Transcript

We are live on YouTube if you'd like to go ahead and start the meeting please. Welcome to this meeting of the Windsor and Ascot Development Management Committee on the 6th of June 2024. My name is Councillor Neil Knowles and I shall be chairing this meeting. This meeting is being held in person and via Zoom and streamed live to the public on YouTube. I remind all attendees that participation in the meeting indicates consent to the audio and video being streamed live and acknowledgement that after the meeting it will continue to be available in the public domain. But I think it would be useful if all the committee members and officers could introduce themselves so the public are aware of who is in this meeting and the role they are undertaking. We will go to my right and work round the room. Thank you, Chair. Mark Wilson, Vice Chair and voting member of the panel. Devon Davis, voting member of the panel. Councillor Hanson-Cump to voting member of the panel. Councillor Jodie Gray, a substitute member of the panel. Councillor Karen de Kosta, voting member of the panel. Councillor Julian Teasy, voting member of the panel. Councillor Sandra Lutz, voting member of the panel. Helena Stevenson, Principal Lawyer and Negro Pfizer to the panel. Oren Norris-Brown, Democratic Services Team Leader and Clerk to the panel. Tom Hughes, Senior Planning Officer. Jerry Richards, Development Management Team Leader. Gillian McInnis, Interim Deputy Head of Planning. So that the public are aware, various councillors who are not specifically asked to introduce themselves may also be attending this meeting virtually via Zoom. This however is in an observing capacity only and there is no right for councillors who are not members of the committee or not formally registered to speak in advance to play an active role in this meeting this evening. The attendance of any councillors in this capacity should be reflected via the member attendance record once the meeting has concluded. We will now start on the agenda items. Do we have any apologies for absence? Apologies received from Councillor Buckley with Councillor Grove's substituting. Excellent. Next item on the agenda is any declarations of interest from members of the panel? Thank you very much and undeclared. Next item is to approve the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday the 9th of May 2024 as a true and accurate record which I wasn't on the panel then so I can't propose so I should like somebody to propose please. [inaudible] During the course of this evening we do have a number of people registered to speak and we have a microphone there to be used with a button in the centre. If you press the red light comes on and if you can speak clearly into the actual microphone so it's picked up by the system. So we'll call those meetings forward at the appropriate times. Agenda item 4 is a full client application for land 20 the north bank of the Thames in access between 66 and 68 and Raspberry Road, Stains. Can we have that presented please? [inaudible] Click on it. Item one relates to a site in Raspberry at land fronting the north bank of the River Thames and access between 66 and 68 Stains Road. The application has been submitted as a proposed replacement of the original dwelling at Cotan House. The location plan shows the application site outlined in red, and includes a long access road coming south of Raspberry Road down to a vacant plot of land fronting the River Thames. The site lies within the green belt and the function of the plane. This slide shows an aerial photo of the site and surroundings, outlining the location of the original dwelling, which was demolished in 1959, make way for the construction of the M25 A30 road bridge over the river. The location of the new dwelling is some 200 metres further east. This slide shows an old photograph of Cotan House prior to its demolition in 1959. The application site is viewed from above. The site comprises deciduous woodland with a grass clearing. The trees are designated as ancient woodland and an area TPO covers the site. There is no evidence of any residential use of the land. This slide shows again the application site in relation to the original dwelling house Cotan. There is no evidence in the application to suggest that the new dwelling would be within the old cartilage of the former Cotan House. This slide shows the proposed site plan and exact location of the new dwelling within the plot. The proposed dwelling has been designed to replicate the former Cotan House. Details were taken from scale drawings drawn up prior to its demolition and from old photographs and paintings. The proposed dwelling is designed as a bungalow and includes accommodation within the roof space. The dwelling would be raised up above the ground level on metal stilts. It would be constructed off-site using self-insulation panels and roof sections. These photos show views of the site from the opposite side of the river. The site is heavily treed. These photos show the motorway bridge spanning the River Thames. In conclusion, the proposal in front of members tonight is for a new dwelling. There is no dwelling to replace. The former Cotan House was demolished some 60 years ago and was cited in a different location to the proposed dwelling. The proposal can therefore not be considered as an exception to inappropriate development as defined within the MPPF, which is the policy test in local plan policy QP5. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling lies in the functional floodplain. No sequential test has been submitted to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites with a lower risk of flooding. The EA has raised an in-principle objection to the proposal that this type of development is inappropriate to the flood zone within which it is located. And at this point, I'd just like to draw members' attention to a panel update. So following the publication of the committee report, further comments have been received from the Environment Agency in response to the applicant's request for further information relating to the designation of the site within flood zone 3D functional flood zone. So the EA have advised that the applicant can request flood level and model extent information from the EA customers and engagement team. The situation is that the current flood modelling available to the EA and to the council shows the site to be within the functional flood zone 3D. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the council to uphold the application in advance pending further information. In addition to these two in-principle policy objections, the committee report sets out further reasons for refusal relating to impacts on the character of the River Thames setting, failure to demonstrate how the proposal would conserve and enhance the ecological value of the site and achieve biodiversity net gain, failure to provide accurate arboricultural information to assess the impact on trees and ancient woodland, and failure to provide an energy statement. The recommendation is therefore to refuse planning commission. Thank you, Jeff. We have one registered speaker here, the applicant, Mr John Watson, if I could ask you to come forward to the microphone. As soon as you begin to speak, you'll have three minutes to get your point across. And at the one minute point, Mr Noah Spam will make a noise. Hello, my name is John Watson. I'm the applicant in this case. I'm very passionate about this project to replace the original identical historic building that was on the site known as Cotang House. I hope you've all had the opportunity to read the fascinating history of the property and the proposal itself, but I do apologize for the huge amounts of paperwork that seems to go with these things. When the opportunity arose for me to embark on this idea, it was fulfillment of something that had sat in the back of my mind for many years. Changes in my personal circumstances have availed me of this opportunity. When researching the original property, I was lucky enough to come across Mr Chris Hand, who lived at the house between 1933 and 1960, his father having purchased it during that period. He shared all his pictures with me, along with providing some wonderful insights