Transcript

[INAUDIBLE] Welcome to this meeting of Windsor and Ascot Development Management Committee on the 9th of May 2024. My name is Councillor Amy Teasey, and I'll be chairing the meeting. The meeting's being held live 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. Firstly, it will be useful if all committee members and officers will continue themselves. So the public are aware of who is in the meeting and the role they're undertaking. So as I said, Councillor Teasey, I'm the chair. And I'll go to the vice chair. Councillor Mott Wilson, vice chair. So they're in Davis. Councillor Julian Teasey, voting member of panel. Councillor Allison Carpenter, voting member of the panel. Councillor David Buckley, voting member of the panel. Councillor Howard Costa, voting member of the panel. Councillor Julian Sharpe, voting member of the panel. Councillor SANA, voting member of the panel. Joe Richards, developer management team leader. James Overall, principal planning officer. Adrian Wayne's assistant director of the panel. Laura Senna, director of service and clock to this committee meeting. Aaron Norris Brown, then services team leader. Thank you. We'll now start on the agenda items. So do we have any apologies for absence? No apologies for COVID. Thank you. And do we have any declarations of interest? No, thank you. And the minutes of the meeting held on the 7th of March this year, do we take those as a true and accurate record? Brilliant. Brilliant. Brilliant. Thank you. Okay. So we'll begin with the first agenda item this evening. So you did see is an application for Old Boundary House and New Boundary House London Road in Sunningdale. And we are having James to introduce, thank you. Thank you, Chair. This is a full planning application for a mixed use scheme comprising 14 apartments in one block and 800 square meters of office. The scheme seeks to replace 725 square meters of existing office space, which is currently split across two sites, two buildings site, known as Old and New Boundary House. It is important to note that the previous application, 2017-22 reference 22 slash 00721 slash out of the outline was refused with four reasons for refusal. These four reasons revolved around loss of employment space, character and appearance, insufficient immunity space and absence of SPA mitigation. This decision was appealed and dismissed by the planning inspector. However, the planning inspector only dismissed the previous application and grounds relating to the loss of employment space and residential amenities. The planning inspector did not find fault with previous application's character and appearance, concluding the proposed development would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area complying with the relevant provisions and policies. Given the planning inspector was to dismiss the appeal, they did not carry out an appropriate assessment to pursue the reason in relation to the SPA. To give some context, this was the scheme submitted under the previously refused outline application and this is the scheme currently before you today. To better understand where the application site is located, this slide pin points the site on a map in relation to the surrounding settlements. This slide shows an aerial image of the application site which lies to the north of London Road running through Sunningdale. The car park to the west is part of AL-33 Broom Hall Car Park allocated site. This slide shows the site location plan, the red line indicates the application site boundary. This slide shows the key constraints in the area, you will note that the application site is not constrained other than lying just outside the 400 metre SPA buffer, therefore putting it within the 400 metre to 5 kilometres zone. The building height and tall buildings SPD identifies the application site to be situated in an area where there is potential for large buildings and the application site sits just outside of the area noted as highly sensitive. This slide shows the site layout plan. This slide shows the basement which is to be located beneath the apartment block. The basement is to use the car parking and storage and access is provided via a ramp to stairwells and a lift. This slide shows the proposed ground floor plan of the apartment block. This slide shows the proposed first floor plan of the apartment block. This slide shows the proposed second floor plan of the apartment block. And this slide shows the proposed roof plan of the apartment block. As for the elevations, the front and rear of the apartment block can be seen on this slide, whereas the flank elevations can be seen on this slide. Moving onto the proposed office, this slide shows the proposed ground floor plan. This slide shows the proposed first floor plan. This slide shows the proposed second floor plan. And this slide shows the proposed roof plan. The front and rear elevations of the proposed office are shown on this slide. And the flank elevations are shown on this slide. Moving onto materials, the proposed scheme seeks to utilise materials and architectural features which reflect the character of the surrounding area, including red facing, brick work, red tile hanging, architectural stonework and coining, stonework window surrounds, white UPC window frames and decorative ridge cresting. This slide shows the CGI with a bird's eye perspective from the southern side of London road looking across Ambassador House. Finally, moving onto the site visit photos, I'll flip through these without too much discussion. Please note I've provided arrows over the top of the existing location plan to indicate the direction and location each photograph was taken from. This photo is taken from the southern side of London road looking across towards the front elevation of the site. This photo provides the wider field of view showing the neighbouring commercial units. This photo shows the site access and this photo shows it again but from a closer view point. This photo looks southwest along the front boundary of the application site. This photo looks southwest along London road with the site access on the right hand side of the image. This photo looks north east along the front boundary of the application site. This photo and the next two show the application site from within the neighbouring