Transcript

Welcome to the planning committee here on Tuesday the 11th of June. Welcome to all members and guests upstairs and down. So thank you very much for being here. Could I go to apologies for absence first, please? Thank you, Chair. Apologies from Councillors Jackie Hook and Richard Buscombe. Thank you very much. On the agenda, Item 2, the minutes, pages 5 to 12. If everyone's happy, could I have a proposer for those minutes? Councillor Palethorpe with no name. Councillor Sanders, second. All those in favour? Against? Abstentions? Two abstentions. Thank you very much. That's carried. Item 3, declarations of interest. Any declarations of interest from anyone? Councillor Nutley. Thank you, Chair. Item 6, the Hiram Meade Farm 1. I know we all know Councillor Parker. I've known Paul for many years as a friend as well. I think I'll refrain from voting and taking discussion on this, but I'll remain in the chamber. I have nothing else otherwise than that. And also on Item 7, the enforcement report on woodland land at Chardonnay. Obviously, being a ward member, I've had quite a bit of dealings with the parish council. And I will again not vote on that, but I would like to speak as a ward member. I've been advised if you have an interest on the first application that you mentioned, then perhaps you should leave the chamber. Even though you say you're not going to speak or anything, please leave the chamber at that time. Okay, thank you very much. Councillor Boulavent. On the same application, 6, Item B, which is Ted Burns' affair. Sorry, can I make a motion? The microphone is on. Item 6B, Ted Burns' St Mary. The applicant is a friend and somebody with whom I shared a council position with in the last council. For that reason, I think I should withdraw for that particular application. Okay, noted Councillor Boulavent. Thank you very much. Any other declarations of interest? No? Thank you very much. Right, we'll move on now. Item 4 is public participation. Just a note, we have three public speakers today, one supporter and two objectors for the various applications. When it's your time to speak, I'll ask you to come forward and sit at the desk over there and you'll have three minutes to speak at that time. Okay, but I'll call you forward at that time. Thank you very much. I just now on Item 5, like to make a few announcements just for everyone's information. Probably used to me saying this by now, but make some introductions first of all. To my right, I've got Paul Woodhead, who's head of legal services. To his right is Chris Morgan, Democratic services officer. To his right is Sim Manly, interim service leader. And at this time, I'll just say that Sim will be here for the last time today. He will be vacating his role shortly. Sorry to see you go, Sim. Anyway, to the right of Sim Manly, we have Gary Crawford, planning officer. And on the end, we have Ian Perry, team leader, area team leader. Thank you very much. To my left, I've got Deputy Chair David Cox, Councillor David Cox. And to his left, handing all the technology today, is Rain Shooter-Williams. Thank you, Rain. Otherwise today, there are no fire alarm tests planned, as far as I'm aware. So if it should sound, I will ask you all to exit the chamber quickly, but orderly, and gather in the most distant car park in the front of the building. Can I ask you all, committee members and everyone else, to switch off your mobile phones, or at least turn them silent? I remind all members on the committee that you must remain in the chamber for the whole time that an agenda item is being discussed. If you do not, you will not be able to vote on that item. Further to this, can I ask all members wishing to speak to be as concise as possible with their remarks, and try to avoid repetition. And to everyone, please keep your comments to planning related matters. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to the applications for consideration today. Item six. And 6A is application 20, oblique, 00400, oblique, FUL, Higher Mead Farm, Ashburton. And it's the change of use of land to allow the siting of eight static caravans for holiday use, including associated staff accommodation. And the planning officer for this is Gary Crawford, which I'll come to in a moment. The ward councillors are John Nutley, Stuart Rogers, and Jack Major. And the recommendation on this application is that permission would be granted. So I can go to the planning officer for any updates and his presentation. Gary Crawford. Thank you, Chair. No updates on this application. So this application, the site is located to the north of Parker's Farm Holiday Park on the opposite side of the road. It's adjacent to land, which was granted permission for storage of caravans, boats, and motorhomes by the planning committee previously. The application is for the site of eight static caravans for use of both holiday use and for staff accommodation in association with the Holiday Park. The application is advised that for the caravans, the use of staff accommodation in connection with the caravan park. As mentioned earlier, the application is retrospective. The caravans are on site already. The caravans are located adjacent to the existing storage use and also set against the backdrop of existing buildings of the caravan park and me garage. It's considered the visual impact proposals are acceptable. Whilst the caravans are detached from the main holiday park by approximately 200 metres, it's considered that on balance the separation distance is acceptable. The recommendation is for approval, subjects and conditions as set out in the committee report. Thank you.

Thank you, Gary. One ward member who is here has left the room, so there are no other ward members here to speak. So I'll open this up to debate from any members who wish to make a comment on this. Councillor Cox, first of all. I would like to move as set out. It wouldn't be before us if Paul wasn't a Councillor. So I think as set out. I'll move that. I'll second that, Chair. Councillor McGregor, seconded. Did you want to make a comment as well? No, that's fine. Any other comments? So the proposal is as set out. All those in favour? Any against? Any abstentions? So that's unanimous. Okay. So that is carried. Let's move on to item 6B. Which is application 24, oblique. I notice one or two leaving the room. Councillor Willoughin. Application 24, oblique, 00265, oblique, FUL. It's a red line in Ted Burns and Mary. And it's a change of use and conversion of public house and one flat into four houses with associated garden and parking. Including demolition of single storey extensions and retention of an EV charging facility. Planning officer Gary Crawford and the ward Councillors are Stephen Purser and Andrew Swain. And recommendation is permission be granted. Gary, if I could ask you to update and present, please. Thank you, Chair. Yes, there's an update on this application. The letter was sent to Councillors over the weekend from the Ted Burns and Mary community benefits society limited. This letter sets out the community benefits society. Consists that the red line has been marketed at a price well beyond its 2018 purchase price. And that the marketing effort has been basic. Moving on to the application itself. So this application seeks permission for the change of use and conversion of the red line in Ted Burns and Mary into four houses. In addition, the process includes the demolition of existing front and side single storey extensions. And also the retention existing electric vehicle charging point in the pub car park. The site's located on the main road which runs through the centre of the village. And the king's arm public house is located on the opposite side of the road. The western half of the car park which is outlined in blue on the plan on the screen does not form part of this application. Although it is owned by the applicant. The slide in front of you shows the existing kitchen on the western side which is to be demolished. And also the restaurant on the southern end of the frontage of the pub. It's also to be demolished. There's currently a four bedroom flat on the first floor of the building. Again, the elevations show the flat roof extensions to both the front and side which are to be demolished as part of this proposal. So the proposal is for four dwellings. This consists of two two bedroom dwellings and two one bedroom houses. Each house would be allocated one parking space in the existing car park. It would be two visitor spaces and two spaces for the electric vehicle charging point would be retained. It's proposed to erect a chaining fence across the middle of the car park in order to prevent access