into the history of the property. The house built in the Japanese style was such an important place of architectural design. It played a prominent role in the history of stains being built and owned by one of its most important industrial families, Ashby's the Brewers. It's difficult to understand why it wasn't simply moved the short distance within its own grounds when the land was acquired by compulsory purchase to build the road. I feel certain that today would have been listed and been relocated, especially as it was a traditional built house on hardwood stilts. Anyway, the application takes into account the fact that it is, that it does sit like a large number of other riverside homes in the borough on the functional floodplain. Special considerations have been given to this by the use of radix piles, an innovative method of raising the house above any projected increase in flood risk levels. These allow for the free flow of water in times of emergency, whilst not interfering with the sustainable drainage of the land. The garden design taken from the original includes sunken elements that in the event increases the floodwater capacity and there is also planned emergency pedestrian access. It is hoped that the prefabrication house would be manufactured in the UK whilst looking identical to the original in every way, but using modern material. The aim is to make it carbon neutral. I would just like to confirm to the panel that this is an application for a replacement house and not a new build. I'm encouraged by the fact there has been no objection from local people that I'm aware of and indeed there has been support for the application. The parish council and local authorities have indicated they have no objection to it. I'm hoping the panel tonight will see the merits of voting to approve the application of this family home and it clearly provides a long-term beneficial use for this derelict site. I was unable to get the hydrologist report through early enough from when we heard from the A, but I'm quite happy to follow that up at any time in the future. Thank you Mr Chairman for listening to me. Thank you sir. If you could take a seat back there. There we have the floor opening now to the members of the committee to ask questions and to debate. I think John was moving to that this is a historic building with some heritage and we may well be undoing the wrong that was done 60 years ago. I was wondering, was there a reason why it wasn't considered a listed building? I don't know when they came into, I don't know when listed buildings were first assigned. Chairman, listed buildings have been around for a very long time, probably, you know, including 60 years ago. However, the building isn't there, it doesn't exist and it's been, it was compulsory purchase for removal to put the infrastructure, the road bridge on and that would have been part of the consideration at that time. So, in this case, there is no listed building, there is no historic building that exists. It is an empty site with a no use. And next I believe is Telsa Carpeton. Thank you Chair. So, I see that, you know, the application is for a replacement of the building that was there, that isn't there anymore. So, if that, because there was a building on the green belt, and this is a replacement. Does that mean that we, you know, can still build on the green belt or I know you said we couldn't build on the green belt but because it's a replacement does that mean that we can? Can I? Yeah. So, the development plan and policy QP5 which governs development in the green belt asked us to look at the exceptions in the MPPF. So the exceptions to inappropriate development. One of those exceptions, which officers have referred to in the committee report is the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. So, we officers are saying that the proposal does not meet that definition, because the proposal is not the replacement of a building, there is no building there. So, doesn't meet that exception. There are other exceptions that the proposal doesn't meet the site is empty, as Gillian has advised it has a nil use there's no there's no residential use of the land, that's the position that officers have taken. Thank you Chair. There are a few things that I wanted to just pick up from looking at the ecology report so I know that we've mentioned or mentioned in the report. We've said, ancient woodland in the ecological impact assessment from the first debate so it actually states that there is no ancient woodland on site. And then, and that's one question, and then relating to the potential biodiversity net gains and the theme of the ecology. One bit that I picked up from the report says, the most valuable area, area, ecologically is the riparian material woodland in the last, and the last specimen trees within it. So the habitat most under threat from continued erosion of the river bank, which may also result in the stability of some trees being compromised. This potentially could cause damage to cities craft and other habitats downstream and that's how the safety implications. So I guess my question is, it stays quite clearly throughout the application that there would be work done to repair that riverbank and shore up that bank, and those trees that look like, and it's, I know it is noted in the tree report and that look like they are in danger of falling into the river soon so have we not taken into account the fact that this, this development could actually bring benefit to an area which yes have been greenbelt but at the moment is reported having a number of ash trees which are dying, potentially the most valuable woodland falling into the river. I feel that there could be some benefit, have we not taken that into account. So, first question I think was about ancient woodland. And you referred to the application submissions are saying that it wasn't an ancient woodland. Yes, it was the ecology report that was attached to that. Yeah. So, are the council records show that the application site is designated as ancient woodland so and our ecologist and our tree officer has reviewed the submissions put forward by the applicant so our records show the site is ancient woodland, and that's what the ecologists have verified so I think there's a lot of work that would need to be done by the applicant with the applicant to de designate a piece of land or trees in the site of ancient woodland it's not as simple as them sort of being important and saying that so the council's position is that the site is in ancient woodland. Likewise with with the ecology reports yes there have been some surveys submitted again, our expert advice from our team ecologist is that there is insufficient survey information. I think, most. It says it 10.19 of the committee report that no field survey has been undertaken to establish what habitats and plants species on site, whether the site has the potential to support protected or priority species at the moment some information missing. I see what you're saying about potential ecological enhancements and values. We have that evidence from our ecologist that the application is doing that. If it were, if it had been verified that it would, it might be a benefit, probably just a policy requirement, nothing that would go anywhere near as far as outweighing the fundamental concerns we've sent out in the report about greenbelt impacts and flood risks, etc. Any more concerns? Yeah, so just really wanted to make sure that we understand completely in Tokyo that there's been no building in this area for 60 plus years, so it's not like it's just fallen down in the last couple of years and wanting to be rebuilt. And the other comment I wanted to make was if it kind of listening to the report, it kind of feels like if we give planning consent, then the land will be cared for. As somebody who believes in looking after our planet anyway. I think the landowner should be caring for the area anyway, it shouldn't be dependent on us as panel members to grant planning consent to have that care of the land to take place. I feel that it's really important that we understand that it shouldn't be dependent on planning consent, it's something that somebody with integrity could do anyway because it helps