car park which forms part of allocated site AL-33. This slide shows the real elevation of line tree fillers as seen from the access road to the car park and lastly this photo shows Ambassador House. The turret feature proposed under this application will be directly opposite the turret feature of Ambassador House. To wrap this up the application is recommended for approval subject to the satisfactory completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure an in-glue, affordable housing contribution, a carbon offset contribution, sound payment to Brent or Forest Council, sound payment to us on site biodiversity net gain amounting to 11.52% or greater, management of refuse and waste and two review mechanisms for the affordable housing contribution. The recommendation is also subject to the conditions noted within section 14 of the Committee report. Thank you Chair. Thank you James. Thanks. Then we have one public speaker this evening. We have the applicant Richard Quout. Would you like? He's online. I remember he is online. You have three minutes to speak and he'll be given a one-minute warning when all that time happens. We'll just get this all booked ready. Okay, so you can begin whenever you're ready. Thank you Chair. Apologies. I don't know whether you can see me. My screen is not shown but my camera is on. So firstly, thank you for the opportunity to speak and support the application. My name's Richard Quout and I'm the Planning Consultant on the project. As part of my speech, I will briefly touch on the processes we have been through to get to this stage and highlight the scheme benefits. Since Planning Commission was refusing 2022 for the 28 homes, the applicant has appointed a new team which includes a new architect to look at the site afresh and seek to address the council's concerns and previous reasons for refusal. As a result, the following improvements have taken place compared to the refuse scheme. Firstly, the provision of new office floor space which is greater than that currently provided on site. There's been a reduction in massing so that now half the number of homes are proposed. Bringing the building further away from the site boundaries to ensure a relationship with surrounding properties. Improved elevation design and architecture and enhanced communal and private amenity space. The provision of abatement for car parking which has allowed a new soft landscape courtyard area within the centre of the site. And achieving increased tree planting and a biodiversity net gain. The recommendation for approval reflects collaborative working between officers and the applicant through productive pre-application discussions during which revisions to the scheme were made. A public consultation event also took place in May 2023 in order to obtain thoughts from local residents. The scheme was well received by local residents who are generally supportive of the changes that have been made. The council's housing team, planning policy department, local lead flood authority, natural England and highways department are happy with the proposals and there is no statutory consultation objection. The proposals bring a number of benefits which I will summarise. We respectfully request that the council's consider their value when deciding this application. The benefits are as follows. Firstly, the delivery of new homes within Sunnydale settlement boundary which will help to address the ongoing housing crisis, a mix of housing including family homes will be provided. Secondly, the redevelopment of a brownfield site, reducing the need to potentially develop on green land, quality new office floor space which will facilitate an increase in jobs compared to the current inefficient office layout, high quality landscaping including soft landscaping around the site boundaries, a central courtyard area and an uplift in tree planting compared to the existing situation, a reduction in surface water runoff, policy compliant car parking and ecologically friendly scheme with biodiversity net gain in excess of policy objectives. This will be achieved for a number of measures including native foliage, eco stacks and habitat boxes, carbon dioxide emissions reduced by 65% through enhanced building fabric, PV panels and air source heat pumps, three minutes and lastly, section 106 contributions including affordable housing payments. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so as we have no other public speakers, I'll open it up with Kate, who'd like to go first? Yes, Councillor Luxton. Thank you, Chair. I'll have a few questions actually, the building high, the present, the increase of the height of the building. I just want to know from previous to now because it looks definite even where I'm sitting and watching. It looks taller than the water was there. We have flood issues down there, tell me, tell me flood issues all along the way at the end of that day. So when you have underground parking, I just would like to know what facilities are there for that because they cannot use that task space parking, they'd be going to be the one which is for the residents and the shopkeepers. And then third question is the wall around that area. It's a beautiful wall. I just wondered whether that wall is going to stay or it's going to be taken out. Thank you. Chair? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Yes, Councillor. I was just going to ask about the number of trees that are going to be removed. It looks like there's a net gain of a few trees, but that won't actually be a net gain in carbon emission, of absorption because an older tree can absorb so much more carbon. So I just have a few concerns about the number of trees that are being removed or mature trees that are being removed in this game. Thank you, Councillor Sharp. Thank you, Chair. I was looking through the report and I noticed that there are 546 square metres of amenity space in the development and in the presentation I didn't notice that that was highlighted. So I'd like to see, please, where the amenity space is just to make sure that it's going to be suitable for a mixed bunch of people who are moving in there because it didn't seem like there was a lot that I could see and I'm really concerned that the actual amount of amenity space is actually amenity space