by all parties i suppose it isn't going to be in an area where one would expect someone to pick up a great deal of speed i think just everyone using it would have to look out for each other as we would in any other shared spaces um the other issue whichever now we've got oh yes the ownership thank you um i mean the part of the land is i understand um in ownership of the pura council and there may be a trusty arrangement i think um in other matters 6.60 of the report it relates to some of those um ownership is not a material consideration the applicant has submitted a notice to the pura council to say they intend to so that as far as our involvement or necessary if the applicant needs to undertake a new lease or agreement with that land owner then that's what they'd need to do but i think purely for simple purposes i understand that yes the area where the current clubhouse and the replacement is would be within the burrow land and that the new clubhouse would be on banster creek clubs private land broadly but i don't have the exact information but it isn't a material consideration either way okay thank you councilor harp oh councilor councillor ashford you want to come in as well thank you chair can i do but bear in mind that councillor ashford is a visiting member so can you keep this short please because we're really running out of time it'll be very short it's a question um i'm as you say i'm a visiting member i'm not part of bancid village although i've lived there for a long time i was married in the church there my son went to the victorian school so i know a bit about it the my question is actually that we've heard compelling arguments on both sides and we've talked about the need for girls sport one thing that hasn't seemed to be in which would certainly have a bearing on the green belt is the provision of disabled sport and those with support for special educational needs youngsters um which does very much go towards use of the green belt so i'm just wondering if anybody could just comment on how that works it also allows the club to to look at fund raising as well because there's quite a lot of outside bodies that will fund those sorts of activities that's me thank you well we'll just find out at the office there's no that information my question might clarify because i know he ran through a number of the operational requirements and i think one of the questions i may have taken from counsellor chester talked about the size and need of the building and we talked about various elements that are needed matthew may be able to clarify and i would just stress that it forms part of your consideration it's the way that you would give appreciate your visit amendments tonight counsellor ashford but for the members who are voting on this item um it is for you to give weight to those individual aspects and whether you think that um as a as a decision maker that the increased um if there is indeed extra access for disabled players visitors officials whoever it is ensures equal and better access whether you feel that form is part of a very special circumstance i think if you're asking me as a professional officer what weight would you give that then i then i think there would be a certain amount of good or great way to be given to that in terms of increasing um access to sport for all thank you he's still looking at his documents i think we'll move on if that's all right so counsellor harp do you want to now speak yes thank thank you german um well as i said at the start i'm in favor of the principle of redevelopment for for this site and i think we all want to do everything we can to facilitate the future of the of bancy kricket club and the inclusive inclusivity and especially um facilitating uh women's sport there however my view is that uh this particular application is not sufficiently strong enough to overcome the problems with green belts so i have reasons for refusal if i can now read those out thank you german you might um i have three um reasons for refusal the development by reason of the much larger two-story size of the replacement clubhouse together with the extent of the new car park and resultant increase in the intensity of the use of the side would result in a scheme that fails to preserve the openness and have a greater impact on the green belt when compared to the existing clubhouse and car parking the proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the green belt which conflicts with the purposes of the green belt no very special circumstances have been demonstrated to clearly outweigh the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness and the other identified harm as such the proposal is contrary to policy cs3 of the righate and banceted core strategy policy n h e five and zero s r three of the righate and banceted development management plan and the provisions of the n p p f 2023 that was reason number one reason number two the proposed design of the building by reason of its scale height siting and materials would be visually obtrusive and fail to be of a scale and form which is appropriate for its location and harmful to the character of the surrounding area as such the proposal is contrary to policy d s one and o s r three of the righate and banceted development management plan and requirements of the n p p f 2023 reason number three the proposed development by reason of the increase in the size of the clubhouse and car park would result in a greater level of car movements and activity at the site which would result in adverse levels of noise disturbance and light pollution to adjoining residential properties which cannot reasonably be mitigated by condition as such the proposal is contrary to policy d s nine and zero s r three of the righate and banceted development management plan and requirements of the n p p f 2023 thank you thank you do you have a second up for those reasons for refusal councilor torah okay so we now move to vote and the vote is on the reasons for refusal so will those members and visiting members sorry in that block over there you can't vote will those members who wish to support the reasons for refusal please raise your hands I counted six those members who are opposed to the reasons for refusal please raise your hands six I think you did I think you did any abstentions councilor kulker did you vote you did I'm not sure I saw your hand but you did okay so everyone's voted is you put your you have your name on the block don't you sometimes councilor kulker said sorry council court are you sure you voted two three oh it counts as a Harrison you didn't vote so that was six and six and six okay all right that's 13 people here but councilor councilor Stevens can't vote I get to vote as well under these circumstances and given the weight of the given the weight of this meeting and the way that people the feelings that've been quite quite openly expressed I contrary to my normal position which would be to support the officers I think now I think we all I ought to stand and vote for the reason for refusal because this is so controversial and it would it needs needs another another go so I think I'll vote for the reasons for refusal so that application is refused we now move on to our second item of this evening yes you can leave if you came for that application you can now leave we're now moving to our second application this evening which is committee item number eight which is the land to the rear of 60 to 64 shilvers way it had worth and Jake Hardman is going to present this application to us thank you chairman members please note that there is an addendum on this item which includes further representations additional information consulting comments and updates recommended conditions one and 13 of the committee report the application seeks permission for the reaction of a single detached free bedroom bungalow with a detached double garage and for the repositioning of another detached double garage to serve a dwelling which form part of a permitted background development scheme adjacent to the proposed bungalow the proposed element would be cited on land to the rear of numbers 62 and 64 shilvers way and tadworth proposed dwelling would share vehicular and pedestrian access with a permitted presently unimplemented backland development scheme of shilvers way the permitted scheme relates to the development demolition of number 64 shilvers way and the erection of three four bedroom dwellings and a further one bedroom dwelling which was allowed to appeal early last year the application site is situated within the urban area where there is a presumption in favor of sustainable development and where the principle of such development is is acceptable in land use terms the site is within flood zone one and no part of the site is within an area of high risk surface water flooding this area will hopefully give some further context to the location site is located on the northern side of shilvers way the surrounding areas characterized by residential dwellings or varying style and scale but typically set in generous plots while separated and set back from the highway to the rear of the site is a small part of land and beyond this are dwellings fronting fleet with close which comprise terraced houses set in more modest sized plots on the southern side of shilvers way of semi-detached houses that lie within elongated plots and towards the eastern side of the site are detached dwellings in modest plots the site contains and is bordered by mature trees protected by way of tree preservation order the site is relatively flat for out there does rise a little towards the rear you can see properties which line at shilvers way towards the bottom of the image by my hand is um in red the site location to the rear of number 60 and 64 shilvers way where fleet would close immediately north and east by my hand is that um for further reference so top left of the image is tab off leisure center and aid two on seven brighten road can be glimpsed on the top right so as mentioned planning commission is sought for the direction of additional dwelling through the an extension to an approved backland development scheme the site plan on screen here shows the approved backland scheme allowed that appeal on march 2023 as you can see the scheme related to the um to the construction of forged attached dwellings associated carriages to the rear of numbers 64 and 62 shilvers way following the demolition of number 64 it is worth noting that a further application has been submitted relating to this initial permission seeking to vary the scheme by reciting the approved dwellings within plots three and four slightly east whilst also discharging some of the conditions associated with this permission determination of the application is pending however it is not considered that the pros alterations would have any significant impact on the proposal for one additional dwelling for the purposes of the application before us today and this is the proposed site plan for the uh for this planning application today which shows how the proposal would integrate with the approved scheme as shown colorized in the image the new dwelling would share and share and extend the same access road to that of the permitted scheme which branches off shelvers way to the south the detached garage for plot four of the approved scheme has also shown repositioned to sit adjacent to its respective property making way for access to the proposed bungalow principle of new dwellings to the rear of the existing long gardens on shelvers way in a particular this