into the other half of the car park which is outlined in blue on the site location plan earlier in this presentation. It's proposed to create a foot path to the front of the houses which would provide access from the car park to each dwelling. So the first floor of the proposed houses. So the existing front part of the pub is supposed to be retained and a small element of the single story site extension would be retained and proposed to erect a mono pitched slate roof over this part of the building to serve unit one. Also proposed to erect a one meter high block wall along the frontage of the gardens of the houses. So this is the pub in front of you. The pub is currently vacant to be closed since July 2022. The pub was registered as an asset community value on the 15th of December 2023. Upon the sale of an asset community value, the community has the chance to delay a sale in order to prepare a bid to buy the asset. The right does not restrict who the owner of the asset sells the property to or at what price. It does not give the right of refusal to the community. So this shows the front extension which is to be demolished. This is the side extension also to be demolished. This is the view looking east through the village. The king's arms is on the right hand side on the opposite side of the road. This is looking west out of the village. So you've got the beer garden in the foreground and the car park behind. This image shows the existing car park and electric vehicle charging point which is already on the site and is proposed to be retained as part of this proposal. So in conclusion, it is acknowledged that the red line has recently registered as an asset community value. However, given the close proximity of the king's arms to the site and given the size of the village, officers consider the proposal would comply with criteria in A of policy W12 of the local plan. And that the principle of the proposed version of the pub to residential development would be acceptable. The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions set out in the committee report. Thank you. Thank you very much, Gary. If I could ask a member of the public to come forward now. Public speaker is an objector. Mr. Martin rich, if you would like to come to the front over here. And if you would like to press the right-hand button, that will put the microphone on. You have three minutes, sir. Okay. Thank you, chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a resident of Tedburn, St. Mary. I've lived there for 40 years and have fairly good knowledge of the village. Tedburn is a growing village and the two pubs for many generations have played an important part in the village economy. And the red line has held a particular place in the social and cultural life of the village. It's been very much at the heart of the community and a lot of community organizations use it as their base. This application is contrary to all that is happening to try and improve the rural environment, to improve the rural economy. I think it is now generally recognized that the pubs are more than businesses. They have a great social impact and they're an important part of our community infrastructure. And they're part of our local identity. As a community, we have undertaken a number of actions. We've successfully applied for an ACV. We've set up a community benefit society. We are well into the development of a business plan. And we've had the premises professionally assessed and the business opportunities and the viability professionally assessed. And that has given us the confidence to move forward. And we have made an offer to purchase the red line. When we applied for the ACV listing, because there was another pub in the village, the authority set us a very high bar. And we were required to show that there was a social purpose in the red line that was beyond that that the King's Arms was currently or could in the future provide. That the red line was significantly different in terms of its client base and its offer to customers. That the red line was indeed viable in the future and that we had the support of the community. Today, I would ask the authority to be consistent and recognize that it judged us on the ACV. As I said, it's a high bar and to be consistent and support that ACV and resist this application. And if I could give you some guidance, the ACV has been accepted by a number of planning inspectors as a material consideration, as an expression of community support. I'm afraid that's your time up unless you've got one last sentence. Just a quick three minutes. Briefly, Chair, there are a number of... I'm sorry, it was just a brief summing up, but I'm afraid that is your time, really. Okay, sorry. Okay, if I could now ask another public speaker to come forward, a supporter. Who is the applicant, Mr. Terry Toome. And I'll stress again, three minutes. Yes. Now, my wife and I purchased the red line in 2018 after the pub was on the market for just under four years with its previous owners. We ran it very successfully until lockdown. We weathered that storm and post-COVID we picked up again with reasonable margins, but it was a labour of love and not a profitable business. The red line is a small pub with a small kitchen and no scope to produce the food volume that is needed to employ staff and turn a real profit. Selling drinks only may be popular with the locals, but it does not generate much money and we were always just surviving. The final now was a huge increase in energy costs in 2022 and we could not keep operating. There have been many comments about the low income needed for a small pub to remain viable, but a projected annual energy bill of £65,000 before wages or any other expenses could not be absorbed. We took the decision to close the business before finances forced us to in the hope that we could attract a buyer willing to take it forward. The pub had been marketed for two years and has remained available during this planning process, but there is simply no interest in this type of low return business. The red line has no capacity to expand its offering and increase its profit. In contrast, the King's Arms opposite the red line has the capacity to serve food and drink that people want and they can seat many more people. The King's Arms does and always has provided an offering for the village. I have listened to the objections and the practical points have all been addressed. We have employed highway consultants designed good access and parking and the layout has been arrived at following close consultation with the planning and highways officers. I'm grateful for their assistance, which has resulted in this positive recommendation. I appreciate that the application is in front of you because the village does not want to lose the red line. And I do understand that villages liked and still want a local, but that desire did not translate into footfall when I needed it. And the business cannot survive without customers and their money. The community does have the option to purchase the pub and run it as a community venture, but to date there has been no serious approach. So the building has stood empty for nearly two years with no realistic prospect of reopening. The reuse and renovation of this building, which is a local landmark for four small homes, is a sensible outcome for the village. There are very few small houses in Tedburn and I genuinely think that this development will serve the local need. The pub benefits from existing mains drainage and South West Water has no objection to that continuing for the proposed houses. I very much hope you will agree that this application is acceptable. Thank you very much. Right, we have two ward members, both here. That's Councillor Andrew Swain. Are you happy to speak from there? So Councillor Swain first as ward member. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the officers for the work that's gone into this report. I'm looking at policy W.E. 12, loss of local facilities. This is considered satisfied by the report because only one of the four exception criteria is required to be met and this one is considered to be. The Save the Red campaign have robustly shown that you've already heard that it can be viable but that's not been considered because of the sufficiency of pubs in the village. So the question really reduces to is one enough for the people of Tedburn and St Mary? If it's not, then policy W.E. 12 is a material planning reason for refusal because the other exception criteria are not met. This is a subjective decision. Policy documents do not define enough pubs for a community the size of Tedburn and St Mary and it's entirely within your remit members to take a different view on what is enough pubs. I live in Ead, population is 500, that's half of Tedburn and St Mary and we have three pubs. The Save the Red campaign has worked tirelessly on their project, raising funds, investing time and effort in professional services. I think that they think one pub is not enough. I would also draw your attention to the pavements. The two parts of the village are completely cut off for pedestrians by the two pubs. There is a proposal to have a path linking the properties but this is not a public footpath and it won't join the two halves of the village when it easily could. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be done. People wanting to walk from these new houses to the village shop would have to go back to the car park on the path and then walk in the road to get to the village shop. And people do walk in the road all the time, this is a problem in the village. Colleagues, if you're not minded to refuse this application under policy W.E. 12, then I would urge you to consider a site visit to assess the scale and context of the pedestrian access problem. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Swain. I'll come to the officers for comment in a moment but I will go to the other ward member first. Councillor Stephen Purser. Thank you, Chair. Just for transparency, prior to the, or up to the 2023 election, the applicant Terry Toome and I were ward members for the Team Valley which did cover Tedburn. But I will also add, of course, that I no longer sit on the planning committee so I'm not here in the capacity to be able to vote, just to speak on this one occasion. This application for me, Chair, is very much a heart and a head application. My heart says I have sympathy for the applicant who obviously wishes to sell the property but I also have great sympathy for the Save the Red Lion group for all the work they've done. They've obtained an ACV, done the business plan, got funding in place and really done an awful lot of work to try and be able to raise enough money to pay an acceptable price to all parties for the pub. Unfortunately, on the other side, the head says, and as you will know, Chair, as a planning committee, you have a set of professionals sitting next to you who've assessed all the various policies that we have. They've consulted with the statutory bodies and having done all that, they've come to a conclusion that it is acceptable and clearly to reject that will require some strong policies to be able to reject it. I would agree with my colleague, Councillor Andy Swain. In the supplementary papers, Tedburn have written and raised the question, could not the footpath in front of the properties be opened at the shop end, if you like, and made into a public footpath for all? To me, that seems a very eminently sensible suggestion. It would get round a lot of the objections about people not having to walk in the road, certainly when there is often chaos on the A30 and lots of cars all come through, it would be safer if that could be a possibility. And also, you will also note in the supplementary papers that, in fact, Mael Stride supports this as well. So really, Chairman, over to you and the committee to make a decision. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Perkshire. I'll come to the Planning Officer now. Gary, if you'd like to come back on that tour, or anyone else? Thank you, Chair. In response to Councillor Swain and the compliance or not with policy W12, Criterion A is still a potentially sufficient choice for that type of revision within the area. As far as we're aware, there isn't a defined population number for the number of pubs required for a village. So it could be down to members of the committee to decide whether one is enough for a village to step into an area, whether two should be the correct number. In terms of the footpath, again, I've seen those points raised. This would be on the private land of the applicant. I don't think it would be possible to enforce that it's adopted as public footpath. I've got the street scene on front of my screen here on Google Street View, and even after the pub, there's still been a gap between where the public footpath starts and where the path to the houses ends. So you'd still end up with pedestrians walking the road, even though I was pursued further. Okay, thank you very much, Gary. Right, I think that's answered a couple of the queries there. I'll now open it up to members if there's any comments on anything here. Anyone, any comments? Oh, Councillor McGregor. Thank you, Chair. I move that we pass as recommended by the planning officer. Before I do that, what I would like to do is go through the representations and some of the points raised by members of the public in Tedburn. So insufficient parking allocation is one of the points that was raised. The parking allocation is entirely consistent with other planning applications that have been approved in this chamber, particularly the one at Winterborne Road in Tinmouth, where the site has one allocated parking spot with no EV charging, nothing, and people don't have access to highway permits from Devon County Council. So it's entirely in keeping with previous applications, so consistency there. All of the car parks should be included in the application. I'm not entirely sure why that would be, but I don't think that's a material consideration. Highway safety impacts, as the applicant has already noted, they've worked with Devon Highways to ensure the safety there. Visual impact from washing lines, trampolines, garden furniture, bins, et cetera, in front gardens is not a material concern. That is an assumption that these things will happen. It's an assumption of social class potentially using those houses, which is a bit disappointing. Not in keeping with the village, I don't see that that is an issue. The building materially remains unchanged in terms of its shape and size, and with a very few minor changes to the appearance on the outside. I don't think there will be an increase in traffic. If you're talking about a public house, you're talking about a lot of traffic coming and going anyway. Proposed gardens are too small. I don't think that's an issue, and again, consistent with other applications, the gardens are actually perfectly reasonable. The impact on the sewage system, Southwest Water have made no comment, I note, on the application. However, the applicant has stated that he's spoken to Southwest Water, and they've raised no objection with him personally. Proposed conversion does not produce accommodation. It's consistent with the housing needs of the parish. While I'm not entirely sure that we have an idea of what the housing needs of the parish are, but we do need a broad range of accommodation. We're constantly hearing from Councillors, particularly Councillor Paul Parker, that we do need smaller homes for first-time buyers and for families moving out of parents' homes. So, I think that's a good thing. Loss of employment. The pub's been closed since 2022, effectively, so there is currently no employment beyond the applicant himself and his wife. Impact on tourism and the local economy. That might be an impact, but I don't think that's a material one at the moment, because again, the pub is closed. And there is no income coming to the local economy from that particular site. I think the red line is important to Tedbunt-St Mary's history and character. That is something that is probably true. But a closed pub with no long-term future is a closed pub that will deteriorate and it will look like a ruin in a very short time, as we see plenty of them around the country that have been allowed to fall into disrepair. Not being demonstrated that the proposal complies with policy WE12, I don't think that there is any aspect, despite Councillor Swain's assertion that there is, any element of that policy that hasn't been met in this application. The proposal does not provide inclusive access. Unfortunately, this isn't something that can be guaranteed for every single development, particularly when converting an old building in a village. The pub has been insufficiently marketed. I've seen adverts on more than one location for the pub and insufficiently marketed in whose opinion I think is something that we have to do. The pub is, without doubt, viewed as an asset of community value, but as a closed business, how much value has it got to the community? And that's the really key element of the aspect. And the overdevelopment of the site, they're reducing the footprint, the curtilage of the building. They're reducing the amount of vehicles coming and going from that particular