and not just overflow ground works or whatever that's going to get over ground and won't actually be used. Yeah, I was going to fill up landscape, I can point it out in the site and lay out. Sorry. Sorry. I'll do it with the, the community space is in the middle here, which sort of makes a plaza between the apartment block and the office block on the front and there's private amenity space in the form of balconies for the apartment blocks, which are on first and second floor and the ground floor ones have amenity space running around the glass perimeter surrounding the apartment block. So, if that is genuine amenity space, will children who want to play football in that area be prevented from doing so in any way, shape or form? Because I always think of amenity space as space where children can genuinely play and because of the mix of housing that you've got here, which is one, two and three bedroom houses flat charla, you're quite likely to be getting younger families with children. So I would hope that they would have somewhere to play and I'm actually very concerned that you're disguising what is, what you're calling amenity space. If you look down the corridors there and at the back and round the sides, it's not really space which people can actively use. So the only amenity space in reality is that little bit in the middle there, which I suspect is not big enough for, say you've got ten kids of ten years old wanting to play football or whatever, I don't think there's space there for them to genuinely do that. So I'm concerned that the amenity space that you've got there. A comment on one aspect of that. So we have the Boroughwide Design Died SPD, which sets out some technical science requirements and limitations for amenity space, both private and communal when it comes to flat and development. And I think the committee report sets out that both those size requirements have been added to, I think the requirement for children to be able to play a football game probably goes beyond what we're looking for in terms of what's reasonably required for a residential property and its private and community space. So there needs to be space for sitting out, drying, washing, somewhere that's not shaded, things like that, there's not a requirement for children to be able to run around on maths and the committee report does set out that the size limits within the Boroughwide Design Died SPD and SPD in terms of amenity space have been complied with in its development. Okay, so it complies with the requirements but actually those requirements will tend towards discouraging children going outside and having an active lifestyle outside. And what we're saying is that the design guides that we've got are aimed at really older people sitting around on an addict chair or something of that nature to get a bit of fresh air, maybe that tends to be what it is. I don't think that's the case, I think there's just a need for consideration of different needs between different types of developments of different scales. So if you were looking at a residential scheme with family houses in where they each have rear gardens, they'd each have rear gardens and if you were looking at a much larger development such as a 200, 300 unit scheme, you would tend to find that they have a communal area in them, it's just a matter of fact and degree that we have to apply to each site. So I don't think a 14 unit flattered scheme would generally have an amenity area next to it of the size where you would play football, it would have areas to sit out and then children if they wanted to do things like that would go to other areas nearby generally. Okay, could you just come back on Sonora's points about she raised these and then also I was pointing to the trees. Yes, I will. But just to go back on the amenity space thing, there is the Broome Hall recreation ground which is fairly close to the application site sitting in the northwest, I've measured it so I'd say it's probably about 150 to 200 metres northwest of the application site and football could be kicked around there. I think the point is that the amount of amenity space that you are allowing here which includes the back and around the sides of the buildings is actually not a amenity space and the only amenity space is that small piece at the front between the buildings and the office area. So it's the amenity area that you're actually giving in this development is actually a lot smaller and if the buildings have been constructed to be further back in the development then you could have had more amenity space for children or young people or for anyone really to enjoy more space outside. Thank you. Moving on to the flooding that you raised, the application site is in flood zone one so there is a flooding part in here and they have got sustainable urban drainage system they're putting in. There is no concern with regard to flood risk and the site does mitigate any sort of impacted we'll have on flooding. So I just think it's always useful to clarify when we're talking about flooding that flood zone three is the worst active flood zone one is effectively everywhere that isn't at risk of flooding it's that kind of counterintuitive so I just always think it's useful to clarify that. It's pretty bad to flood that area. And then the building height is actually one of the points that was raised by the inspector in the previous application and he said that two to three stories in this location would be sympathetic to the area and had no issues with the scale of what was proposed previously and this scheme before us is a three stories as well and given the building heights SPD as well does that in the category for potential for larger buildings which is identified by the green line following here so everything on the south of my cursor is in that part of the potential for larger buildings but yeah as a height up to three stories was accepted by inspector end and has been inspected by SPD as well. Anything on the trees as well can just sort of be concerned about there wouldn't really be a gain in terms of carbon capture because young trees are not as efficient as old trees that will be lost. So the trees that are being removed, I've got a table on page 32 but effectively they are focusing on the removal of the worst category trees