in planning. Any comments on that, Ms Richards? I can come back on the point about, so we said there's no building in the application site, there was a building 200 meters west, there's now a road there. So, I think, officers have referred to consistency in decision making, case law, appeal decisions. Our position and our planning judgment on this is, we believe is consistent with the advice, and like I say case law and appeal decisions on the matter of appropriate development in the greenback which this is not, it's not a replacement of a building, there is no building there. We consider that there's no residential use of the land, that's been abandoned. So, yeah, there's even appeal decisions where buildings have been demolished, only five years previously, where it's considered it's not a replacement. Any others? Yes, thank you, Chen. I have some sympathy for the applicants in terms of, I believe that there does seem to be a genuine willingness to want to do something that would be lovely. And that would be, you know, put a house back that was close, but not quite in the same place in the way it was 60 years ago. However, I had to wear my planning hat in this and I have to look, look at their genuine planning reasons on the balance of evidence and I think that the officer just, just to Richard's I think said what I was going to say myself, but it doesn't appear that that is the case that we've had debates in previous panels about the idea of special very special circumstances and we've had debates about it. The one thing we can say is that the bar is very high. The, as the officer has said, there have been cases of houses that were demolished only a few years ago, and then it was rejected because it was just, you know, because actually will know there is no existing house. This application seems to be based on the fact that it is a replacement, rather than a new house but I think we have to concede, I'm afraid that I don't believe that that is the case I believe it is a new house, as lovely as the application might be. On that basis, I would like to propose that we, that we follow officer recommendations and refuse this application. Thank you Councillor Chisley, so the proposal is to follow the recommendations committee refuses planning permission for the summarised reasons of the report, which there are a number of reasons there. A seconder who was, there we go. Any further points for debate, Councillor Grove. Thank you. And one thing I just wanted to bring into consciousness is just around the surrounding area of this part of Raesbury, that obviously at one point it was a very green and beautiful area. And over time, much of that area has been taken up previous parts of it which were Greenbelt and have been turned into industrial enterprises, which have had a significant impact on the locality on flooding on the look and feel of that area. So I can't help but feel is and I appreciate this is Greenbelt designated flood plan but I know that there is potentially more information that could be provided by the applicant around that, looking at the information around elevations I know there were conversations that could potentially be had around whether this is actually still should be designated flood plan. And, but what my overall point is that given the history of this piece of land, whether we say it's a replacement or not and I appreciate you're saying it is not. I feel that the application would potentially safeguard a green space for the foreseeable future and guarded against the potential of it also at some point being taken over and against will so the government has done this a number of Greenbelt locations in this area, taking it over concrete and it's now an industrial area, my feeling is, I do appreciate it's in the Greenbelt but actually I think this application and safeguard this green space for perpetuity, and I just wanted to throw that out there. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Grove. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Councillor Grove, for saying those comments I was going to echo, I'd like to echo the point about the local environment being quite industrial, and to be talking, you know, a few yards inside the M25, five lanes each way, has been, you know, protected Greenbelt and we can't build a small house when lanes have been added rapidly and the industrial areas, it grates, I mean I appreciate planning policies where it isn't, but it feels like there's something wrong here and I wonder in the very special circumstances, you know, as I understand it there are a dozen or so listed, did anybody consider these circumstances, whether when we know when they were thinking about okay well these are very special. This feels like this is also quite special, we're talking about, you know, a fairly, you know, a characteristic house which, you know, if it was up, if it was in place now it may well be listed with the history. Again, why was it demolished? Can it be replaced? I see technically, it wasn't, you know, it wasn't quite in the same place, but there's definitely a replacement element to this application. So I kind of understand why planning policy might not approve it, but I think there's an element of flexibility or there's an element of does planning policy even fit this scenario, which is a big question in my mind. The Greenbelt policy in the national policy is contained both within the development plan, which you as decision makers must take as your first assessment of any application and is also part of the national planning policy framework, the government policy for England. And again, that is a material consideration. The application site is Greenbelt, there is no existing house, it is not a replacement dwelling, it is a new dwelling in the countryside. You as a committee have to be or should be a consistent decision maker. And in doing that, you would be looking to apply policy consistently for any application that comes before you. I understand from the Councillor about the number of other sites in the area that have other uses on them and are not agriculture or forestry. However, they are still sites in the Greenbelt, but they either have planning permission already for the other uses, either granted by the government itself or by the local authority. And I know that there are a couple of enforcement sites in the facility as well. But that doesn't change this site being in the Greenbelt and therefore the necessity to apply Greenbelt policy and the very special circumstances are set out in national policy. They aren't just our local ones. They are a consistent approach to decision making in the Greenbelt. Any more items to make up or can we close it off? Would you like to clarify what the proposal is and to carry out a name vote? Yes, thank you, Chair. So the proposal is to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed within section 14 of the report. It has been proposed by Councillor Teasy and seconded by Councillor Luxton. I will now do a name vote if you could please tell me if you're for against or abstaining on defusing planning permission. So, Councillor Carpenter. Against. Councillor Dicosta. For. Councillor Babies. For. Councillor Grove. Against. Councillor Knowles. For. Councillor Luxton. For. Councillor Teasy. For. Councillor Wilson. Against. So that's five, four and three against so the motion to refuse planning permission passes. Thank you, panel. And thank you, Mr Watson. We move now on to agenda item two. If I can ask Mr Hughes to give us a brief on this item. Which is the Eatonwick Methodist Chapel, Armour Road, Eatonwick in Windsor. Change of views. Off you go. Thank you, Chair. Item two on the agenda has been called in for determination. It relates to Eatonwick Methodist Chapel and Armour Road. It's for the change of use Methodist Church in use for class F1 to an office which falls within use class in. The site is located southern side of our road and all occupied almost the entirety of the plot. The site is located within flood zone two, but the proposed use is not considered to pose any greater flood risk than currently exists. There are no internal or external alterations of the building. So the only matter before you is for the change of use of the building. The