site, if you assume it's an open, successful business. And it doesn't actually increase the size of the property, it just changes it to accommodation for people as opposed to accommodation for one couple and formerly a business. And I don't think it meets any of those criteria. And I think the only aspect is the love for the building and love for the pub that is clearly evident in Tedbunt St Mary. And I don't think that's a reason that we can refuse. So I move that we approve this application. So that's your proposal as set out. Do I have a seconder for that? No seconder for that at this time, Councillor McGregor. I'll move on to Councillor Sanders. Thank you, Chair. I would like to suggest that we have a site visit for a number of reasons. The pub has existed for 200 years almost and to have been quashed by lockdown, I think it hasn't had that effect on other pubs. In my ward, pubs have changed their opening hours. In fact, one that did go closed down completely has then been re-licensed by new people moving in and it is fully operating. And we have, I think, four pubs in our village that are frequented by the locals, not necessarily the wider community. I do agree that it is a social space and something that we are keen to encourage that people do have the opportunity since lockdown to meet. They have cultural events on in the one that has reopened in my ward and I'm sure that's the aim for this particular site as well, based on the community group. I don't think that the kitchen size prevents people from offering a fantastic menu. You can get it on a market stall, you get pop-up kitchens, pop-up restaurants, so I think maybe sometimes it's the offer of what's available. So I think that to give due consideration really to the community group, I think we do require a site visit so that we can make that assessment in situ. Yeah, I think it is a very difficult case and I appreciate the recommendation from the planning officer and as has been said, it would be very difficult to go against that, but I think we do have to give it full consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Sanders. Just to bear with you, sir. I'm informed that the purpose of a site visit has to be concerned with the planning matter, not whether it's a viable business or not. Whatever the Tedburn community might think about it, the viability of it, it's really a planning matter that a site makes. So if you're going to do that, you need a planning reason to actually go on a site visit. So is that something? Well, it has been raised that the footpath and pedestrian access and safety, which is obviously highways and the private ownership of the land, does that suffice as a reason to actually view? I would think that would suffice, so you're recommending a site visit on that basis? Yes, thank you. Councillor McPherson. If I may, there is no question of site highway safety listed by Devon County Highway, so that's not a material concern. Thank you. Just bear with me. It's very clear that it says potentially prejudicing highway safety. I'll come to Sim. Can I come to Sim, if you'd like to make a comment, please? Basically, the advice you've got is that it has to be in the material planning consideration. It's completely within your power if you wish to go out and assess to look at that, because whilst you are, you can make a decision based upon the advice or no objection from highways. It is within your power, obviously, to deviate from that, because that is your decision to make if you so wish. So it is a material planning consideration if you want to go out, so I don't think there's any from a planning perspective. If you wish to go out to review the pub and undertake a site visit to look at the highway aspect of it and the lack of the pavements which is being raised, then you're completely entitled to do that. I'll come back to you again. Councillor Sanders. Thank you, and thank you, Sim. I would still propose and I would like to go. I don't generally suggest site visits. I have been on site visits that others have not attended when I've not requested one, so it is unusual for me to request a site visit. I do have concerns. There are three listed buildings also in the vicinity, which I know you'll have taken into account, but if you don't actually go to the venue, I don't think you can get a full appreciation of it in this instance. Highways have, as you rightly say, not objected, but they do make other requests regarding the parking and the sweep. So I think the combined effect with the pavements and in full awareness that we are also encouraging the building of more smaller properties, I think for both parties, I would like to make that site visit. Thank you, Councillor Sanders. Do we have a seconder for that? We've got a few. Councillor Taylor. Okay, thank you. Right, I'll come to you now, Councillor Taylor. Yes, thank you. I was going to raise the issue of parking, and in fact, in terms of highways, basically in terms of the car parking, I did have some concerns that there wasn't sufficient parking. But also, in terms of vehicles leaving the parking, there has to be one space available and free so that they can manoeuvre in the car park. Other than that, they have to reverse out into the road, which I don't think is acceptable. Also, the highways do mention that the lack of spaces could lead to vehicles parking on the public highway potentially prejudicing highway safety. So, they mentioned that themselves. So, I would like to have a site visit in relation to the car park reversing into the road and parking on the road. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Taylor. I don't know if the officers want to come back on that. Anything at all? No, Joe, that's absolutely fine. It's another material by consideration for you to consider when you do your site visit, if that's the way you choose to get through the vote. If there's no other comments, we have a proposal for a site visit, recommended by Councillor Sanders, seconded by Councillor Taylor. All those in favour? Against? Abstentions? Did you have a comment, Councillor Atkins? Well, I did because I'm looking at the picture and there is no footpath in front of the pub. So, I'm a bit confused as to why people are getting excited about the fact that there would be no footpath in front of the houses because there's no footpath there at the moment. So, people clearly have to walk on the road if they go by foot to the pub, which of course they will do because they're responsible residents who don't drink and drive. So, I'm not quite sure it's getting the weight that it needs or deserves. That was the only comment that I had. I think, Councillor Atkins, I don't disagree with you, but I think, you know, as the vote for inspection has gone through, we can assess that when we go on site to actually see what the situation is for ourselves. So, I think that's a good idea. That's absolutely fine, but I just wanted to make that point because there is no footpath. Okay. Thank you very much. I think that we're going to have a site meeting on that to be arranged, so thank you very much regarding that. We'll now move on to our next application and we're going to have a change of officers. Oh, we'll get Councillor Bullivant back in. Can someone... I say we're going to have a change of officers here. Right. And I will introduce the new officer. I think it's her first time at committee. Is that right? It is? This is Lucy Dowdy. Welcome, Lucy. Nice to see you here. And perhaps remiss of me sitting in the chamber not to introduce our trainee planning solicitor, Natalia Anderson. Sorry? She is a solicitor, she's not trained. She's a solicitor, not trained. I do apologise, Natalia. She will be sitting in Paul's place in the future at some time to be arranged. Okay. If we can go now to this application, which is application 2301762, oblique FUL. And it is a flat three at 8 Ceylon Terrace, Dawlish, and it's for a seal off conversion. It's recommended that permission is granted. The ward members for this are Linda Goodman, Bradbury, Rosie Dawson and Martin Wrigley. And as I said, the planning officer is Lucy Danny. So, Lucy, if I could ask you to give any updates and your presentation, please. So there's one update. We received a letter of objection yesterday. Highlighting the following points. So there was no response from Devon County Highways, which is considered misleading as they do not own the road nor maintain it. And the road is privately owned and maintained by the residents. The associated private garage only provides one parking space, which would ultimately impact highway safety. And this objection was sent to all members. Thank you, Lucy. That's it. Thank