general location is clearly established and therefore such an addition is not objectionable in principle equally the access road was approved under planning wish was under previous planning commissions and the only change to this would be to allow for the new dwelling to be added on to the end of the run of properties approved as such the established part of the access roads has an extra permission and therefore is acceptable on this basis it's considered that the resultant plot side would be plot size would be commensurate with the approved scheme other back down developments within the locale and would be larger than some surrounding examples separation between the dwelling and the development of how to appeal would be greater than those within the appeal decision given the relocated garage for plot four the plot would not appear tight or cramped in order to keeping the character the surrounding area in this regard the access would cause no highway safety concerns above or beyond the consented scheme and parking has been provided for the property in the form of two spaces and a double detached garage plot four of the consented scheme would retain its approved level of parking but feature repositioned garage the parking provided would therefore exceed policy park standards which expects two spaces for free bedding dwelling in this location the highways authority have raised no objection subject to conditions a refuse vehicle would also be able to enter an exit site in a forward gear confirmed by submitted swept path assessments and this is a street section from within the site as you can see the proposed bungalow and recited plot for garage to the right of the image the main properties occupying plots two three and four represent that of an already consented scheme the design of the proposed dwelling would be that of a bungalow which would not therefore strictly reflect the two story properties previously approved however its form is not dissimilar to surrounding examples nor outer character with the surrounding road designs found on shelvers way in nearby roads the variation is therefore considered to be commensurate to the existing nature of the wider street scene here are the elevation drawings and floor plans of the proposed bungalow and it's associated to such garage garage a hit through finish bay windows and traditional material palette of plain tiles and facing bookwork up proposed the form and materiality would be in keeping with the predominant design design of dwellings and local vernacular materials the new garage would reflect the design allowed in the previous scheme of which this proposal was linked the garage is simple with a hit through and materials to match that of the main dwelling the residential unit would meet the relevant nationally subscribed internal space standards each bedroom and made living room but also have sufficient window sizes to allow acceptable acceptable levels of light and outlook these elevation drawings and floor plan relates the proposed recited double garage seven o'clock four west of the new bungalow the design is consistent with that of the approved scheme in which the planning inspector raised no objection to its designed the sole alteration to this element therefore relates to its repositioning onto some street sections now the two sections here relate to views from shelvers way looking north the upper drawing shows the current street scene between numbers 60 and 66 shelvers way the lowering shows the street scene as proposed you can see the new access road you can see that dwellings allowed at p1 place of number 64 along here and the dual pitch roof of the proposed garage subject to this application can be glimpsed behind the garage of number 60 shelvers way since publication of the agenda for this meeting an additional plan has was submitted to as shown here showing site sections which has also been included as part of the agenda for this item the section at the top shows the relationship between the proposed bungalow and its garage with number 60 shelvers way to the south number 60 presently has a presently has a long spacious plot and the new dwelling would retain spacing of over 30 meters to this property and greater spacing to other properties in shelvers way the section in the middle shows its relationship with other properties within the allowed back and scheme akin to the street view shown earlier in the presentation and the section at the bottom of the screen shows a relationship with the properties off-flute with close which back onto the east boundary of the proposed bungalow's plot and here is the same lower section but with the just enlarged for clarity a separation and low profile bungalow design is considered sufficient to ensure that no harmful loss of light would arise nor incur an unacceptable loss of outlook garage would have more of an impact on the gardens these dwellings than the bungalow itself as a result of its tighter relationship to boundaries but owing to its single-story nature and use is not considered that the impact would be so harmful as to aren't refusal it's also not considered the overlooking loss of privacy to neighboring occupiers would arise as a single-story nature and low-level fenestration views would be screened by typical boundary treatments it is worth noting that permitted development rights for loft conversion works including roof lights and other enlargements would be removed from the dwelling should permission be granted so that if any future occupant wishes to extend the roof further consideration could be given to neighbor immunity at that stage now onto some site photos this is a photo looking north from shelvers way towards the approximate location of the new access following the demolition of number 64 which is shown on the left side here number 62 shown on the right hand side this is a photo of number 60 shelvers way the donor property for which the proposed bungalow would be cited behind of this photo from within the rear of number 60 shelvers way looking north in the approximate location of the proposed bungalow and this photo is also from within the rear of number 60 shelvers way looking east towards the rear plot boundaries of numbers one one seven and one one eight fleet would close so winter plans indicate that the bungalow would be distance approximately 13 meters from the rear elevations of of these of the newest property which would be numbers one one seven shown here on the right and this photo is looking south back towards the rear of number 60 from within its plot so winter plans indicate that the bungalow would be distance approximately 33 meters away from this property is very extent and finally this photo is looking west towards number 60 shared boundary with number 62 shelvers way with regards to trees the tree officers satisfied that the proposed trees to be removed as part of the application are of low quality and the removal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area they have solved to recommend the tree protection implementation condition is added to any permission to ensure good tree management and protection for those being retained in addition a landscaping condition is recommended to ensure that any hard and soft landscaping posters of a suitable standard will enhance character of the area and increase canopy cover with regard to ecology and is recommended by so wildlife trust submission of a construction environmental management plan ecological enhancement plan and a badge and fox walkover survey are recommended by condition also condition related boundary treatments within the inclusion of wildlife friendly boundaries is recommended therefore subject to such conditions is considered that the pose acceptable in regards to its ecological impact with regards flooding and drainage the site is within flood zone one it has a low risk surface water route running across a small part of it the scheme has been reviewed by sorry county council of critical drainage drainage engineer who raises no objection subject to condition relating to the submission of a surface water and foul water drainage scheme in view of the in view of such the application is considered to be acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out within the committee report and addendum thank you chairman thank you very much um we have visiting speakers this evening uh and our first visiting speakers mrs mandio brian if you'd like to come forward to the microphone you know what to do um if you when you turn the microphone on three minutes and uh at the end of three minutes i will make sure that you come to a close so please whenever you're ready please start hi i'm here again today for the greenfield wildlife trees piece and tranquility from from the negative impact from these developments my fellow residents in shovels way believes this case is not judged on its own merit as the assessment shows members of this committee please be our voice and ask the following questions how can it be justified just one bungalow impacts the lives of seven families and seven homes the planning officers look from fleetwood's houses themselves is drainage in shovels way four to capacity yes is two million funding shovels way flooding yes is half a million seal grant from right gate and balanced it yes so drainage is hugely recognized the critical drainage team did not approve this no plans were submitted when requested this is crucial as so far two developers have ignored drainage conditions installed without sign-off and homes sold with occupants plans should have been submitted prior to today condition number seven is therefore not enforceable sorry wildlife also did not approve they state no demolition should take place in bird mating season so after august again no enforceable condition demolition is requested june let's harm more wildlife pre-filling is proven why is there no recommended conditions for the removal of the invasive plants artificial lysing lighting and worse the blocking of wildlife holds and preventing a first floor and living space is being built under a s-73 application for bungalow and garages where's that condition the adjoining site application a garage amendment stated no difference in height was shown over a meter higher was approved of in 24 hours two plots had been moved and approved before an s-73 was ever submitted are the inspectors enforceable words still missing on condition five how did these get signed off not all facts and plans are shown this is against DES1 the garage alone is higher than the boundary of all the residents in fleetwood close and is only free feet from their garden it's overbearing outer character outer place to all neighboring properties and its own application as in plan two one double o eight pl 075 sadly trees being planted holds no weight in shelvers way anymore again conifers in nesting again conifers in nesting season failed by this developer this week i can only ask that you refuse and restore face to the residents thank you thank you thank you very much our second speaker is mrs mrs patricia brook quick please do come to the microphone whenever you're ready please do start good evening i'm a local resident and committee member of the todworth and walton residence association firstly we are concerned that our principal objection to the development was not put on the council's website nor referred to in the committee report i've lived in shelvers way for 17 years and have become increasingly overwhelmed and troubled by the changing character of the road the loss of tree cover and