and there are to be retained 14. So the higher category trees are the category B, there are no category A on site, the retaining 14 of those and removing six whereas the C's they are removing seven of eight and the U's they are removing five of 18 but effectively the developments to come forward is just one of those things the trees do have to sort of be removed to facilitate developments and they are in this case providing a net gain of trees by planting 25 new trees and in this case it's going to be a net gain of seven so the points about mature trees being removed of which six of those are category B it's a, in case of the carbon game it's a situation where time will bring out more carbon and effectively yes it's going to be 20 years or so for them to reach the maturity but it will gain effect and it will result in a net gain in the long term not the short term obviously with the removal of them and the trees having to grow but it will in the long term provide a net gain of carbon. Thank you right we've got quite a few speakers lined up so we'll go Julian first and then let's sign our own and then David thank you so I have two questions the first is actually a follow-up to the question that you just answered regarding the trees raised by Councillor Carol Batosta can I just get a clarity about the categories of the trees in terms of maturity because obviously there are trees and there are trees and we have a number of, yes we have a, the sheer number of trees may be going up but obviously the quality and yes over time that will change but it would be good to just clarify it was saying the main element of loss tree loss comprises category C and U is that what we just clarify what we mean by that just a little bit of clarity. My second point is just about affordable housing. Now on affordable housing there's another number of objectives including SBAE mentioned the lack of affordable housing and suggested we oppose it on that basis but I do understand that we have a sort of a compensation and I just wonder if officers could talk about the appropriateness of that of sort of agreeing to a compensatory amount rather than actual affordable housing. Thank you. And I'll just take, it was next, sorry, sign on, it was next, sorry, thank you Chair. I was going to go to the affordable housing gang as well because as you know Sunnydale has got bigger houses and other flats are very good for you know start of families and things like that. Affordable is one thing we don't have down there so I mean to me it would be better to have two flats given or affordable or a flat given rather than some money and the other question I have is on the plan I didn't see because it's going to be a business refuge collecting and also residential I just on the plan I didn't see where about it was going to be located also because of smell and wax and whatever goes with it and third thing was the peak time traffic in and out of the carbon which is already the Sunnydale carbon plus there is the trains in and out I just wondered what is the any chance of explaining how we're going to do this going to be quite difficult there's so much traffic going in about that place. Thank you Chair. Thank you and David. Yes we've had some communications in regards to the allocated site that's adjacent to this development I think it's AL33 and that's in the BLP I just wanted to clarify it's 2.1 but this site is not in the BLP and outside of the BLP and could you give us some sort of indication in regards to AL33 what sort of additional units are proposing to be able to include on that site. Thank you, should we come back on those three points and then I've got the next three speakers. Starting with the clarification for three categories effectively it revolves around quality I can read out exactly the definitions of them so category of which there is nothing on site generally large high quality trees which local authority will want to see retained if at all possible category B trees are somewhat smaller or not particularly high quality trees so on site we've got 20 of those of which six are being removed however these categories B trees and still make a significant impact on the local environment and have a significant life expectancy local authority would prefer to see these trees retained through the removal of occasional specimens although the removal of occasional specimens may be acceptable category C trees are smaller trees or ones considered to be of low quality they may have a limited life expectancy or contribute very little to the immediacy of the other quantity such trees should not be considered as a constraint against development and their removal will generally be accepted category U trees are recommended for removal due to their poor condition rather than to facilitate development. And Councillor Loexton was asking about them I'm sorry Councillor Tees was asking about the affordable housing the contribution rather than actual units. So with regard to affordable housing policy HO3 of the Bora local plan covers that part five of policy HO3 sets out that the delivery of flood housing will be provided in accordance with the following order of priority one is on site as part of development and distributed across the development to create a sustainable balanced community part two of that priority order is on alternative site only a provision would result in a more effective use of available resources or would meet an identified housing need such as providing a better social mix and wider housing choice. Part six of the same policy goes on to say if the Council consents to the affordable housing not being provided on site under clause five B a financial contribution equivalent to the cost of providing the same quantum of affordable housing which would otherwise be sought on site will be required in order to provide affordable housing on alternative site. Financial contributions will also be required in respect of any fraction of an affordable unit that would be required to meet clauses one and two of the policy clauses one and two state the Council will require all developments for 10 skip that part because it's not relevant but part B of that says on all other sites including those over 500 dwellings 30% of the total number of units it's before also in this situation it's 