main policy consideration relates to the loss of a community facility of which Eatonwick Methodist Chapel is one. Consistent with paragraph 97 of the MPPF, our local plan policy IF6 advises the existing community facilities be retained. And the planning commission will only be granted for a change of use to an alternative use subject to demonstration. A number of criteria which include that there is no longer a demand for the use demonstrated by continuous 12 month marketing exercise. How marketing exercises are considered is set out in appendix D of our local plan, which specifies how the marketing will be assessed and the acceptability of that marketing. Policy IF6 also requires that where there'd be a loss of the community facility, this is not being replaced. It must be evidence that consultation has been undertaken with an appropriate range of service providers and the community to demonstrate that there is no need for or requirement for the facility from any other service provider for an alternative community use. The application follows the refusal of a planning application last year for the same proposal on the grounds of a failure to comply with policy IF6. With the current application, further information has been provided and this includes a letter from the trustees of the church setting out minutes of their meeting where they approved its sale. And also accompanied by a letter setting out how the marketing is undertaken, noting the number of viewings of the property and noting the offers that were received following those viewings. Officers consider that while marketing has been undertaken for a period of 12 months, it was not the primary intention of the marketing that the property was marketed for its current or last use for community purpose. From the evidence that's provided with the application, it may be the case that there is no longer viable community use of the building as a place of worship. However, there is no evidence of any engagement provided with the application that the local community, community groups or other service providers have been consulted with prior or during the marketing of the site. This is required to be a proactive exercise on behalf of the developer. In the absence of this evidence, and due to the insufficient marketing that has been undertaken, is the recommendation of officers to refuse planning permission due to failure to comply with policy IF6 of the Barrow Local Plan. Thank you, chair. Thank you very much. Before we open the rest of it, with this, when panel members are discussing items, can you mark, just state the paragraph number, just helps people zoom in on the right information. We have two registered speakers on the subject tonight. David Howell is the applicant, and for the parish council, Councillor Malcolm Leach, would you like to go first? And the same information, you have three minutes to speak, and you'll get a warning from Mr Norris Brown, but it's a minute to go. And the time starts as soon as you begin speaking, sir. Thank you, Mr Chair. The Methodist Church closed down over four years ago due to insufficient congregation to sustain the costs. They also failed to attract community users to justify keeping it open. Further refusal would make it highly likely that the building would be demolished and a planning application for residential. Turning this Victorian property into residential or shops would create insurmountable parking and emergency vehicle access problems in this quiet residential area. This is a problem which is already being an issue through the police and the RBWM highways. The original application was refused in October 2023, because the proposed development would result in a loss of community facility. Well, we have at least eight existing community facilities in Eatenwick, which can be used for a variety of community groups, with numerous options also available in Eaten. None of these facilities are at capacity use, and most are used for only about one or two evenings per week. The village hall is due to open a nursery facility very soon, and vacant shops in the town have recently been left to new users. While shops further down and further away from the main road have closed through lack of trade. This demonstrates a need for location on or near the main road, with its passing footfall not tucked away in the backstreet, with no parking, no space facilities. The Methodist Chapel is a historic Victorian building. Whilst this application will allow the space to be used as offices, it will still preserve its historic architecture. The application is supported by residents in Eatenwick and the history group. The applicant has worked with all stakeholders to gain support for this conversion, even securing office parking space and removing the issue from the Almero residence. One minute remaining. Our duty as Eaten Town Council is to act in the interest of our community. The original application submitted in August 2023 was supported by no less than 23 comments of support from the community, with a further eight comments for the current application, many of whom are immediate neighbors to the property. Local planners too should look to support the community and protect the heritage. They should listen to the people affected by this decision. Almero would want this application to succeed, Eatenwick want this to succeed, and Eaten Town Council want it to succeed. What we don't want is another shepherd's hut or a cockpit being blighted by unnecessary and inappropriate planning decisions for the years to come. Eaten Town Council fully support the application for the Methodist Chapel to be converted, and we urge this panel to do the same. Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Councillor Leach. If I can ask David Howards, the applicant, to set the floor. Mr Howards, the same rules of engagement, three minutes, and you will receive the one minute warning and the time starts at six as you begin speaking, sir. Dear members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to speak here this evening on behalf of my client, the applicant. You will have read the officer's report and heard the presentation tonight. It is clear that the officer has misunderstood the fundamentals of this application. He stated there is not enough evidence, just enough effort has gone into offering this site to community users or services. This is not true. The property had been on the market for 12 months as per policy requirements and during that time not a single community use or service had been made, had made an offer on it. As highlighted by the Town Council, the community support this application and there is clear evidence that other facilities within Eton Wick are more appropriate in terms of location and provisions for being used for community uses due to the outdoor community space and parking available to them. And that recently new leases have been signed for a nursery and cafe to occupy the village hall and an empty shop in the parade. So the question is, why did these users not approach the company selling the church? Well, the answer is simple. The church building is set away from the village provisions for the community. It has no parking and has no outdoor space. The building is not desirable for community uses or services for these reasons, so to continue to state that not enough has been done to try and get community uses into the building is simply not acceptable and the application put forward has demonstrated it does meet with the relevant policies as a result. In addition to this, the officer stated or implied that the church was only marketed with the potential for residential development. This is clearly not the case. The sales brochure may use a line, but it is also quite clear in two other places on the brochure that the premises is suitable for a variety of uses. On the front page, it also states that it could be used for community use, medical, office or residential redevelopment subject to planning, the key point there. Whilst on the second page, it states that the church has been sold as a place of worship, the original use of the site with potential for a change of use or possible redevelopment subject to planning permission. The policy requires the property