the increased traffic flows noise and pollution there are three main objections to the application loss of trees negative impact on fleetwood close and the cumulative impact on local traffic google earth shows the rear of 60 shelvers way to be heavily tree it looks very different now when you visit the site you can see that many trees have already been felled with large stumps still visible we strongly object therefore to the proposed felling of a further 15 mature and semi mature trees and the and the ruin of the green spaces that fall within the proposed footprint of the dwelling parking spaces and garage our tree officer may consider the remaining trees unworthy of preservation we simply cannot agree on this we strongly believe that the trees on this site are a valuable asset to the community in addition to all the well-known benefits of trees the greenscape provides a valuable sanctuary for what remains of local wildlife also the so-called protected band of trees along the back of numbers 60 to 64 once dense and healthy is now sparse and shamefully disregarded this needs to be reviewed as part of this planning process to reiterate the proposed felling would result in a totally unacceptable net loss of biodiversity turning to other issues the gardens backing onto the proposed development site are very short indeed and there will be a significant loss of amenity through overlooking loss of sunlight at certain times of the day and noise and disturbance please be aware that only by visiting the rear gardens is it possible to fully appreciate the damaging and intrusive impact on these properties and the families that dwell in them policy tap one refers to the cumulative impact of traffic you might think that one additional dwelling will not make much of a difference however when taking into account the increasing through traffic flows the eruption of recent developments and developments already approved but not yet constructed or occupied there is a considerable cumulative impact along shelvers way this needs to be acknowledged and addressed it is well known that shelvers way has recently been brutalized by a vast amount of new developments i request that the application be refused you may consider this to be a generous plot but any benefit that might be gained will certainly not outweigh the harm definitely done by the development of this site thank you thank you very much and our final speaker is mr luke eldridge the agent mr eldridge please sit there so whenever you're ready please thank you good evening chair and counsellors it will not be in my intention to repeat the case officer's detailed introduction of the application however there are a number of points i would like to take this opportunity to highlight divine homes the applicant is the owner of number 64 at shelvers way and the land to the rear of number 62 this land has put out as has already highlighted has a benefit of a planning consent for four houses with the development due to start this coming summer subject to conditions having reviewed the objections i thought it would be it's worth clarifying that again that the application front you this evening is for a single additional unit on the land at number 60 within the same format as the consented site with its only relationship with the consent being for access only the plot is a one-off infill of on land within the built-up urban area with the use of the single bungalow adopted to have to to have minimal impact on the joining neighbors and properties with separation distances well beyond adopted sorry appropriate standards true bungalows are rare rarely constructed in modern times so this additional unit in the style should be seen by the community as a positive addition to the local housing stock allowing an occupant to remain in occupation long into long into life within a new and modern environment we acknowledge that there has been several objections which is unfortunate given given the great care that it's been taken in designing the single plot with respect to respect neighboring properties and complement the adjoining consented development increasing the range of unit types finally i would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in favor and support of the application and i respectfully request that you support the recommendation as set out by your officers thank you very much indeed so i'm now going to open the meeting up to members and we do have some visitors i know who want to speak about this particular application so um i'm not seeing the other you had a go first last time so let's let's let uh let's let our visitors speak so Councillor Ashford do you want to speak yes thank you chairman so i'm going to say good evening if people don't know who i am i'm Councillor ron Ashford and i'm the elected representative for the ward where shelve as way is so that's lower kingsward tied with them waltand um i'm not going to repeat what everybody said i think they've gen made very good points um that haven't been covered in the officer's report but i want to talk more generally about what's happening to the people who've chosen to live in that area i'm very much aware that your decision on this application is dependent on what are considered as material planning matters so i looked a lot of this up on planning aid england my comments are informed by that we've already heard this evening about overshadowing loss of outlook to the detrimental of resident detriment of residential amenity overlooking loss of privacy highways issues uh double yellow lines being inflicted on residents who didn't ask for them a noise and disturbance possible smells from traffic and fumes so over the over the last few years back garden development in shelve as way has resulted in 27 houses in three phases at stanton grove unfortunately no provision of affordable housing amongst them a development of four five bedroom houses at number 76 plans to develop numbers 49 to 53 and currently an approved scheme at 62 to 64 and as i speak further development at number 60 being discussed here this evening yet here we are discussing one application with no consideration for the cumulative effect of these developments planning aid refers to loss or effect on trees adverse impact on nature conservation interests and biodiversity as we've already heard the cumulative effect of developments have seen the loss of mature trees destruction of animal habitat for badgers hedgehogs which are protected species not to mention those foxes deer and squirrels which are not protected by law the garden at number 60 finds mature trees already failed as we've heard and clear signs of animal habitats which will all be destroyed deficiencies in social facilities are mentioned local schools have no places NHS dentists in the area are a thing of the past they're not they're just not available currently it can take three weeks to obtain an appointment at the local doctors capacity of physical infrastructure ed the public edg the public drainage or water system the already overloaded mains drainage in shelvers way is causing flooding and there is a two million pound flood alleviation project proposed by the county council so i simply don't understand the the fact that there's no mention of this these developments provide expensive large family homes which is good news for the developers but clearly there is no provision for local communities loss of amenity those families who have chosen shelvers way as their forever family homes are affected we know local mums and dads would like their sons and daughters and grandchildren to be able to afford to live near them or for their own aging parents to be able to downsize and remain in the area where they chose to live so many years ago perhaps developers might think about these social issues when considering these projects not just profit i'm asking you to consider the general loss of amenity to these residents of shelvers way whose lives are significantly affected by these ongoing back garden developments and i'm asking you to consider this when making your decision this evening please can we find a way to protect these families who just wish to continue with day-to-day life in their undisturbed chosen corner of england's green and pleasant land they are after all all our residents so please consider this when making your decision thank you okay thank you cancer wash um i'm going to ask so no no sorry i cast ashford thank you counselor ashford i'm just going to ask uh mr louis just to because you you went through a whole range of things and we really got to focus on what our material considerations before this committee this evening um as you know so mr louis so i'm not entirely clear what question you're asking i'm asking well the the range of things that counselor ashford raised it now there were which which what our material considerations that are before this committee okay well um perhaps the biggest point was about the cumulative impact of development um it was probably the main theme i think that was running through cancer ashford speech um the national planning policy framework and our own policies make it incumbent that um that the is a presumption in favor of sustainable development um this is within the urban area and therefore we must consider whether or not it is contrary to our policies i would direct you to policies ds1 and ds2 being particularly prevalent here um ds2 um is with regards to backland development it was prepared in light of the national planning policy framework as it was at the time and it talks about various aspects to do with um you know what forms of backland development we will or won't find acceptable um likewise policy ds1 talks about amenity etc etc and clearly you would need to take those policies into consideration when considering this as an increase from four to five and whether or not there is any significant further immunity impact from this particular development i would just remind members that there is obviously a consented scheme here it came it came before the committee and was overturned for refusal and was allowed upon appeal and there was also a scheme um the other scheme that was um granted by this planning committee or by some members this committee might have been in the previous municipal year um this is essentially using the same access with a very similar layout it facilitates some small changes or will facilitate some small changes to the consented scheme where they are recited and would provide a bungalow and i would say that um you know you need to look at the scheme in front of you as to whether or not you deem that acceptable there were a couple of other issues i think coming on accumulation i'll come to drainage as well in a moment with regard to um the infrastructure the impact on existing of the infrastructure for example doctors dentists those kind of things you'll note of course that we have the community infrastructure levy where we collect levy to contribute towards those and that's outlined in the officers report it is doubt for the one single dwelling could be shown to place enough stress in order for us to have required a section war 106 agreement for a single dwelling for example not that we would give them the community infrastructure levy charges in place so with respect to this there will be some contributions made towards community infrastructure there with regards to the drainage and the flooding issue yes we are aware of course that shelvis way has areas of surface water drainage i think it's being well publicized by concerned members and it's