30% however the wording of the supporting text for the affordable housing policy states where the provision of affordable housing in accordance with this policy is not economically viable the Council will expect the submission of open book financial appraisal information alongside the planning application and that is what has happened and then if the Council is satisfied that the affordable housing cannot be provided in accordance with this policy it will seek to negotiate alternative provision again that is what has happened so in this instance an open book financial appraisal has been conducted with an independent review by bespoke property consultants BPC for short the review confirmed that the scheme would be unviable if the provision of affordable housing cost more than 241,219 pounds as local authority we can only assess the schemes that are submitted to us so it would be unreasonable to refuse the application based upon the provision of a single block of flats so in the sense of because in the report I have said that we cannot sort of split this as affordable and market housing for the reason that just because it just doesn't normally work in society and so that's one of the other reasons that means that an in lieu contribution is acceptable also for the fact that if 241,000 pounds is the the only amount that is viable for a contribution that's not really going to go very far in terms of on site provision even if it was accepted and so original provider isn't going to take on one unit if it could get one unit it's probably one unit it's going to be one bed flat or something like that so in that sort of instance it's not viable in terms of getting a rigid provider to take on an onsite affordable unit because it would be significantly low and yeah in lieu contribution works in this case and that's been negotiated by offices I think just to add a add a bit of context to that which is useful just looking at the viability reports that we've got given the property values in the area and the affordability is based on the percentage of the market value so if you did try and use the money on site you would likely only be able to do a discount market sale product but you'd only be reducing the value a bit to probably in the region of 500,000 for a one-bedroom flat and that's not likely to be affordable to anyone who actually qualifies for a discount market product anyway so we just think that the council will be much better able to use the money to meet the genuine affordable needs by taking on confusion in this particular case okay thank you and then so I know I was asking about affordable but I think we covered that and then refuse lorries and the business and then residential ones and then Council but please ask you about the BLP and yes sorry yes the the refuse collection on the plans currently there is no refuse collection point at ground level but that's covered by a condition 12 which states notwithstanding any indications on the drawings no development shall commence until details of a ground level refused bin storage area recycling facilities and collection point to be accompanied by a robust waste management plan have been submitted to and approved by the LPA and we are confident that they can be provided on site yeah so he's covered by condition effectively then I come on thank you chair does it mean for I understand what you're saying but is it going to be separate for the businesses and for the residents and you know again the space of that and where you said once you'll put that a condition down but it's not very clear how it's going to be how it's going to work is the patient I will will sorry so yeah so this so and I know you were saying that it depends if how it will be obviously delegated powers so how will we know whether we are happy with where that is going to be when a discharge a condition application comes in the appropriate consultees will be consulted so in this case it would be our highways consultees that would comment on it to make sure that it's an acceptable location doesn't impact upon the maneuvering of vehicles or anything like that and so they're also the the highways the refuse waste collection vehicles can also get access to the collection points as well so it would be reviewed by the appropriate consultees and professionals of that industry so yeah and if the condition wording isn't suitable or needs to be made more robust that is something that you as counsellors can can amend if if if you wish yeah quickly they've got lots of people waiting it just it's probably very important this a big collection thing I know it's yeah it's underground so with the bin Laurie's how they're going to be just this is quite an important thing to be really considered and really think how they're going to do it that's what I'm trying to say you know sorry either bin collection isn't going to happen underground the refuse waste lorries aren't going to the basement at all and the condition specifically requires a ground level refuge storage area so yeah sorry confusion and and Councillor Bucky was asking about the BLP and the site next door, yes I believe you are asking about AO 33 I know just if you look in the BLP and in the name of the plan it shows that the allocation excludes this application site so this application site is entirely outside the boundary of AO 33 which is a separate allocation for housing, yes I completely understand however I want to take it in context of what's happening in the community in the area so I appreciate outside of this this plan I appreciate doesn't really vary on this plan I just really want to understand as a context rather than taking the single individual plan not looking at what else is coming even though it's not varying I would like to understand what is allocated for that site at the moment if anything to talk about sorry yes I can answer that so the allocation on AO 33 is for the site specific requirements need the car park to be retained it requires residential properties to be provided and also the office and commercial frontage along London Road to be rejuvenated as such so realistically from a master plan perspective the car park location which is the adjoining site is most likely to be retained in that location the commercial frontage is still going to be a commercial