you. Right. We have a public speaker. That was just the update. OK, I'm jumping ahead. And so this is for a loft conversion for that free eight Ceylon Terrace. As you can see, it's the outline in red. It's the top property of the top flat of the property access from Exeter Road. And this is the existing floor plan. So it's one bedroom with associated living space and space. And this is the proposed floor plan. So they're converting the roof into another bedroom and a bathroom. This is the existing elevations and the proposed elevations. So they're proposing a rear dormer on the northwest elevation and on the southeast elevation to roof skylights, which will convert into retractable balconies. And this is the proposed and existing. And this is the site visit photos and the property in blue. That's the front. And this is the rear and the middle photo is the private garage. Yeah. A bit of extra time. Sorry for that. Thank you, Lucy. No, I think I'm right in saying we have a public speaker. She's an objector and is on Harrison. Yes. If you'd like to come over to the desk there, please. Just press the right hand button. And the light should come on when you press it. So you have three minutes. Thank you. I am the owner of flat to a single terrace with a one third share freehold. The concerns I'm about to share with you are not just my own, but shared by many other residents and members of the public, as you can see from the number of objections you have received. That's free is a second home and has previously been registered as a holiday. Let this conversion make it a two bed with up to six adults potentially staying there with use of up to three cars. There's only one allocated parking space, which is in a shared double garage. Free space is very limited in both the terrorists and extra road. The judge extra road is very dangerous, especially to those unfamiliar with it. See on Terry's a beautiful original Victorian terrorists, which has managed to retain its historic character and appearance over 100 years. Thanks to its prominent coastal location, it is admired by many people, including residents and visitors alike. Residents care a great deal about these qualities and are opposed to the idea of this loft extension and balcony, as are many other members of the public and some members of local history club, all keen to preserve the character. The previous application was refused permission because the applicants wanted to try the balcony, the application put forward now still retains one or be it a folding double window type construction and is simply another way of adding a balcony to the application. As you can see from the pictures you have received, this is the reality of what these balconies look like when folding outwards. If this application is approved, it will set an undesirable precedent for other properties to install similar balconies, which will be permanently open in the summer months. This will change the look of the terrorists are not in keeping with the other houses on the terrace and are not appropriate on our Victorian terrorists. Other properties on scene on terrorists that have had lost conversions have not altered the appearance and character of the terrorists along which front elevation and none have balconies. Let's land a double window folding one. The box section at the rear of the property is also not in keeping with the other surrounding properties. Having protected the terrorists once already from the onslaught of what we consider to be modern monstrosities, we would implore you once more to exercise your powers, please refuse this application and preserve this much-loved terrace, thus ensuring future generations may benefit from the appearance of these final buildings which have no voice that own and require us to speak. We take a lot of pride in our terrace, which is the landmark for the area, and we are very grateful to the Dawlish Town Council for listening to us and unanimously recommending your refusal. Thank you for your time and for listening to our concerns. Thank you very much. Just press it again. That'd be fine. Yeah, the same one. Thank you very much. Right. You can return to your seat if you so wish. Thank you. We will now go to the ward member. One ward member is here. Is Councillor Goodman-Bradbury? The only ward member in town. Yes, thank you, Chair. I've had an awful lot of contact with very concerned residents about this application. The Vaughan Terrace and Riviera Terrace are really held in high regard in Dawlish. Obviously, we had a situation a few years ago when we lost the railway, we lost the road, and we almost lost some of the undermined houses, so I'm just giving that kind of background. So there's a real kind of love and pride of living in the place, which is hence probably a lot of the objections that have come in. So that's setting out a stall from that point of view. It's a really big challenge because obviously it's a holiday town, and I know there are lots of other places in our area that are holiday towns. You want to encourage people to visit, but when it's impacted by subletting of properties in the summer, it means more cars, it means more people coming and going, and it obviously impacts on the people that are there for the whole of the year. And I can almost hear the planning officers in the room saying not material planning considerations, but I'm just trying to give you a feel for how this impacts the residents from that point of view. I'm really interested to see that there's no objections from highways, but as I understand, the actual road that accesses from Exeter Road actually has no impact on Devon Highways because it's a private road. It's a road that has had to be repaired and had to be funded by various inputs before now. It's a very constrained access to the road, and I'm just going to start with this point. It actually crosses a large piece of pavement that is a very busy cycle path, so a lot of the residents are very concerned about the parking issues in this road because any extra people who are staying, if this acts as another place that people can stay in, another bedroom means more people, which possibly means more cars, this property has one allocated parking space, so it's a constrained issue there. A permanent balcony, it's a Victorian terrace, and I know we're talking about the back of the property, but this is going to be setting a precedent on the whole of the terrace. The roof lights, fine, in the sense that roof lights are an attractive thing for the people who live in the houses, but an actual balcony, this is a step too far. It's quite modern looking, it seems out of place for the nature of the terrace. The residents are very concerned that should this be passed, there's going to be a string of other applications that are going to come in, there's going to be more properties that are in the process of conversion, and this is going to be a process that means that it's not going to be a place to live anymore, it's going to be a place that is very quiet in the winter because the holiday makers won't be staying there, again, not planning concerns. I'm just trying to give you a feel for where this is all heading. I think the other point to consider, as I understand it, it is a listed property that I'll be corrected by the planning officers from that point of view. I'm just really concerned that this is something that is not appropriate for the building, is not right for the residents who are living there, and is not right for this Victorian terrace in a very prominent Victorian spot on the coastal path, and I'm going to leave it there. Thank you very much. Councillor Goodman-Bradley, any comments there? Right. Yes, as you said, some of the issues you were raising for things like second home are not material planning considerations. The one thing I would say is everything you said about the visual impact, absolutely fine, that's within your decision to make in terms of assessing the impact of that proposal upon the visual appearance of the building, and whether or not that has a detriment to the character of the area, the visual appearance of the building, the character of that, absolutely, that's for you to make a decision on. There is a point of clarification in relation to the parking issue. The application isn't for a conversion of the internal accommodation, because the internal accommodation is already residential, it's an ancillary area which is used presently for storage associated with the residential unit. What's being applied for is the actual physical works. So it's the fact that it may form another bedroom, they would be able to, if they didn't want windows in that room, they