being considered by this committee in the past this particular planning application we'll seek to uh if you like provide its own drainage system um and we'll connect to the new drainage system that's being permitted as part of the new development i'll be clear that the way the drainage systems are to design and which they're intended to operate the way the drain system would operate or be designed in an instance such as this is that you would calculate the greenfield rate plus 30 for global warming it's called the cuban cubar rate um you would work out how much rainfall would fall on that area of the site and and then work out how much storage you would find out what the filtration or what the runoff rate is you would then provide enough storage space for that water to be held plus 30 percent so that you can then work out what rate it needs to be released and it's usually done at a lower than the present greenfield rate it's usually below the cubar rate um in this particular instance there is a scheme of drainage that will be designed and it's subject to planning conditions and if anything what it should do or what it will do is um it will be to design to collect what rainwater is collected within the area hold it from longer than what it presently would upon the site and then release it into the existing or new drainage systems that are provided so um obviously the scheme washes its own hands with regards to draining it is not considered by sorry lead local flood authority to be objectionable or that it would exacerbate or cause areas of flooding clearly we know the shelvers way has suffered a great deal of flooding it's probably come from a number of measures within the area that you know for example new driveways areas of ashtray turfing and all the kinds of things that go on these days within people's areas and the run off water and that's worsened over the year as climate change of course has contributed consistently to it as well but this site in itself will be designed to drain and use its own what planning couldn't and shouldn't do is designed to go beyond i.e. require the developer to do something beyond the existing so they shouldn't solve problems other people's problems they need to deal with the effects of the development itself. Thank you. Councilor Hart. Thank you, Chairman. I have two short questions about biodiversity which were matters that were first raised by one of the public speakers. When we went on the site visit it was very clear, shockingly clear how much preemptive felling had taken place on this site. As the public speaker said 15 major trees and a number of minor trees I very quickly counted 15 tree stumps and I wasn't making a particular survey to see how many particularly noticeable a large conifer and more sadly a mature oak tree had been taken out and it was interesting to learn from the public speaker that she believed this had been done literally in the last week certainly the sawdust was quite fresh so my first question is to what extent is this taken into account with regard to BNG biodiversity net gain now that we are in a different legislative condition than we were until previously with BNG requirements. My second question is again the public speaker mentioned invasive species and there was no mention about dealing with invasive species in the officer's report. I did notice that a significant number of the surviving plants are among, apart from the bluebells, allium tricuspidatum which certainly under EU law is a wild garlic which might sound quite inoffensive but was given under EU law the same status as Japanese knotweed because of its invasive nature and I presume that's been translated into British law so should we have a condition controlling whether that would be spread off site if the developers do indeed start ground works thank you. Okay who's going to answer that Mr Lewis. Okay with regards to the trees and the BNG the there is a section in the report with regards to the trees and of course the council does not encourage preemptive felling but nevertheless if the trees were not under protection then of course then we would have no powers in order to prevent their felling in any place. With regards to biodiversity net gain this application was actually received prior to the start of the biodiversity net gain coming in so just for clarification for major applications that kicked in for applications received after the 12th of February 2024 with respect to minor applications at the exact end of the top of my head but it's around about the 11th of April 2024 so this application being received before then is not subject to the environmental uplift of 10% so the loss of those trees would not in fact be calculated anyway because we're not looking or requiring a 10% gain by law at the point this application was received. With regards to the invasive species I'll be honest and say that it's outside my area of expertise. I haven't looked at this particular application in strong detail with regards to the invasive species however there are planning conditions attached which require an ecological enhancement plan that's been submitted to and approved and shall be based on impact avoidance mitigation measures and one of those issues I suppose or one of the areas of environmental construction or the construction environmental management plan I would argue that if it requires the submission of details then perhaps we could have an assessment of any invasive species and a scheme of mitigation to prevent or remove or I don't know enough about it as an area of expertise however though Councillor HOWARD. Thank you. Councillor CUPPA had her hand up. Thank you. It's a visiting member. Thank you. One of the elective war councillors. I have three points I'd like to make please. On page 111 of the report 0.6.17 the officers specify that the proposed garage is taller than permitted development allowed and it is in fact a significant height. Given that this garage is going to be approximately three feet one metre to the boundary with 116 fleetwood close this is going to be severely detrimental towards their amenity value especially given that the officers acknowledge that fleetwood close have really short gardens so they'll be just looking at this enormous roof I would question whether it has to have such a significant pitch on its roof which brings me on to another point that I acknowledge and thank the officers for considering the removal of permitted development right but could I also ask that that happens with these garages as well so that we don't find the at a later date 116 fleetwood close or the neighbouring properties have got overlooking there and my final point if it's okay to make it now the having looked at the parking provision which runs right behind the garden of 60 shelvers way actually it specifies in the report that there's eight parking spaces which are tandem if you take into account the garage itself but also it is acknowledged that one of the garages isn't wide enough to hold two cars therefore has to be considered a single space and I appreciate that's over the the requirement however when you look at the movements of those cars in order to get in and out and negotiate through that small area they're going to actually negatively impact the amenity value on the garden of 60 shelvers way who will be listening to cars reversing and pulling into the turning area while the other cars reverse back in order to swap them all around you to the tandem nature of that thank you very much so let's further those questions to the officers so the first question related to the the roof and the the size of the roof who's going to handle that yep okay with regards to the size of the garage think as outlined by the officer's report it's about 4.95 meters which is over and above what might be permitted clearly the permitted I think probably officers are giving a view as to what the methods of element right are to set in mind what would typically be allowed in the future and I don't have classy in front of me which is what this comes under but there are prescribed limits on the height that pitch roof buildings and flat roof buildings can be um so I don't think the question was what what what what what what are those but I think your question was what else could it be well clearly there are other forms of garageing that you could take um that could be carport it could be flat roof but we have the scheme that we have in front of us um number of members visited the site last night looked in proximity to the rear of fleetwood close so can you know understand that when you make a judgment as to whether they think that relationship is okay with respect to your question on the p.d. rights for the garage I wasn't entirely sure whether you were referring to the potential roof conversion of that roof or whether you were thinking other classy well there's a couple of points there then so because it's a classy building there is no permitted element rights for an extra space within the roof clearly anything over the prescribed currents um so from that point of view you couldn't convert the roof of that you could perhaps put a roof light or something like that in it but you wouldn't be in that space and it'd be too shallow in any case however um I know that the permissive element rights that are due that are looked to be removed include class A class B which is so sorry for those not aware of what each of those are all explained class A is for extensions and alterations to the main dwelling house so things like rear extension side extensions class B is with regards to volume increase in the roof and then the next condition talks about no roof lights and that's typically what you get under class C if members were concerned about any future new buildings being built on the rear boundaries with fleetwood close for example and the impact those might have and then it would be an option for members to consider also adding class E of the general commit development order to the condition that outlines A and B and then that way future buildings now buildings could be controlled in that way and again no changes could be made to the existing garage or sorry the to be built garage structures um I think the last thing was to do with the turning um I wonder if Jake could get a plan of it up now I know that sorry county council highways will have assessed the internal movements to ensure that bin lorries and service tenders and etc can turn I wasn't entirely sure but I think you were saying that the garage that would serve had question related to to the vehicles effectively shuffling in and out of the garage there in tandem no oh I see because one of them wouldn't be yeah large enough um I would I would say there's a judgment as to whether or not you think that the layout is acceptable in that regard however you know the garage spaces the requirement for the minimum parking level is met it is a donor plot it is relatively well spaced and there will naturally be some uplifting movements and disturbance as a result of the new residents moving there but I mean there is a number of possibilities in which to to turn they may choose to reverse and come out and there's also an area just in front where so I don't have a I don't have the cursor but on plot five and you can see there's an area cut out in front of the dwelling and then you could if you were in the in the garage affected which is the one next to number 60 presumably you could reverse into that and then move around so it's a judgment it's a judgment but there are no safety or capacity