frontage so there are residential properties that are proposed and rail 33 are going to be in the north of the site away from the site boundary adjoining this so effectively this site is still going to be adjoining a car park even when AO 33 comes through I think it is really important and I would suspect Adrian might be about to say something similar that we just consider this application we can't consider it in respect to what may or may not come forward we really do just have to focus on what we have in front of us I was also going to add that actually if you look at the site James brings photo actually all of the tree coverage on the site is around the boundaries so realistically if you want to retain as many trees as possible on this site which is something we would always want to try and do it is not like there's a more comprehensive development that's likely to come forward because you're going to be wanting to try and save trees that are all along the site boundary so I just think that's what I'm going to be and Carol you've waited patiently your turn cancel to Costa thank you chair I just kind of tried to put my legal head on as opposed to my heart when looking at this and having seen what the inspector said when we refused it last time it seems that it was the retention of commercial facilities was the reason why the appeal was not granted so now that they've got an application that retains that I've looked through it and I can't see any legal or plumbing reason that we can pin our coats on our hats on to say that we could refuse it for this reason it doesn't I haven't found anything that there might be elements of it that I don't like and there might be elements of it that I really do like that I can't find any planning law to say no to it and that kind of makes me feel like we're going to have to put a proposal forward to say that we are in line with officers recommendation but before I do that before I put that forward I would just like to ask if we could put something extra in the conditions the conditions 16 it says to put rooster foxes on I would quite like to see some of the lower the lighting around the areas where the bats roost because we know that light does interfere with their flight path so if we could have that added in with the rooster foxes that we have the lower level lighting around the area where the bats roost I think there is a condition that there should be roost about the number 18 about the lighting and importance of importance for commuting and foraging bats and locations that might cover it that's not me reading fine okay so in that case I'd like to make a proposal that we vote in favor of this application in line with officers recommendation thank you and cancer sharp was next to speak thank you chair I'm I'm concerned about the splitter parking facilities between the office space and the residential space and I'm very keen to ensure that there is going to be a proper traffic or parking management plan which ensures that there is no overspill from this development into other other roads nearby because there is already pressure on parking in the area anyway and obviously it's on a main road this this development effectively the A30 so I want to ensure that there is something in the conditions which says that the the residential areas the residential units wouldn't take up more than the allocated parking spaces available to them and that that is something which is enforced with a traffic manage or parking management plan so it's very clear to people moving in that the parking spaces that are all that is available to them and similar with the office facilities so that if if people are using the offices it is very clear and it's enforced that they don't spill out into the residential parking spaces in the area and I'd like to understand how this development is going to help sustainable transport in the area which is one of the prerequisites in the in the borough local plan I haven't seen anything about for example provision of buses in the area I think there's only one bus in the area anyway and I haven't seen anything about helping this development helping it with provision of bus networks or anything like that in the area thank you I'm just going back on that one thank you yes sir I think we've got condition 13 of the report which requires a car parking allocation of management and it does set out that that will need details of the allocation of the spaces between the residential and office development so you would know which spaces are allocated to each and that it would include appropriate management and access control measures so that would include the management of those spaces so that they are used for the purchases and also access control measures to make sure that you know people from the office can access the car parking but can't go up and wander out the flats and things like that so I think everything there is from bus recovered by that condition 13 in terms of improvements to sustainable transport etc this is a fairly fairly small scheme in scheme of things 14 flaps and a fairly small office so it's not a scheme of a scale whereby we could justify asking for significant improvements to for example public transport networks or bus stops like he would on the much larger development what it would do is through the need for the community infrastructure level it would pay payments to the community infrastructure level and then it would be for the council to decide how they might wish to spend back money and they could spend it on trying to improve public facilities for sustainable transport if that's how council wishes to spend it that is it's not a development of a scale where we'd be able to say you've got 14 flats here so you need to provide a new bus stop or a new bus route because we have to be commensurate with the scale of the development. If you miss out on the smaller developments and don't ask for those sort of things or those sort of things are part of the requirement for smaller developments it puts more pressure on the larger developments to do those things to me it doesn't seem to make sense that you you don't as part of a mix at least get some sort of contribution or some sort of facility for the for the community it means that your the community always suffering it the