to have been marketed fairly and for a variety of uses, so as not to restrict potential interested parties. And it's the reason why it was offered for so many different potential uses. It was also offered for sale from multiple marketing platforms online and not just from a brochure. A change of use would still have been required for a change to a shop or a nursery, given that the church is in effort on use, so the site had to be marketed for all uses. The only offers for the property other than my clients were for residential use of the site. That cannot be denied, but it should also be noted that a residential scheme would most likely have resulted in substantial alterations to the building or a replacement building, so as to provide means for provisions and parking spaces. The application before you proposes no changes, it preserves its appearance within the street seat. My client has been fortunate enough to secure some offsite parking should permission be granted. The fact that community uses or services are established themselves within buildings in the parade and town centre environments. This demonstrates that the church building is not desirable, and it's lost as a community for the city would not be detrimental to the area. The scheme before you is therefore considered to be compliant with Policy IF6 and Appendix D, the Borough Local Plan, and that you should overturn the Office of Recommendation and agree to approve the application. Thank you, Mr Howes. I shall now open the debate and ask for speakers. Councillor Carpenter. So, referring to 10.11, in terms of the lack of evidence wasn't demonstrated, there was no longer a demand for a community facility. Surely, if it remains closed, it's just going to remain closed and it becomes derelict. So isn't it better to actually do something with the building rather than it become derelict, because it's not going to be a community building if it remains closed anyway. So, yeah, that's the question. Thank you. Mr Howes, would you like to address that? Yep, so in the application submission, they noted the building has been vacant since early in 2022. We considered the application on the basis of the information submitted. As I said, the requirement against Policy IF6 is for the developer to submit evidence that there is no alternative viable use to the building for a community purpose. That includes the last use of the building or an alternative community use. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate an alternative use of the building for a community purpose. And so the policy in the evening of offices is conflict with IF6. Thank you, Councillor Laughton. Thank you, Chair. According to the applicant, he just made a comment saying that they have given you evidence on marketing of this. Marketing was undertaken. I just wondered if there was any marketing evidence that was undertaken, or he mentioned quite a few of them. Thank you. Yep, that's that's correct. So with the application, they supplied evidence, evidence of the marketing that was undertaken, and that was for a 12 month period. But as set out in the officer report, it is not, it is the opinion of the officers that the marketing that was undertaken was not, the intention of it was not for a use of, falling within the same use, so for the use of the building for a community purpose. So did they, the applicant, did they come for a pre-application consultation to you, so you get an idea of what you mean and what you did not. Thank you. So the current application follows the refusal of a very similar application last year, the same, the same applicant and same, the same nature of the proposal that was refused on grounds of failure to comply with the requirements of policy IF6. While further information has been provided with the current application, as set out in the officer report, again that is not considered to have gone far enough to meet the requirements of the policy. Just to add to that, that no, they didn't come in for pre-application engagement with us, following the refusal of the previous application, even though they were advised to do so, so they went ahead and submitted this application without that. Councillor de Kostner. Yes, I've just pulled up the sales brochure in front of me on my laptop now, and it does indeed say that the church is being folded at the point of worship with potential for change of use or possible redevelopment subject to planning permission. As a lay person, if I was reading that, I would not read that as being marketed for community purposes or for community use, I would read that thinking that it was a decommissioned church that was being marketed for either residential or commercial changes. So, I think to say that it does say that it is a church, yes, it does say that, but actually it isn't being marketed as a community asset as it were. I think that's the point that Mr Youser is establishing, you know, the bar for the marketing. Thank you. Just looking through the use class F1. We have the list, vision of education, sites about the size can only hold a nursery, Ethan Rickordy has one. The display of works of art, or as a museum, Ethan has this, Windsor has this, it's very unlikely this hall will be able to become a museum or gallery. Use as a public library, Ethan Rickordy has one. Use as a public wall, Ethan Rickordy has one. Use in connection with public worship or religious institution, they don't want it, they already have one. I think we are thinking about diffusiveness on grounds of policy, but we are not thinking about diffusiveness on grounds of common sense. If we reject this, that building will not be used for something in use class F1, it just isn't to happen, it will have to be developed for residential which is not what people want. An office is great for that area of Eton Wick, it needs a daytime economy to help with its local shops, like Ronya is getting a cafe, you might be surprised but it's probably overrun by cafes in your area, but we don't have one yet. We need to apply a common sense and think what is the actual outcome of this, we are just going to annoy a lot of people if we apply Google rules so rigorously. Thank you Councillor Davis, Councillor Mark Wilson. Thank you Chair. So just on the point around the marketing, again looking at the brochure listed in the application documents, it does very clearly say suitable for a variety of uses such as community use. That's marketing it for community use, in my view. An estate agent will inevitably, and apologies to any estate agents who are in the room, an estate agent will inevitably try and make the best of an asset they're trying to sell, so of course they will say it has potential for redevelopment for as many uses as they can possibly imagine, but it very very clearly says in here, suitable for a variety of uses such as community use. That is being marketed for community use. Just to echo, it's very good to hear from Councillor Leach and from Mr Howells, and I think as well there's another point for me which is, there is some economic benefits to Eatenwick from the proposed use, in that actually having been having some office space and having that much office space in Eatenwick, and I would see that there is potential benefit to the village of having some office space. I also note one of the comments that was sent in from a resident was that they are, I believe they are a current employee and travel by car, but because of a disability I believe they may soon not be able to do that but they would be able to travel to this location using a mobility scooter. So I think that illustrates, you know that this is actually quite a convenient location for offices, and I would certainly echo the comments already made that this is not a suitable location for a community use and Eatenwick has many in the centre of the village, with which this is not. Would anyone like to respond to that? I was just going to say, we do as a local authority get a lot of applications for the change of use of community facilities and I think it's important that members consider the policy requirements carefully and don't apply them lightly. They're there for a reason, and it is to guide the applicant through the process. There are examples where