issues associated with it let's take some comments from other members um the tip councilor at first and then to you councilor blacker thank you um can I just clarify and I know we're talking about the bungalow and not the other houses but when the other house is were you say the first turn down was it for those three or was it more than three properties and it was turned down and then they put in an application for three let's go on if jay could put the layout up again so originally the scheme that came before the planning committee some time in i was going to just go off the top of the head but i'm not sure i would remember exactly right i think it was 2022 late 2022 i know we did an evening site visit there i remember that much um so the layout you're looking at now or is the approved or similar um i don't know which one this is but essentially it was to demolish number 60 um build a bungalow on the side sorry not them so number 64 i beg your pardon yeah so to demolish the garage of number 62 to demolish number 64 itself place a smaller frontage dwelling in the front there the jay's hovering over now and then build the three dwellings in the rear that came before the planning committee it was refused for a couple of reasons um don't have them both off the top of the head but i know that one of them pertained to um the impact on the character in the games of the area by virtue of the small nature of that dwelling at the frontage and it would be harmful to the character of the area um when the applicant got that refusal from the planning committee they appealed it but also prepared a further planning application uh that omitted that bungalow and then submitted that that application i believe was approved by the committee and then subsequently an appeal inspector approved the scheme that we originally refused i believe that timeline does that answer your question yes no i was just wanting to clarify if it was a similar case of where more houses were put in and then it was turned down and it was like access of number of vehicles um because i there's lots of concerns i have on it and i know you know i don't like backfills into back gardens bear in mind we've got the application before yes no no no so the the problem is is that when you look at the what when we saw the google map and you see all the up and that entire stretch of road all the backfills that have happened you just go well it's happened we've allowed it you can't stop it um i'm really cross and you can't glue them back on about the tree felling it's almost like it's mud in the eye for us because they're showing we've done it whole i think that's disgusting um the fact that it's more cars coming through onto that junction i feel very sad when speaking to for the residents um having a new road put in means you you then lose access on your road people opposite this junction and it's not going to change but that they've lost parking outside their own house um and i think that's wrong it's it's it's causing a lot of concern to the residents um and all this backfills shouldn't be happening the thing with the bungalow and what was um council cooper was saying about the garage could the bungalow then be said it can't have a a top floor as well and is that just because it's a bungalow because either the the house in number 60 that's sold the land doesn't want to have then an ugly building that's taller than their fence or is it because it's too close to the properties that are to the right of it hey let's let's ask the officer thank you that question so the bungalow which is of course now we're proposing removing uh well permitted development rights would be removed so it could not be anything more than that um the reason why um i don't think we necessarily know the reason why they've applied for that maybe perhaps they think that um commercially that's the best thing it could be that as you say the current landowner or the previous landowner depend on who presently owns the land sold it with a covenant that requires it only to be that however i would just stress that i have no sight of anything like that or know that that exists um there could be a number of reasons as to why that is um we just have the application we have before us which is for a bungalow I think that officers we couldn't put in like we're saying about the garage that's being that that's been moved to allow access for the bungalow and saying it can't be built in the rafters of is the bungalow the saying that it wouldn't be allowed to be could we say it can't be built into the rafters yes indeed i mean that's essentially what the condition does so if you bear with me for a moment i definitely need my glasses at this time um so condition number eight uh says that uh notwithstanding the town and country planning general permit development or the 2015 or any order revoking and acting that no extensions or roof and large and permitted by classes a b or a a part one of the check and check schedule shall be constructed without the prior approval of the low of the plan authority um class a as i said before is extensions um class b is uh roof extensions class aa is entire extra stories that recently brought in in permitted development rights about three or four years ago strictly they wouldn't apply anyway i don't think to this to to development because it was built after the date that enacted but nevertheless that's exactly what the what what the condition seeking to do is to give the council oversight of the low planning authority oversight should anyone want to build in there i'll make it clear that the future occupiers of that bungalow would be entitled to apply for planning permission and test the system but clearly we'd have to form a judgment at that point as to whether or not we believe it's acceptable both in a design and an amenity privacy kind of way so it'd be something we'd have future control of and of course the problem there is is that we would say well the house is next door or houses and that's a bungalow so the president says there is there is um the other big issue and it's all with these backfills and it's all happening with um office buildings that are being converted now as well is that it's all very well having this drainage system put in on the site to allow for the rainwater and all the problems we're saying i'm building the houses on the land where trees were where trees swapped up the water um that's causing the main problem but the sewers that's the big issue and these roads when i first came on to planning i was astounded that people like Thameswater, SESwater are never consulted about new builds and i think the problem here is is what the resident is also saying is that it's the drainage system in terms of the sewers so i don't agree with the backfill but i think we've got our hands to bite about the sewers situation right and what what the council's advice had been yeah um essentially with regards to the file surface oh sorry with with the file sewer connection typically when a developer gains planning permission looks to build they have to um apply for a license to connect to the current system the water provider the water company in this case i presume given the north but it will be Thameswater would then i suppose engage with the developer and will agree to allow them to connect or will ask them to pay towards upgrading of the system but essentially it's a private water company the private control who comes to a private arrangement between the two and they have to provide a license or a payment depending on whether this capacity there councilor blacker thank you chairman i'm not going to repeat if you're the house where everybody else is said but nevertheless it's sad that people in show us where they're going to lose the parking at our site visit we saw just how crowded that road was and how difficult it was to park anyway but the bungalow the built into new proposed building is very very close to the houses in Fleetwood close and i think that is a major issue as shown by the uh the plan the section in the addendum you can just see how close it is to those houses in in Fleetwood close um and therefore um i am opposed to this and i do have a reason for refusal which i'll read at the appropriate time please thank you i'll swish to speak council Harrison just very quickly heard all the arguments about the cumulative development i know we're looking at a single site but again on this application i do share that very same concern that council blacker raised the proximity to the four properties on the right hand side the eastern side i think is just too close thank you thank you anyone else wishing to come in no okay so council blacker thank you to you um thank you chairman the proposed dwelling and associated garage by virtue of the intent intensification of the site scale of development side facing kitchen window and proximity to the rear boundaries of number 115 to 118 Fleetwood close would result in an unduly overbearing oppressive and a neighborly relationship harmful to the amenities of these neighbors the proposal is therefore contrary to policy des one of the righate and banstered development management plan 2019 the righate and banstered core strategy the householder extensions and alterations supplementary planning guidance 2004 and the provisions of the national planning policy framework thank you chairman thank you do you have a seconder for that reason for refusal i'm not sure i think well i think councilor heart was probably there first so let's uh let's assume that okay so will those members who wish to support the proposed reason for refusal will you please raise your hands i counted ten those against would you please raise your hands three application is refused we we um okay so if members so members of the public could leave or want to leave you're welcome to stay yeah you're very welcome to stay um so our next application um uh is item number two now we just asked for a little break so six sorry item number six sorry item number six item number two is the apologies wasn't it um so uh councilor Harrison's just asked for a brief break so if uh if you want to take a brief break please do now and please but back as quickly as you possibly can thank you yeah right members um it's now 20 past 10 and as you know um i need your permission if we can go beyond 10 30 we have some public in the gallery waiting for item number six they've been very very very patient uh would with your indulgence can you would you please allow us to uh to take this item and i'm going to ask for the next one as well which is the um which is the hospital um would you would you oh let's would you allow us to go to 11 o'clock like on those terms yeah okay remember that this committee changes after this date so um let's uh let's proceed if that's okay with you i'm seeing nods but some weary nods but thank you very much for your indulgence so we moved there for two item number six uh we're going back uh and this is land the rear of 59 and 61 norkway bandstead um and um jake is going to present this one to us as well thank you thank you chairman members please note the addendum on this item which includes a further condition to secure design details of the proposed bin store and waste facilities the application seeks permission for the erection of two four bedroom detached dwellings to the rear of numbers 59 and 61 norkway and bandstead following the subdivision of plots along with providing two off road car parking spaces for each property to the front of the houses with gardens later on to the rear the proposed