additional congestion or whatever it is in the area is not getting the compensation by way of you know benefits in in terms of I don't know either schools or improved roads or improved you know transport links or whatever it is so I don't know I think that's precisely what the community infrastructure level is for so all development needs in the area where there's the entire infrastructure level you have to pay payments towards the infrastructure level and then it's for the council or in a perished area where the parish gets part of the the contribution which there's the council and the parish to decide how to spend the money they've got to benefit the money into or to benefit infrastructure in the borough so there are contributions it's just that the mechanism for securing them is the community infrastructure level not heads of terms in a section what they say stating specifically what they're for and Councillor KAVERN to next thank you a couple of my items have already been addressed but I'm concerned about the parking I understand today there's 14 businesses there and they all like sort of one to three employees that sort of thing it looks like the new plan is for sort of bigger companies so you know concerned what's going to happen to the smaller companies and where they're going to go but also you know parking seems it's not enough for the office space as well as the residents I think it's going to be quite a problem I know you said it meets the guidelines but you know I think we all know that a lot of these guidelines cause a lot of problems for the surrounding area so but yeah I'm concerned you know that although I know we said the original plan didn't you know help the existing employment but I'm not sure this new plan is either cause a lot of these smaller companies going to have to move out and find alternative office space I guess thank you Councillor Wilson and thank you Chair yeah two points firstly building on the sort of the parking and the act of travel peace just sort of thinking about the numbers of people that are moving around the site we've got we've got 14 flats and 32 bedrooms in those flats so potentially up to 64 people and then 15 car parking spaces so potentially I mean not exactly but there could be dozens of people not driving and it's really disappointing to see the developers and the proposals not even considering people walking in and out of the site and people cycling in and out of the sites and we've had to put that in as a condition so I kind of I want to draw attention to condition 14 and make sure that is really robust and that there is a separate pedestrian access and a separate cycle access because as I've said before cycling walking and driving or motor vehicles don't mix so I would like potentially like to see 14 beefed out the same the similar number's game is also applicable for the offices as has previously been mentioned we've potentially got dozens of people not able to drive we've got the train connections we've mentioned buses so we I think the site really needs to be designed to be much more flexible and not have that one little entrance which I think on the original plans was driving only so I don't know if we can beef up 14 but I think that needs to be very well monitored and then secondly on the viability study done by VPC subheading maximizing development potential okay see where they're going the sale the sale value of the site is just under 15 million the build costs are just under 9 million so the gross profit is about six million pounds and yes they'll have other costs and the contribution to affordable housing is 240,000 now that may well tick all the boxes and comply with all the policies but that for me is totally inadequate and as we've said we should be looking for four units I appreciate why that shouldn't be on this site but I think to secure funding which is more reasonable that would actually fund four units somewhere else I don't know if there's a way we can do that there probably isn't but maybe you know that's a higher level decision but for me 240,000 is woeful in the context of this I'm not sure there's anything there's not particularly any comeback on that but I don't want to have that on record that that's that's woeful I guess yeah interested in any any comments around the conditions whether the conditions can be beefed up in terms of cycling or anything we can actually do to challenge the viability study and those huge numbers on the developer's side okay I'll just take a sign up and Councillor Lutzmann's contribution and then we can come back for those things thank you I was just gonna talk about say about the pedestrian part as well that's one of the things it's going to say and also only again going back to the refuge collection I'd like to make sure that is really a bit more strict on how the it's going to be it's the the beans are not because there are residential properties at the back we don't want the beans to be down there and then they get the smell along they have to choose the right place where it is going please if you can add that to it otherwise I have quite a couple of things as the end thank you okay I wonder could somebody address the specific points about the affordability contribution and whether there's any flexibility there and what can happen with that effectively that is the job of the review mechanisms that are built into the section 106 so we've got two that we've got a short term and a long term one and currently the independent viability review has been done in notebook case so it's genuine that it would be an viable unless with anything over that 240 thousand so that is the situation but the review mechanisms allow for that to increase should the viability change in the future and it gets tested it's got yeah two tests in there for a short term and a long term one so it could go up if the situation changes but it doesn't go down effectively I think it's just worth adding on this what process we follow with viability is the applicant sends in a viability assessment by qualified surveyors we then go to our own independent qualified surveyors with in effect an instruction to review it pretty can it find more money if possible and that that's what's happened and the result we're going with is the outcome from our surveyors now