yes, applicants can be successful in achieving planning permission for the change of use of a community facility to an alternative use but I think it's important that these steps are followed, and what offices are saying is the application in front of us doesn't meet the requirements of the policy in its current form. We have a 12 month marketing exercise, but we're saying that that marketing exercise doesn't meet the specific requirements set out in Appendix D in terms of how it's been marketed. There's also an additional step within the policy that the applicant has to evidence, which is to consult with the appropriate range of service provided in the community. I do understand what members have been saying about other uses within the village, and it might be that at some point, the applicant is able to evidence that they have been through all the requirements in the policy. They've exhausted them and yes, there is the possibility that planning permission could be granted, but at the moment we don't have the evidence. I think it is difficult to say that the application does meet the requirements of IFC. Hello, I remember when we were discussing this just last year, and I had some sympathy for the officers at the time, and I understand why we have these reasons. Because it is possible in theory, that you could get someone saying, oh yes we'll market it, but we won't really market it, we won't really tell the local community, and then it's almost a sham marketing, and I get that and that's why we have those rules. I actually completely disagree with the officers today, I completely disagree. When it comes to the evidence of marketing as Councillor Wilson just said, literally we're looking at it I'm looking at right now. This has been marketed suitable for a variety of use such as community use, it's there, it's there in black and white, it's there in black and white, actually it's not in black and white it's it's highlighted in bold yellow. And this, this was this was refused last time, simply because there hadn't been 12 months, and there has been, there has been more than that. And the evidence of consulting with residents, I think, bluntly that's just, it's a slam dunk know there's enormous evidence, and we know us counselors, we are obviously this is our ward and we know the this eat and wait is a very tightly knit community. And quite simply, I mean this is something with that was on that's been talked about by the Eton town council, the village. We just heard from the chair. So, the chair of Eton town council today. And it's, this is a, this is a small community this is, this is a very small residential road it's not in the central town, it's not the village, it's not in the central village. It's wonderful we do have these community assets and it's what I'd like to almost slap ourselves on the back and especially cancer Mark Wilson, the work that we pay and we've all done in helping to try and bring about the cafe there which now I think will hopefully be a really good additional community asset there. And I just think there's a real opportunity here and this. I sense the frustration of the local residents, because we've spoken to them, I haven't heard any opposition at all. And everything we hear is, it's, it's from the community lots of people in the community that just seems to be enormous evidence of consultation with the residents, the residents know they all know everyone knows it's a small village. And it's, I just think that this is this just seems to be some I hasn't been dotted. And some tea hasn't been crossed but I can't quite even see what that is a lot that he is. So, I'm going to say now because I just think the officers have got it wrong. I am going to propose that we reject the officer recommendations, and we improve this application and I think this is a good application for everyone seems to want it has been marketing for 12 months, they have consulted with with residents, and there's clear evidence. Thank you. Okay concerns for the state of the building go forward, but can we dilapidated that this character. So that's my particular concern. I'm not sure I've got much to say I think it's covered most of it off but really just to add weight that I find it slightly ironic that our main reason for recommending to refuse is because we're concerned that community haven't had enough input. The community are telling us via their town council that they want it they've written to say they want it. And our reason to rejecting it is saying, we're not sure the community are going to want it so it just feels very ironic it's very rarely. We get something come into the planning panel that there is such overwhelming support for. And my fear again is if it's not picked up as a community interest which is not going to be let's be honest it's had enough time, and it will fall into disrepair, it will be picked up by a residential developer, and it will be torn down. It's not a listed building and we will lose this beautiful, even if it's listed heritage building so I feel like we're kind of going around in circles so I'll just say that I second Julian I just want to be clear with members this isn't about the marketing is not about what the community want. It is about the policy and the requirement to see if there's any other community use provider that might want to use that building. So I think that is, I know that might sound like a very niche distinction, but it's really not. It isn't about the popularity of the proposal. What I would say to members is that, as Joe Rich has said, to not follow your policy is something that I would ask you not to do lightly. What I would say is in the report, you know, there is the issue of economic impact of the positive benefit of economic impact weighed against the loss of the community facility. And so, I would, you know, say that, you know, officers are not saying that there's no benefit to this proposal, they are saying that there is a benefit. It's just that they haven't done the marketing. And I would also ask that Councillor Teasy sets out the clear planning reasons for approving this development. So we'll just hold the light at the moment. I've got people down to talk. If we can go back to Councillor Teasy and if you can eloquently express the reasons. So there is a clear planning reason, which is that there is clear evidence of marketing and that there is clear evidence of consulting with residents as evidenced by the very clear support, not just articulated tonight, but articulated in the previous application. The reason for refusal before was that there was a lack of a 12 month period and there has clearly been that 12 month period, which includes clearly, clearly recommending, clearly offering it for sale, or a variety of uses, such as community use. And we have that in the papers. I will say that if we can articulate the benefit outweighing the disadvantage, it would be... That's the one, benefits outweighing the disadvantage. That's fine. OK, so next is we're down here. Next is we're down here is Councillor Grough, she's been. Councillor Di Costa. Could I just ask if this brochure is insufficient for being considered as marketing for redevelopment or community use? What would we expect as a form of marketing? Would that be going out into church magazines? Would it be going out into community magazines? I just want to get a feel for what what else should have been done, because Councillor Teesee is saying, in his opinion, enough has been done. I just want to see what would be the expectation so that I can make a balanced decision. Thank you. Ms. Richards. So there's, I think there's two parts of the policy. I think that's really important. So the first part is paragraph six under loss of fertility, and it's got three subsections, A, B and D. So the first is section A that the applicants are seeking to demonstrate they've done, which is the continuous marketing evidence for 12 months. Then you go to appendix D of the local plan, and it's a page long with its requirements. So it's not just for 12 months. I think we've had a bit of a debate about how genuine the marketing has been. So I think in the small print at the bottom of the brochure, it says about other uses involved at the top, it's sort of saying