dwellings would be served by a new access road adjoining the recently constructed drive to the front of number 61 norkway to be extended along the south eastern site boundary the application site is situated within the urban area where there is a presumption in favor of sustainable development and where this principle of such development is acceptable in Andrews terms sites within flood zone one and no part of the development is within an area of high risk surface water flooding this area will hopefully give some further context to the location the application site is currently occupied by two detached 1930s slash for 1920s slash 30s dwelling set will be an extensive and deep plots of norkway and bandstead the proposal was to split the rear half of the plots to allow for two new dwellings with access to the side of number 61 norkway rear gardens were landscaped with a number of trees and hedging none of the existing trees are protected by way of tree preservation order the site is relatively flat for out although it is noted that the properties to the southwest and boundary are at a lower level surrounding areas largely residential and character although the adjacent building to the southwest and number 63 norkway is a doctor's surgery on the corner plot here on my handers prominent house types typically that of two storey 1930s dwellings although to the rear of the site is a recent backland development into the northeast of the site of bungalows in the area where you can see the site etched in red with the proposed access of norkway you can see nork clinic at number 63 octapine this corner plot nork's local center shopping period is a short distance northeast for further reference bands the train station can be glimpsed at the top of the screen here in the 817 bison road on the right hand side now on to the proposed site layout the proposed plot sizes and widths of the dwellings would be commensurate with other plots in the road the spacing between the buildings is considered sufficient to ensure the properties would be in keeping the prevailing layout of the area including the donor properties the result plot sizes would be more generous than other nearby backland developments such as those of willow close to the rear of the site but the donor properties of resultant plot size will also be acceptable with plot depths of around 20 meters and acceptable plot width retained for number 60. Parking has been provided for the dwellings with two off-road car parking spaces each which is considered compliant with policy swept off assessments were provided within the submitted transport statement showing a provision for vehicle turning within the car within the site for standard car delivery van and fire emergency vehicles close-border fences are proposed between the new properties and along the boundary treatments with the boat donor properties and this is considered an acceptable form of boundary treatment a refuse store serving the dwellings will be within 10 meters of the front doors at the new houses which are shown centrally between the two my hand is on the screen now with regard to access the development but not cause undue disruption to the character appearance of the existing street frontages that would utilize the current access serving number 61 Northway which features an existing driver running along the side of the property. The use of access roads is commonly found within Northway and it's considered that this access would be suitable to be screened by existing and further proposed landscaping or to soften its appearance. For the purposes of safe access Neagress 5 existing on-street parking van is adjacent to the access of Northway hard to be removed. It's understood these parking spaces are often used by visitors to the local shopping parade to the northeast and there is local concern that this part of the road has historically had issues with on-street parking. The point has been noted in the requirement of suitable reinstatement of on-street parking spaces will be conditioned to ensure sufficient parking for the users of the local shopping parade would remain. Highways of 40 have assessed of proposed development on safety and policy grounds and have raised no objection subject to conditions. A new refuse store to the southwest of the access road is proposed to act as a holding point at Refuse Collection Day. The bin store would be cited discreetly with views of the feature obscured by hedge planting and boundary treatment. The refuse store is shown where my hand is here. Further details of this element are also to be secured by condition to ensure that its appearance is acceptable in the context of the wider street scene as set out in the addendum of this item. The design of the proposed dwellings boardee reflect that of the properties within the vicinity that date primarily from the 1930s featuring a traditional design and material palette with red roof tiles, brickwork, fender with a hip to gable features to the front. Submission of the two or details are also to be secured by condition. The scale and massing of the properties would correspond with others in the street scene and the elevation provided to detach houses would be similar in height to other properties within the road. The two dwellings would exceed the minimum sizes as stated within the National Street Prescribed Space Standards and thereby its confined policy in this regard. Until a couple street sections, with regard to labour amenity, the remaining gardens of both donor properties would be around 20 metres in depth and these houses would be set up by 26 metres in total from the dwellings owing to such separation distances as stated that any overlooking would be inconsequential and there is anticipated to be robust landscaping along boundaries between the properties which would minimise any material impacts. With regard to properties to the northwest, numbers 15 and 17 were low close, the plan showed that the back-to-back relationship with the properties would also be separated by approximately 26 metres. In addition, the buildings are angled away from each other which would ensure that we know significant overlooking impact as any views from first four windows would be oblique. With regard to the numbers 2 and 4 were on road to the southwest, again the proposed dwellings are well-distance at around 30 metres from the properties and as such there will be minimal overlooking old material, significant impacts on the immunity of these properties. The proposed access road would be built between numbers 63 Northway which comprises Dr Sergio with no residential accommodation and one of the donor properties of number 61. While there will be some impact to number 61 from the access, the proposal is for two properties only and the impact especially in regard to noise and disturbance is not considered to cause such harm as to aren't fusing on such grounds. Now onto some site photos. This photo is looking southwest along Northway showing the existing access number 61. You can see on the image here to the left existing parking bays along Northway to be removed and these are to replace by condition as mentioned. There is a mature tree to the front of the site adjacent to the access road, showing where my cursor is here. However, the tree officer is satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on the tree noting that access drive is already in place. The associated works for the provision of the bin saw which would be a short distance to the rear or to comprise only above soil surfacing. And this photo shows number 61, Northway looking northwest along the existing boundary. At the time of the case of the site visit, the existing driveway has already been built up towards the rear extent of this property. And this photo shows from the similar view just showing the other donor property number 59 on the right hand side there. There is further opportunity for the access to be with the visual impact of the land have new access to be softened by landscaping condition. This is photo from within the rear of number 61, Northway looking towards the rear of elevations of the two donor properties. And this photo is from within the rear of number 59 looking towards its rear elevation. The submitted plans indicate the closest proposed dwelling would be approximately 26 metres from this rear bell extent. This photo is from deep within the rear plot of donor property number 61, Northway looking southwest back towards the rear of elevation of said property. The submitted plans indicate that the closest proposed dwelling would be distance approximately 33 metres from this property. The loss of landscaping here is considered except towards the planting incited within a rear garden is of a domestic scale and suitable replanting as proposed. This will also be controlled by landscaping condition to ensure that hardened soft landscaping poses of a suitable standard and will enhance account of the area. Also according to tree protection measures are asked to be secured. This photo is looking north west towards the rear plots of numbers 16 and 17 below close in which the rear plots of the proposed dwellings would back onto. The submitted plans indicate that the closest dwelling would be distance approximately 26 metres from the rear percent of number 16 and 30 metres from number 17. And this photo is looking south west towards the rear plots of numbers 2 and 4 on road. The submitted plans indicate the closest proposed dwelling would be approximately 31 metres from number 2 and 35th number from number 4 so in 35 metres from number 2. And finally this photo is looking from within the rear plot of 61 again looking south west towards them along the shared boundary of number 2 on road. With regard to ecology a preliminary ecological assessment was provided and support the application which has been reviewed by Soil Wildlife Trust. The report concludes that the only protected species like likely to be present on the site are birds breeding within scrub and dense sections of hedges as well as foxes. The report recommends submission of a landscape ecological maintenance plan which is to be secured by condition and would include the provision of nest boxes and a schedule for the protection of breeding birds and foxes subject to accounts of these conditions proposals therefore acceptable in this regard. In view of such the application is considered to be acceptable and therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out of an equity report and addendum. Thank you Chairman. Thank you very much. Councillor Harb it's really fast off the mark these days. Thank you Chairman. I've got a feeling I may have spoken more at this meeting than probably most of the other planning meetings I've attended in the last five years. So I will try and be brief in view of the lateness of the air. Norquay was the first road that was built in Norquay when Norquay was developed in the 1920s as such it's a very narrow road and most of it is very straight but very steeply undulating with some sort of almost blind spots going along it. There are consequently considerable problems with speeding along it and safety issues because it's now used as a cut-through or rat run from ryget road through to furtu road. As has been mentioned the neighbouring plot on the corner of Warren Road is a large doctor's surgery and the parking base in front of 61 Norquay are predominantly used not by people visiting the shops but I would suggest by elderly people visiting the doctor's surgery. I am concerned on this application for