obviously there are things that are accepted in the way we deal with things as a part of planning policy such as the fact that there are risks in development and the developers need to be allowed to make a reasonable profit otherwise no one would build anything because if if you're not going to generate profit from a development then you just wouldn't wouldn't do it so they are factors within the liability system and within the planning system that that we have to live with but we do do everything we can to make sure that things are independently reviewed by people that are adequately qualified and we get the best outcome for the council and our residents when we consider v-sense yes the council was saying thank you yeah thank you for that explanation I guess I'm not necessarily I think I'm pointing more to the rules and that that judgmental question as to what is reasonable when it comes to viability I appreciate the council have gone through the correct processes would it just to pick up the points about strengthening 14 is that something we could do um I mean currently it's down to a preoccupation condition at the moment we could change that to a pre-commencement condition um if you if you were to first councilors prefer I'd be in favour of that I'm not sure we can because legally we have to ask the developer if they're happy if we're going to impose a pre-commencement condition and give them a period to give us a view before we can um is that something that could be taken away to do or as a sort of thing we could do we could do prior to above slap level so it's not fully pre-commencement without pausing an issue um I'm I'm somewhat wary I'm not sure we're actually doing anything to should be conditional or amend the outcome of the conditions through that we're simply changing the time scale for submission right yes councilor yeah so yeah the strength thing would be to make sure there is there is sufficient and separate pedestrian cycle access to encourage that rather it could be just a narrow footpath two meters wide tucked away somewhere whereas what I'm saying is actually um yes something something that really encourages rather than just meets them bare minimum of the policy given the potential number of people who might be who will need to be moving in and out without a car. The condition then says that um they have to be submitted to an improved and approved in writing by the local planning authority perhaps this panel could give our recommendation to the planning authority that you know we we want it to be the sufficient not just a minimum or you know token gesture would that be that be appropriate? If I could suggest I think sometimes amending the wording of conditions in a forum like this is difficult I think the wording of the condition is probably adequate what we could do is add an informative no which just explains to the developer or anyone reading the decision a bit more about what we mean and what we expect to see and then that's on on the file so any officer he deals with the condition in the future will be able to see it the developer will be aware of it I think if we add an informative note um to the effect that we want to see sufficient cycling pedestrian access separate site, safety agent or separate site on pedestrian access that probably covers it off without complications of inadvertently doing something wrong with the condition because of the forum forum we're doing it's a thank you. Any other comments before? So we do have a motion that's as yet un-seconded yes Councilor Staley's. Yeah I'll be having set of emotions is they call her legal tape boxes I've been checked and so there's nothing we can we can't refuse any crowns but we'll be able to show the office. Thank you okay so we do now have a motion which Lawrence will read and then we'll go to a vote. Okay so the proposal is is to approve the application levels with office recommendation with these just to say the recommendation to increase sufficient pedestrian cycle access is that correct? With the additional informative note regarding pedestrian cycle access if members are happy we will take away his officers and draft some of the animals in line. Sorry just we clarify that it needs to be separate pedestrian and separate cycling yes so the on the on the informative note the motion yes so the motion will say that there will be an informative note then the informative note can be drafted after the meeting and whatever that says we'll say about the separate themes. That's only because they've been separate in access. Yeah, you need to because you don't have the people's houses. Okay so motion approved approve application level of recommendations with the additional formative notes to include sufficient cycle and pedestrian access separate sufficient cycle and pedestrian access yeah okay proposed by Councillor Carroll de Costa is selected by Councillor Daven Davies and I'll do I'll do a name vote please stay clear if you're forward against I'm safe from the this motion so Councillor Buckley. Fourth, thank you Councillor Carpenter. Fourth, thank you Councillor Dicosta. Fourth, thank you Councillor Davies. Fourth, thank you Councillor Luxton. Fourth, thank you Councillor Jeanshaft. Thank you Councillor Amy Tilly. Fourth. Thank you Councillor Julian Tilly. Fourth, thank you. So that's eight in favour one again so motion passes application approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. We've got those decisions here. So there's no team. Are you going to move to part two? Yes we do. Okay as the next application is going to be dealt with in part two what we're going to do is go to the decisions noting beneath noting and we'll do that now and then we'll have to move into part two. So are there any questions or comments about the decisions for noting? Okay thank you. So that's the planning that the wheels received but nothing to say. Okay oh I've got it here I can move that. Yeah so okay so we're going to now I'm going to read the Local Government Act 1972 exclusion of the public and it's to consider passing the following resolution that under section 100A4 of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on the grounds that they involve disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs one to seven, part one of Schedule 12A of the Act.