could use that for residential accommodation at some moments in time and it wouldn't be development. So it isn't part of development which we are assessing as part of this application. So because it's not generating anything which, we can only assess the visual impact of the external alterations to the building, the addition of a parking space, which they could do at the moment anyway without having to put the dormer in, isn't something that we consider. So the impact upon parking and the traffic generation isn't something that we can consider because it doesn't form part of the proposal. The proposal is for the external alterations to the building. And as I said, if you wish, if you disagree with the officer's report in terms of how it will appear, that's entirely up to you. But if we were to try and refuse it on highway grounds through traffic generation, lack of parking, we would really struggle with that simply because the existing loft area is already residential. And it could be used for a bedroom now if they wish to use it for that purpose, because it is residential, ancillary residential accommodation. It's the physical works of the alterations to the external appearance, which we're here to consider. I do appreciate that our descriptions of development probably hasn't helped you here because it does say loft conversion, but it is associated with the external appearance and it's something that I've asked when we register the applications that we clarify that for the future for your purposes. Hopefully that's acceptable, any queries or problems on that issue. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Can I just ask that? Well, just a couple of points. But one question regarding the listed building. I didn't know that it was a listed building, but is it or is it not? It is. No, it's not a listed building. And my other point was really regarding the visibility. I know it's the loft would be not really visible from the road, but would it be visible from the coastal path? So is that something that would be taken into account? So for the site visit, it was assessed from the road, but I think due to the angle and the height of the building, it's unlikely. But I think a site visit would be beneficial if that's the concern. OK, thank you for that. Councillor Taylor. Yeah, a couple of questions, please. Do they have permitted development for windows is one of the questions. And are there any other skylight windows in that terrace is the second. And also the balcony. Is that a balcony or is that a window? And I understand that the main part of the balcony is actually inside the property and there's nothing goes outside the property. So the question is, is it window? Is it balcony? Do they have permitted development for windows? And are there other skylight windows in that terrace? Thank you. Yes, they've got no permitted development rights. It's flat. So the balcony would be part of a skylight. So it opens up. It's retractable. When it's closed, it will be flushed to the roof. So when it is open, you know, would be a balcony. But when it's closed, you can't see it. If you look on the site, was it photos to the left? The neighbouring property does have skylights. There are quite a few. Can we have the application up again? Is that possible? Just bear with rain for the first time. Yes, I think. Oh, excellent. Yes, the building to the left, the green building does have skylights. I think you can see one just at the top of the just as the top of the roof on the green building. So just to clarify, then, so the permitted development has been removed. They've got no permitted development for windows. So I'll answer that. They're messing with the microphone because these are flat in this particular building. It doesn't benefit from permitted development rights. If this had been a single dwelling house and there may be some on that terrace that are, I'm not sure. They would benefit from those rights and the installation of this roof light would not require planning permission. The only reason it requires planning permission is because we're dealing with a building that has been converted into flats, doesn't have those permitted development rights. We're referring to it as a balcony. It's more of a balustrade. So essentially, your roof light pops up like a normal one, a bottom glazed section pushes forwards and you get a little rail either side. If weather's nice, yes, you'll pop it open, but you do the same if you have a roof light and if you've ever lived in a house that has, you know, you can have them almost all the way up. So visually, it's very it's not massively different to a normal roof light. And when it's closed, it looks like a normal roof light. And of course, we've described how we perceive that appearance from the street being quite limited. The coastal path, you may get glimpses, but again, it's not to the degree that it's impacting the terrace so much that we would consider that an overriding justification to refuse the scheme. Thank you. So in terms of that, then, if there's any dwellings in that terrace that are not flats, they've still retained their permitted development. And in actual fact, they could have a huge skylight window in their roof if they wanted. Yeah, that's correct. Right. Thank you. Councillor McGregor. Thank you, Chair. This is to the this is all work to the rear of the building, is that correct? No, it's to the front and the back. To the front and the back. We have the picture at the front of the building as well. So you can see the see that the northwest elevation is essentially the rear and then the area that faces towards the sea is the southeast that you've got there. And you can see that the the roof and it just looks like a roof light, as you can see, when it's closed. Like I say, has minimal impact when it's popped open. Thank you. That's all I was looking for. Councillor Nutley. Thank you, Chair. There seems to be rather quite a lot of confusion on this application. I'm bearing in mind what Councillor Bradley has mentioned. I think it'd pay us to have a site visit to really ascertain exactly what the situation is on that. So I'd like to propose a site visit. Do we have a seconder for that, Councillor Nuttall? OK, thank you very much. Any other comments? No, if that's it. Councillor Boulavent. Just looking at the plan on page 33, it would appear that the terrace at the rear has over the years had a number of alterations and developments take place. Given that number 11, number six and the one at the bottom of the page show extensions at the back. And certainly the rear view, the photograph that was shown indicates the differences at the rear of the buildings anyway. So there is a precedent of development taking place and certainly putting garages at the back of a Victorian terrace would imply that the garages were a late tradition. So there is a history of development taking place down this road. Looking for material reasons for rejection. I haven't been able to see any. From the comments that have come in, can the officers advise if they have seen any reason, material reason that has been put forward which would validate a rejected decision? The officer's recommendation is for approval on this. It's not for the officers to provide reasons, an alternative reason to refuse the application. The officer's recommendation is here. As I said at the beginning, it's whether or not you consider that the proposed development is visually acceptable or not and that's the clarification about the use of the loft accommodation. It is whether or not you consider that the visual impact of this change is sufficient to justify a refusal. But obviously the officer's recommendation is one of an approval. So it's for you to make that decision. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Councillor Sanders. Thank you, Chair. I just want to make sure that the officers were aware. I don't know if anybody else did, but I received an email on the 6th of June from a Mr Toynton with an image of the type of balcony, a photograph. So I don't know if that was sent to everybody. But apart from that, could we have a look at the slides again, please, because I just want to clarify in my mind what the sort of raised that you've got an interior sort of one as well. That's on elevation. That one on the proposed. So the large structure proposed back is higher than the existing chimney. Is that correct? It looks it. So that's on the road side, isn't it? And the the main road at the back of the property. Thank you. And the balcony that will form from a skylight is seaward facing. Great. And I think the main road into Dawlish is at a higher elevation. So this. I'm trying to get my eye levels in terms of where that is in relation to the road. And we don't have an image of that, do we? No, it does look down, though, leading in. It does slip down leading into the front of the property. So it is on a higher elevation. Sorry, I'm just quickly looking at Google Street. I can't share it with you, unfortunately. But the road side on extra road, you've got a number of dwellings, quite high walls as well. I think you can. You do struggle to see the rear of the terrace from what I can see. You may get you may get the odd glimpse through. Yeah, there's the odd glimpse through. It's certainly not prominent views that you're going to get. And it is going through three intervening properties. So it's certainly not prominent. I think from memory, it's not a hugely aesthetically appealing back of a row of terrace properties on that main road. I'm not going to pass comments. No, it's not a feature. No, facing side is is an attractive feature. I think to use our terminology, the principal elevation would certainly be the seaward facing the rear is what you would expect to see. And as Councillor Sullivan pointed out, various alterations over the years, like I say, intervening properties, looking at the street view, the road level is approximately roof level at the rear of the roof of the roof of the terrace. Okay, thank you. Want to come back, Councillor Goodman Bradbury. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, there's someone who's been around that place for a while. I don't live on that terrace, as it were, but just know it very well. Yeah, you when you come into see long terrace, you are at you can, as you've just said, it's you've got a good view of the back of the property. But obviously, that also is being impacted at the front of the property, because obviously the the extension is impacting both front and back with the Velux window. There aren't any of those kind of size windows or balconies, however you want to call them Velux or whatever. There are small windows, but there aren't any of the large windows that are on that terrace to this to this point. This is the first one. Residents are very concerned about the precedent that such a large balcony would set. Yes, it's a beautiful view, but is it in keeping with that Victorian terrace? And I think I know it's been proposed to have a site visit, and if members are minded to do that, that I think that might give a better picture of the front and the back situation. Thank you. Councillor McGregor. Thank you, Chair. I think on the point Councillor Saunders made, I think the main point to remember there is the the rear extension is below the roof line marginally, but it is below the roof line, so it doesn't protrude into the into the area in any specific way, and it doesn't raise the roof line. So I don't think that would really cause a material concern. In terms of the actual frontage, frontage is onto the railway, and people are going to be whipping past air, mostly on trains and not really going to get much of a chance to see any windows or people on balconies because they're well below the height of the height of the building where the proposed changes are to be made. And I think if you want to kind of view the terrace in its full glory, you have to be some distance offshore. And again, most people aren't really going to be standing in the middle of the estuary there or down the coast, you know, trying to get an assessment of what the what the actual terrace looks like. In terms of, you know, coming back to the senior planning leader, I think it is it is a situation where this space is already in use, and this is to make it a useful space for for accommodation. And I think in reality, I think we are really talking just about works, not about the purpose. So I think that's the basis. I don't see the point in kicking the can down the road simply because there's an election on. I think this should be decided here and now. The recommendation is to approve by the planning officers. And I think that is quite clearly the process and I move as set out. Seconded by Councillor Taylor. Any other comments? Yes, I'm just going to come to the motion on site because there was a proposal by Councillor Nutley regarding a site visit seconded by Councillor Nutley. I'll go to that first, because that was proposed. OK. Yeah. Councillor MacGregor's first. So that was as set out. Councillor MacGregor seconded by Jane Taylor. So all those in favour as set out. Against. Abstentions. So that's passed. So now we have to vote again on substantive motions. So all those in favour as Councillor MacGregor as set out and seconded by Councillor Taylor. All those in favour. Yes, substantive vote. Against. Abstentions. It's the same. So that is as set out passed. That is approved. Thank you very much. We now move on to the next item on the agenda. We're going to have a change of officers again. Thank you, Lucy. And now we've got a senior enforcement officer, Stephen Hobbs, taking place. Thank you, Stephen. And this application is in respect of an enforcement report. And the application is 24 oblique 0017, oblique ENF, and it's land at Chardonnay, Woodland. Unauthorized sighting of a residential mobile home and a recommendation is that an enforcement notice be issued. Ward Councillors John Nutley, Stuart Rogers and Jack Major and the enforcement officer is Stephen Hobbs. And I'll ask Stephen to present this if he can, please. Thank you, Chairman. This is one of the long history. Basically, we've previously served enforcement notices for the use of the land. First off, it's the land to the north west of the site has got authorization for three pitches. Over the years, the owners tried to move into the adjacent bit of land with various planning applications for residential use. And a few years ago, a number of mobile homes were moved into the sites. And from the investigation, it was being used for storage of mobile homes and the creation of a large area of high standing. We served an enforcement notice against that and to require the high standing to be removed and the caravans to cease being stored on the land. That wasn't complied with, so we looked at taking legal action against it. And we're in court area this year where the owner was found guilty for noncompliance. But as part of that, it became apparent that the mobile homes were being lived in. And from information available to date, there is at least three families living in the mobile homes, which you can see here. And there may be more on there at this time. So we've recently served a planning contravention notice to ask what they're all being used for and to get the full information. That's more to help when we come to serve a notice that we're serving the correct people. But the purpose of today is to get authorization because it could make people homeless, which is why it's being brought before the planning committee, not done under delegated powers. In response to the report, I've received confirmation from the parish meeting that they are supportive of the action to be taken. I've also received information from the agent basically asking us to defer it, given that there's currently a planning application that was recently refused as subject of an appeal. And there's a hearing coming up at the end of July. And it also said that we shouldn't be serving it without all the information about all the occupants and that. But my view is that we're looking at the use of the land as a whole for the citing of residential mobile homes. And once I've got the additional information about all the occupants, we can make sure it's served correctly. So that's where we are at the moment. Thank you very much, Stephen. Right. We've got a ward member here, Councillor Nutley. Thank you, Chair. As Stephen's saying, obviously there's a lot of history on here. So many applications have been refused. So many enforcement notices have been served on various issues through there. I know you sent a letter to the parish council, Chair, which you said in this instance from the recent court proceedings from the non-compliance with the two enforcement notices, it became clear that some of the mobile homes cited on the land are now being residential purposes as a result of the unauthorised change of use. And you also mentioned that you apologise for not contacting the parish council sooner on the matter. But it is not something that has come to light recently. Obviously, you received a letter from the chair of the parish council saying that the assertion that it has only recently become clear that the static units on the unauthorised development are in residential use inaccurate. For many