church with potential for residential development. But that's one part of it. So officers are saying we don't feel it meets the marketing requirements. That's one part of the policy. The second part of the policy we're also saying has not been met is evidence that the applicant, not the local authority when we send out our maybe notification letters and application has been received. It's that the applicant have consulted with an appropriate range of service providers in the community, and they need to show us that they've done that, show us they've done that in the application. So we set out, Tom set out in the committee report that that second stage, really important second stage, I do appreciate there is local support through the letters that have been sent in, but it's not the same as the applicant showing us in their submission. So that's my answer to the question. I think I'd like to go back to... Can I just respond to that? So as somebody who is a service provider in the local area and runs a charity, I was never informed that this was available. And if I'm just one charity that doesn't know about it, I'm sure there are many more and I will find out if anybody that works within my network has been informed that this is available. I know there are charities crying out the property. It was just to go back on the motion and the reasons for it. I wanted to understand if you're saying you think the application is policy compliant with IF6 or you are saying it's not quite, it's not policy compliant and there is a wait to be given to the benefit, which is the economic development in this case. I think next to speak is Chancellor Lechner. A question for the officers, actually, so that we don't go against our policy. So if we need that particular evidence, can we give it, since we have had a good discussion on this, is it possible for us, since it's a question, to have you guys delegated powers once they give you all the evidence? Is that possible? Does it have to come back to the panel or giving you all the chance to... You know what you want, as we all made it clear. Just asking the question. Thank you. I suppose that's asking everything to her. If that's what the panel wish to do, but there would have to be a period of time. It's quite tricky because we're not talking about something that takes three days or a couple of weeks. You would be having to go out to a range of service providers, community service providers. That would take months. I would suggest that in that case it's not something that I would encourage a deferral. Up to members, ultimately. Councillor, Mark Wilson. Thank you, Chair. So just summarising my interpretation of this is, I'm kind of thinking that this sort of point around quality IF6 about, have we seen evidence that this was marketed specifically to local service providers? I think there may not be the evidence there, but I think that is such a fine point. And what is clear is that it has been marketed by a reputable firm of estate agents. It's been marketed... Sorry, bear with me. I'll just go from there. So the marketing reports, which is included on the planning portal, talks about a mail out to 369 applicants. That's quite a large number. And then they had nine block viewings with between one and nine attendees. I can't quite do the maths, but it looks like about 40, 35 to 40 attendees. So 10 per cent roughly replied. And then they've had five offers, of which one is the applicant and the other four were residential. So I'm not quite sure what else they could have done. However, if you're saying, OK, that isn't quite compliant with policy, I can possibly accept that. The small non-compliance for me is definitely outweighed by the positive in terms of the economic use and how this can be a benefit to the village. Whereas it's very clear, from all the marketing, there's no demand for the building to be used as a community use. Nobody's interested in buying it for something which is essentially not going to generate any income. So I would definitely say the economic use outweighs that very small and specific point where we may not be compliant with IF6. Yes, it would be just good work to almost sort of just double check, because I'm looking at 10.8, 10.8 in the pack, 10.8, 10.9 seem to be the relevant points, would that be fair? Because 10.8 deals with policy IF6 about, and it will be only granted where? And let's go through each of them. So A, that there is no longer a demand for facility with the area demonstrated by continuous marketing evidence for a period of at least 12 months. Now, I believe on that point that that has been met, whereas I appreciate that the officers might not, but I believe that has been met. B is the one which is more of a widen up. B is the proposed development would provide sufficient community benefit to outweigh the loss of the existing facility. I believe that that has that on the weight of evidence that that is the case as well. C, there is a provision for new or replacement to meet an identified need. This is where I think that potentially goes on to the point on 10.9 saying where there is a proposal to involve the loss of social community need. They need to provide evidence that they have consulted with an appropriate range of service providers in the community. Now, I think that's the one where potentially I can understand that, you know, there was no letter, for example, from Eton Town Council actually within that pack. But that I know that we know well because we know previous the previous pack that there were that this was discussed there. We have heard from the we've heard from the chair of Eton Town Council. We know the community and we know how much that this has been done and that's potentially. Sorry, what were you going to say that, you know, the fact we believe that that has been met that that has been met. I was going to say it isn't Eton Town Council. It is a whole range of local service providers. So that aspect is about a whole range of service providers. We have not had that information at all as part of it. As I see from the comment from Councillor Wilson earlier, he was saying that if it wasn't meeting this one aspect of the policy that he was seeing, and if I can point members to paragraph 10.28, he was indicating that the economic benefit would outweigh the failure to get that. So that is the key point. That is the key point, I believe. So do we have the reasons that we have reasons enough on the table to recommend, as we say, recommend that we go against officer recommendations as we, as we said before. But that needs then to be proposed. So on that basis, again, I'll repropose, as it were, repropose that we go against officer recommendations and accept or approve the application. On the basis of the reasons that have been the weight, the balance of evidence, and the reasons that have been put forward just now. Do you want to remind it when it works? Let me try and summarise that. That the world of the marketing. Yes, exactly. We acknowledge that whilst much marketing has been done, there is a very slight gap in the route from what has been done to what is required by IF6, but that is outweighed by the economic benefits from the proposed change of use. Do you accept that as your proposal? I'm happy to accept that. And Councillor Crow, do you continue to second? Can I just then ask, as you're looking at an approval, there will obviously have to be conditions that are attached to that. There is a standard conditions, but there is also, I would propose to members that if you are making a decision based on the economic benefit of the proposed office use, that you then take away permitted development rights or take away the right to move between use classes and you keep that within class EC or EG, which is the office. Can I actually use the base specifically related to the word office that we limited to that? Would that condition also mean that it could go back to being a communicability or place of worship, because that's what it was originally, or if that's gone, it's gone forever. That reverse change would then require further application of planning permission. What I would also suggest, Chair, is that in restricting it to class EC and G, that we remove committed development rights