a number of points. One specifically is the loss of the parking base and the condition that additional replacement parking base will be reinstated and it's difficult to see how this will be done. Bearing in mind the corner of Warren Road is double yellow lined and the county council have just actually removed two parking bays in front of North Gardens in the other direction and double yellow lined and the rest is already all parking bays so it's difficult to see how you can fit more parking bays in where it's all demarcated already. I have considerable concern about the impact on the verge tree which is shown in improperly located on the maps that we've been given. The verge tree is actually very very close to the existing excess way onto the site and has already been significantly damaged the roots of it by construction traffic going in and out and I'm very concerned that building two more houses there and the resultant traffic from those two houses will inevitably damage that tree and I can't see how you can really get ready around there. The excess is too narrow to bear that extra level of traffic. I'm concerned about the tightness of the access to these two rear properties to the donor property number 61, the front garden of 61 and that sweet brown driveway have already been built in tarmac and now it is very tarmac dominant with very lack of landscaping in that front garden and that driveway is quite tight and that is surely going to have an adverse effect on 61 nork way as people drive around there. Finally the point I'd like to make is as I'm sure you're all aware this is election season and we are all walking our constituencies. We have 100 roads in nork, 100 through roads and cul-de-sacs and in the last couple of weeks I've walked every single one of them. I am not aware in nork in those 100 roads of any other backyard and development such as this which is just two properties. They are nearly always cul-de-sacs of six to approximately a dozen houses and we talk a lot about precedence and character and I would argue that although of course we can't talk about things setting a precedent we can talk about things being a change of character and my view is if we were to allow these two houses to be built behind this this house in nork way that would be a sufficient changing character that would then influence future applications and you would see applications all along this road where people were trying to squeeze in just one or two houses behind existing houses and that number of extra access roads would cause chaos on an already dangerous road. So again it's not precedence but I believe it's a changing character. If I may I'd like to come back possibly later and reserve that right once I've heard what I'd just say. Thank you. Yes fine. Let's allow the officers to just come back. I mean specifically you started off with I can't see how the parking bays would do. So let's ask the officers how that might happen. That's a better maybe a fair way around. I think there's a little point to the council heart race not given the late hour or trying to be as brief as I can with regards to the parking at the surgery and the use of those bays. I've spoken to the officer today and I understand that there are 17 bays currently available at the park at the surgery. So therefore the existing parking on site will still be able to provide the most vulnerable members with parking. So one area to consider. I wonder if Jake has the transport statement plan. So the applicant put forward a scheme of replacement bays and that will give you an idea of the kind of reconfiguration you are looking at. Now Surrey County Council have undertaken an assessment of that and they're not entirely happy with that. I understand informally that they may be looking. So these are where the new bays would go and I understand that one of those is situated on a side of the road where they prefer it on the other side. Notwithstanding those the kind of arrangements we're talking about so visually you can have a look at. What the condition would do is secure a scheme to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority in conjunction with Surrey County highways and of course the changes to the traffic regulation order be subject to consultation and also I presume Surrey County approval too. So that's the kind of thing that we are looking at and the kind of locations that are being observed for them. Thank you. Is that address you? I seem to recall. Isn't that approximately opposite a bus stop? Which may be the reason why Surrey County are not happy with it and it may well be they're looking to reiterate that was the scheme that was submitted. That's the one that's not acceptable but just to give members an overview of the type of locations we'd be looking at. Clearly the individual and direct you know the final sighting of those would need to be sorted out with highway engineers and then go through public consultation of the traffic regulation order. Thank you. Anybody else? Councillor Blacker. Just very briefly, German. On the parking, I see there are four bedrooms upstairs. There are, is that a bedroom or a bathroom downstairs? On the left hand side of both buildings, opposite the staircase. So it's so faint you can't actually see it. I'm not going to go over everything. If you can't count the heart rate. Well, tell you what, let's part that question. Yeah, look at that. Absolutely, you've finally answered that. Thank you. And yeah, I'm not going to repeat what Councillor Harp said but parking is a concern and the only thing I would say is if you look at the site plan we've got, when you look at North Way and there's development, background development in North Gardens and background in Willow Close on the left hand side there and their plots are tiny compared with these plots. That's the only thing I can say in its favour. Thank you, June. Thank you. I see Councillor Warsh is actually asking to speak, so please do. Thank you, Chairman. It's somewhat surprising to speak about something in North because it's not invented. And it's quite specifically not invented. One concern I've got, and I don't think anybody has actually really mentioned it, apart from Councillor Blacker raising the positives that the larger size, the background development locally. It is rather cramped development. It is actually rather, it's not a very good access design but it's the application in front of the committee here to like or dislike or to enthuse about. But I'm very concerned about the impact directly and I can't see from, if I can't actually see, oh, number 61, if I scroll in, is the impact of the vehicular movements that's going to impact that number 61 directly for all of the vehicles moving in and out for two very large properties. So notwithstanding the parking issue that is there or thereabouts is actually how is that going to be impacted on the neighbour amenity. One might say the donor is quite happy to put up with it because he's going to receive some cash for it. But that's, we're looking after the occupiers of the future, not the occupiers who have benefited financially. So I'm very concerned about this. It isn't, I think it's a bit over the development because it's squeezed in. If it knocked down 61, that might make a better opportunity but I don't think number 61 might like that. Thank you. Do you want to come back on any of that? Yeah, now I'm happy to come back because I think actually it crosses over a couple of issues, the council harp also talked about with regards to character and amenity and I think maybe at this stage rather than go through each individual, those. It's perhaps just worthwhile directing members to say that each of these issues, character and amenity are going to be a judgment for you to have a look at tonight. Policy DS1 and Policy DS2 particularly with regards to the impact on amenity and the redevelopment of residential garden land of which one of the criteria talks about that it should demonstrate to being carefully designed to ensure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants. So clearly you must consider the occupiers of number 61 Northway which is the donor plot. Officers with just urge caution that in our experience, planning inspectors are often more forgiving on donor plots and the impact on donors than they are in in others as indicated by Councillor WASHA's comments as well. So yes, just to summarise, those are both issues of judgment and officers thoughts are in the report. Thank you. Councillor Harrison. Thank you, Chairman. I think if you look at the drawing on page 68, the layouts to the rear, you see what a hodgepodge this whole area is and how difficult it will be to get in and out of and the impact on surrounding buildings, particularly the buildings to the northwest. In relation to the new parking bays, I think this is frankly a myth because there are either double yellow lines which have been put in with the agreements based on the highway authority with support from local residents to allow or eliminate dangerous spots or there are already areas where there are no restrictions and you can park there in any event. So there are no such thing as providing new bays, these are either areas you can already park in. This will certainly eliminate the two bays nearest to the North Clinic which are very much required the car park within the North Clinic and indeed this whole section from Warren Road up to Norway shops is always very often parked. So I don't think actually these new bays are deliverable and they won't really help the local residents and the clinic itself. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Torra. Only briefly on what Councillor Harrison was saying and I've said this before is that it's a drive. It's not a road and so actually if it went ahead this building buildings then the cars are more likely to come out frontwards than reversing and so then the parking bays do not need to be taken away because it would just be as a drive. It's when there's roads and that's when highways come in and stop putting double yellows either side so that there's an access site view but if anything it's safer because most of these cars will be coming out frontwards and not reversing so I don't think the bays need to be removed if the building was approved and went ahead. But I know that's not our thing but it's just that I don't understand why the bays are being talked about in the report by the developers because they're not extending their frontage and there's verges and there's the trees there so in the sightlines people aren't parking on pavements and blocking the sightlines so the bays should in theory just stay there. Let's get an officer view on that comment. So I was just stressed first and foremost that clearly the safety and the operation of this have been looked at by Surrey County Council highways as qualified highway engineers so clearly they're the experts have looked at it but I would say there are some key differences between the current situation and what's being proposed in terms of highway capacity and safety. The first is that presently the driveway as has been extended to towards the rear in recent times serves one single dwelling where there is less likelihood of conflict and movement. Clearly an uplift into further dwellings will mean that there will be more parties using it more deliveries more trips etc etc and also you know the current access has been a long-standing historical situation that doesn't demand any change when we have the opportunity in which to control development or to manage