years, Woodland Parish Council has repeatedly informed the council that an increasing number of both mobile static homes have been installed on the unauthorised site and that these are being used for residential purposes. This is what the council emailed to and this was on the 2nd of October, 2020. So it's not just a recent issue on that. I'd like to go on to say that some time has now elapsed since both these kind of breaches were drawn to your department's attention. The static homes that have recently been installed now appear to be occupied and there are motorhomes in the area as well as other vehicles. Going on to say that the same site has been subject to various applications over recent years for the sighting of additional gypsy caravans and travellers' residential pitches. For a number of reasons, these have been refused and the pills on the application have been unsuccessful. Despite these failed attempts to secure unauthorised status of the pitches, the site owner has made no attempt to stop using the site for residential purposes and therefore enforcement action is entirely appropriate. And obviously I'm pleased now that this has now come forward for approval as for enforcement. But as I say, there's been so many issues with the owners of this site. I know Stephen's had an awful lot of dealings with this, but if I'm able to propose, I will propose that this enforcement is recommended. Thank you, Councillor Nutley. Councillor McGregor. Thank you, Chair. Nice to see you, Mr Hobbs. I think from the perspective, I think the officer has taken a position where he has assessed the facts, as opposed to hearsay coming from various locations about the owners. So I think we have to accept that it's as laid out in the report in terms of the occupation. My concern, as always, relates to those who are living, unfortunately, in contravention of the requirements of planning law. And to establish more accurately how many people that actually relates to and how quickly we can get them rehoused as a council, because that is the key element to this. I'm sure you'll admit I've taken a consistent approach to this from previous enforcement actions. So is six months long enough to get them rehoused by this authority or to help them find other places to live? And I think that would be the key element for me in that respect, if you just hold on just two seconds. I also understand that there is an ongoing enforcement issue here, which is separate to the accommodation issue of having people living there since 2023, as laid out. And I think it's quite important that we, once we've established the process for getting those people who are currently in that awkward situation into, it's how we then make it a serious enforcement for the owner of the land to make sure that they don't continue to breach the law and continue to thumb their nose at this planning authority. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor McGregor. Stephen, would you like to add? As part of the process, we've given six months for them to comply with the notice, which we consider to be sufficient time. If the owner doesn't believe that to be the case, then they can appeal that to the enforcement notice and request additional time, and it's down to the inspector to make that decision. But we consider the six months that's given in the notice is sufficient to find alternative accommodation, really. And coming back to your second point about the continued breach, if they're not complied with, then it becomes an offence and we would take legal action against it. And that's the general process that we've taken against the previous notices that haven't been complied with. Thank you, Stephen. Councillor Sanders. Yeah, the reason we brought it, because we've already got an existing enforcement notice which has gone to court, that relates to the storage, whereas it's now transpired this residential accommodation. So we're now, because we've gone down a route and we've gone to court in relation to the breach for the storage, now we realise that they've got residential in there. This is why we're bringing it back. We've got the appropriate enforcement notice so that we can then pursue that and they then can appeal against that. There is a current application that's currently at appeal. They would, if members of our mind were to approve the enforcement notice, they would then have the opportunity to appeal within 28 days of that notice. And what would normally happen is that the appeal for the residential accommodation and the enforcement notice would be conjoined together. And they would be viewed by the inspector in one go together. And if the inspector then obviously dismisses the appeal, then we would look to take action to get the occupants removed and the hard standing removed as per the requirements of the enforcement notices. Thank you, Sam. Councillor Sanders. Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to propose that we approve as set out, I think, based on what I've heard and the images. It's clear breach of the rules. If we don't enforce it, there is the opportunity for it to continue and expand. And there's no point in us having any planning rules at all if we don't enforce. So I move that we approve as set out. Thank you. I do have a seconder for that. Councillor Goodman Bradbury. Right. Councillor Taylor. Thank you, Chair. In relation to this, what I would I'm considering this in terms of the reasonable person test. So what would a reasonable person think of what's happening here in Teenbridge? And it's my view that they wouldn't accept that somebody could purchase a piece of land, that they could store caravans. They could will ignore any enforcement action that they can then put people into those caravans and make it a residential site. They would then ignore any breaches of planning and they would not ignore any enforcement action. And I believe that quite that as a council, we need to find gypsy and traveller sites under legislation. But I do not believe that we should allow, in effect, which could be an unlawful incumbent. So I would go ahead with the enforcement action. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Taylor. Councillor Cox. Can I just ask, have there's been allusion to with Woodland Parish meeting that the residential accommodation be being going on for a number of years? Have they done the 10 year test so they could get a certificate of legal of lawfulness? I know that the person there now hasn't owned it for that long and the land for that long. So and the use would have started really when the caravan started being moved on there, probably for the storage. They've been there for the from the beginning of them moving on there. The storage use probably only occurred sort of four or five years ago. So that's when all the applications and that started occurring as well. So it's all within well within the 10 years. And can I ask about I take it their children are resident there. Are they in local schools or are they educated by the travel education service? And that's the purpose of the planning contravention notices to get the full extent of all the people there. We know this. Some families live in there. I don't believe they have children. But the full extent of the planning contravention is to get that information so that we can put that in a notice at the end. But, you know, given that this to comply, we think six months would be sufficient anyway. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Bellavant. Thank you. Is this in reality a gypsum traveller illegal site? The site, the authorised site is a gypsum traveller site, and I believe that the people who are staying in the mobile homes on the unauthorised site are family members. So it is. I believe it to be. OK, thank you. OK, thank you very much. Unless anyone else wants to speak, we have a proposal that enforcement is carried out as set out by Councillor Sanders. And I think Councillor Goodman Bradbury, you seconded that. So all those in favour that we go along with the officers recommendation. Against. Two abstentions. So the enforcement notice is approved. Thank you very much. We now move on to item eight, which is appeal decisions. There is a number of appeal decisions. They're mostly were dismissed. A couple were allowed unless anyone has any comments on those. I don't think the officers have any comment on any of that. Nothing specific. No, no comment. Right. So that's just a note. Thank you very much. Item nine is major decision summary. There are none. So obviously for us to note that. Thank you very much, Councillors, for today. We'll say that's an end to a meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. .