under class MA as well. That would just limit anything that they wanted to do. Outside of that, they would have to come back to the Council for planning permission. I think that is entirely reasonable. It's certainly consistent with what the applicant has said, and if we're holding them to what they're saying, I think that's a good thing. Do you have that noted? It's a lot there to take down. Sorry, thank you, Chair. I'm just wondering if the officers could just explain the various different classes of use, because you went through a number of letters there including ECG and MA. I'm not mistaken. Indeed. For me, the principle of approving this application and this application only is solid, so I would be happy to support a restriction for any further development rights. I just want to make sure. I'll probably be corrected if I'm wrong, but it's basically any use, existing use, community use, church use, commercial use within the rare, wide bits in E. It's a very bold church, I'll have the pun. But it restricts it from residential use and permitted development rights, which come with that. We'll have it now checked from birth. I did hit the cross by mistake and lost it on my laptop. So Class E C, the subsection C, is the provision for the following kinds of services principally to visiting members of the public, which is financial services, professional services, and other services which it is appropriate to provide in a commercial business or service locality. Then there is the main one, as I would say, is G, which is an office to carry out any operational or administrative functions. So that's an office as we think about it. The research and development of products and processes and any industrial process being a use which can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to the amenities of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash and dust or grit. So that's two different subsections of the Class E, which the overall class is referred to as commercial, business and service. So it's up to members whether that is what they were thinking of, whether they were only thinking of the office, so whether they were not thinking about commercial uses for visiting members of the public and whether they wanted to include office research and development and industrial process suitable in a residential area. The choice is yours. Thank you for that explanation. I understand that these are two subclasses of Class E. Yes. Just defined. Yes. Okay. And did you also just say that this would exclude visiting members of the public? So no. Of the two that I read out, one of them, C, subsection C, is for the provision of services like financial services, professional services other than health and medical. And that does include to visiting members of the public. So that's one. So there's one that is for visiting members of the public. That could be insurance brokers and things like that. And the other one is G, which is for the office carrying out any operational or administrative functions. That's what we would all think of as an office, that one. The next subsection of the subsection is for research and development of products and processes. And the next one is industrial processes. All of those three, the office, the research and development and the industrial processes are all defined as being suitable within a residential area. So they don't cause the noise and smell and all that. So do you want both? I mean, that is up to the committee. Do you want both? Do you want one? Kevin, can you propose something? Thank you. Yes, I would like to propose that we accept both. Yeah, we can accept both. Do you want Joe to talk about, because I haven't looked it up. Yes. So the other thing is, if you're saying that the economic benefit outweighs the loss of the community facilities, you want to see this proposal in the use class. The thing to be used for, which is the first condition, restricting it to Class E, I and C, but also then there's the option to remove permitted development rights, because when something gets converted to Class E, then permitted development rights would exist under Class MA to convert it to residential use. But you can remove those rights and then they would have to, so they could come and they could apply to convert it to residential use, but if you don't remove those permitted development rights, then they could still have to. So I think, are we concluding that it's those classes, Class C, all of those classes that you mentioned, which are appropriate in a residential area, I think we're happy with all of those. And also though, removing permitted development rights, because we do appreciate that we do not want to then see this then converted into houses at some point, unless it was a come before panel. Without coming towards a call plan, should that be the case? It's not forbidden for evolutions, but we need to mix. So, I think now, I will just check. Officer's happy with their proposal being sound. Thank you, Chair. As you all know, it's my favourite bit of the evening, it would be remiss of me to not mention that if we go against Officer recommendation, there is potential for appeal, potentially costs awarded as well, if that were to be allowed. Gillian, I think I know what the answer is, or Joe or Tom, whoever wants to answer this, I think I know what the answer will be, given that it is based on purely sort of weighting, you know, of the benefits against non-compliance. But what would your thoughts be on a potential appeal and the outcome that we may face? In this case, I would say that there is unlikely to be an appeal because of the approval. There is the potential to appeal the conditions that we're talking about limiting them, but because you, the committee, are making a decision on a specific benefit, which is the economic benefit, then I think that the limitation to Class E, C and G and the removal of permitted development rights under MA are defensible should that be appealed. So, I think that is important to know. And I think overall, in terms of the reasonableness of the decision, which is something that can be challenged through the courts, that it is reasonable to come to a conclusion that you feel as a committee that the economic benefit outweighs the policy and the marketing exercise that has been discussed this evening. Thank you very much. So, I think now everybody has said their piece. Are you able to decipher that proposal, detailed though it is, and then we'll get your name vote? Well, my Class E and G are a little bit rusty. But I've got written down, so the economic development benefits outweigh the marketing community use policy, roughly around that sort of thing. And the IF6 policy. Is there anything else you want me to include? And the conditions. And with the conditions, yeah. Is everyone happy with what we're voting on? Or are I conducting a name vote? Yeah. Sorry, can I just be clear? So, the report recommends to refuse. So, are we, so what is the exact wording of the motion? So, this will be to grant planning permission subject to what I've just said, which is against officer recommendations. And the conditions. With the conditions listed, yeah. So, we're voting for, to grant planning permission? Yes. It's important just to make sure that everyone's okay with where we're going with this. Can we start the name vote then, please? Yes. So, like I said, this is to grant planning permission. I'll ask you if you're for or against or abstaining on granting planning permission. So, Councillor Carpenter? Aye. Councillor Dacosta? Aye. Councillor Davies? Aye. Councillor Grove? Aye. Councillor Knowles? Aye. Councillor Luxton? I think I'm going to abstain. Councillor Teasy? Aye. Councillor Wilson? Aye. So, you've got 7, 4 and 1 abstention. So, planning permission is granted. So, to confirm the planning permission is granted with those conditions that were agreed. Thank you very much for attending. We'll now move on to the final item, which are the planning appeals received. Has everybody read those and noted those and agreed that they've been addressed? Agree? Agree. And that concludes the meeting. And thank you very much for an interesting meeting. We certainly can't be awake. And thank you to the people joining us.