to development a new development comes longer it gives you the opportunity to in order to look at what that is. Now the highway engineers both the transport experts on behalf of the applicants and those on behalf of Surrey County Council will have to undertake an assessment as to what visibility splay is required and it's my understanding here that the visibility splay and the need to maintain clear vision for those coming in and out of there given the uplift is the reason why the bays would need to be moved or relocated as in this case. It's a technical thing. Anyone else watching to speak? Councillor HOP. Thank you Chairman. I shall come on to a reason for refusal in just a few seconds. I'd just like to answer one point that Councillor WOLSH made which was about the the donor property number 61 presumably being quite happy about the financial implications of selling their back garden. It isn't a material planning consideration I don't think but that the background is that both 59 and 61 were both acquired by the applicant and have recently been significantly enlarged virtually rebuilt and I believe the applicant is now trying to cover the cost of doing that by building two more houses in the back garden but I don't think that's a material consideration but it just clarifies that point Councillor WOLSH raised. I'll now come on to my reason for refusal. If I may, Chairman. Please do, yes. The proposed development and its access by reason of its sighting and layout is considered poorly designed and would result in a cramped form of development not reflective of the positive spacious character of the surrounding area and by virtue of the proximity of the access road with the donor plot 61 Norway would have little suitable landscaping resulting in poor separation between the donor and the access that would give rise to a level of noise and disturbance which would be harmful to the amenity and living conditions of the occupants of the dwelling including the enjoyment of the garden contrary to policies DES1 and DES2 of the development management plan 2019 and RIGAT unbansted local character and distinctiveness guide 2021. Thank you and do you have a seconder for that reason for refusal? Councillor Harrison was there first. Those who wish to support the reason for refusal as drafted, would you please raise your hand? I counted eight. Those against, would you please raise your hands? Three. That application is refused. Thank you. Right. If you see the members of the public now going we just had this one further application which is relating to the hospital. We've got nine minutes I think we could probably do it in that time so would you like to see if you can have a go? This is a full application for the retrospective development of a collection of modular buildings in the extension to the east entrance of the hospital, VIE compound and associated works and to car parks at the east sorry hospital. Site is located within the urban area since the removal of its Greenbelt designation by the 2019 development management plan and it's the south of Red Hill. The car park element comprises a 16-space disabled access car park close to the entrance to the hospital and a 166-space overflow car park for staff to the eastern side of the hospital. So the disabled car park is here so close to the vehicle entrance to the hospital and the staff car park is there. In terms of the car parks they have typical design being a tarmac surface with tarmac curbing around. There are other car parks throughout the site as you can see on the aerial photograph within the context of which they would be acceptable. Briefly go to the plan so this shows the layout for the disabled car parks. There will be 16 spaces there and this shows the the overflow car park for staff with 166 spaces. So the hospital has experienced an increase both in the number of patients and visitors of the hospital in recent years as well as an increase in staff numbers which is indicated to have increased on average by about four and a half percent annually. There is therefore an identified need for increased parking capacity at the hospital. It is noted however that there has not been active monitoring of the hospital travel plan since

1. The Highway Authority has reviewed the submission and they acknowledge that there isn't an increased demand for using the hospital and associated staff. However this is this is not being managed by the existing travel plan as this has not been monitored for a number of years. On this basis the Highway Authority has requested a new travel plan be required for submission along with the financial contribution for the monitoring of this plan. Subjecting application being approved this will be secured by way of a legal agreement. Further condition recommends the provision of electric vehicle charging points. So turning to the modular buildings these are single story in nature, utilitarian and functional in their appearance and we're located within the developed site of the hospital and serve a number of differing functions. So I'll briefly go through through these so this shows one of the modular buildings located to the northeast side of the building that's providing a changing space for staff predominantly. This is a corridor that forms parts of a new MRI facility. This is linking that facility to the main hospital building. This is another office space located to the southeast of the building of the hospital here. This is a discharge unit located to this part of the building and again it's a single story with a sort of cantilevered style roof over the entrance so where patients come in and out of the hospital. This is another office building again sort of single story modular style building. This is the same building again but from another perspective and this shows a new modular building, the floor layout of the building so it's predominantly an office space with sort of desks and sort of storage for the most part. This is again part of the new MRI facility on the side of the building. This is a viewing cabin with sort of office space and consulting rooms. This is again looking at the elevations for the corridor that links that building to the hospital. So all similar style and again so this is the VIE compound sort of the gas sort of hospital sort of gas storage contained within its own secure compound which I can show here on the layout so it's entirely enclosed within its own fencing and it's located off to the eastern side of the hospital. And this is a new single story ward building again it's a flat roof modular style and this would be the inside of that building so it's located again on the eastern side of the building and sort of laid out with bays and beds as you'd expect from a hospital ward. And these are just some photographs that show them in situ so there's that sort of cantilever entrance to the hospital there and these are some of the modular buildings that are located around the hospital. As you can see they're all sort of fairly similar. In their appearance not particularly attractive but sort of functional. There's the VIE compound there and this shows the two car parks so that's the disabled car park there with the staff car park on the right. So as I say in terms of the form of the buildings within the context of the hospital they'd be acceptable and the majority of the buildings would not be visible from outside the site. The structures are needed in order that the hospital can continue to provide an appropriate level of service to an increasing number of visitors and patients and particularly as the hospital is inherited a number of services from other hospitals particularly cruelly. The retrospective nature of the application is obviously regrettable and results from a number of structures being built during the pandemic and the desire of the incoming head of capital projects at the hospital to ensure that all such development was properly regularised. So subject to conditions and the completion of the legal agreement to secure the updated travel plan the applications is recommended for approval. Thank you, Chen. Thank you. Quick comments if we can. So Councillor Tora is the warm member so I'll let it go first. What can you say? Big guns is the NHS but they should know better. I don't understand how any organisation can go ahead and start doing this. I noticed the car park being built when I went down there to have a breast screening clinic and realised that the breast screening clinic van wasn't there where it normally is because they dug it all over and started building this car park and as I hadn't been on planning I then contacted people that Councillors had been on planning and said have I missed something were we supposed to know about this in our ward and we didn't know and I don't understand how they could do that. It was on a my concern at the time when they were building it was ever by these big oak trees so they've done it you can't go in and say and it's probably eased up the traffic issues that they were having but I think it again they shouldn't be allowed and they should be told that they shouldn't be doing it this way. I understand the need of the buildings but really nobody should be building buildings like this before going through planning. It is just to be quick about this it is actually okay to submit a retrospective application. It's an awful lot of buildings and an awful lot of tarmac that they have put on near Greenbelt area so I think they should be scolded and told off and said don't do it again but it is what it is. Very very briefly yes we scolded them quite often and they just ignore it. Now I'm actually delighted to car park. The number of times I've had to go there recently and drive around and drop somebody off or for myself and couldn't find a parking space. Now we can. My daughter works there so she doesn't have to park in the road anymore. She's got a car park parking so yeah despite this retrospective we've got to support it. Thank you. Councillor Fairehurst you had your hand up. You didn't? Okay. Councillor Walsh you're visiting member can you make it quick? I support what Councillor Torres said but it's situation normal NHS don't seem to bother. We've always had reminstrated with them but they seem to just ignore principal planning. Councillor Harrison. Yes your eyes straight to the right. Sorry. Thank you. I looked at the list of planning historic planning applications. I think a number have been missed out because I remember serving on this committee and having a whole lot of modular buildings come before us previously and as a result of that we did ask for a major plan to be put in front of us as what their development plans were for the whole site. I think it would be timely to ask for that again. I actually totally agree with you and I remember myself saying exactly this when I was a member of the committee. I think we do need to ask for that but we have what was before us this evening. Anybody else wishing to speak? No? Okay. Some members would you please raise your hands if you support the Office of Recommendation to approve this application? Twelve. Those against? You're not a member. Abstentions, yes Victoria joins me. That application is approved. Now just quickly can we note the performance report? Just note it. You know? Note it? Okay. Excellent. Right. Well with that I closed the meeting at 11.01. Apologies for the delay in this but it was quite a meeting. If you're interested in this, you can see the link in the description. If you're interested, you can see the link in the description.