Transcript

starting again. Good afternoon. Welcome to today's trying and high ways community meeting. I'll pass you over to Joanne. I will ask each member to introduce themselves. So I'll start with you, Mike, please. Good afternoon. I'm Mike Chaplin. I'm a Councillor for Salty Ward. Peter Price, the short-lived Councillor for Shagney and Bryson. Tony Downey and Councillor for Mossboro Ward. Sorry about that, Chair. Councillor Gulliver, I'll show you you're in Bryson Ward. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Ritchie-Williams, member for Stalington Ward and substitute here today. Good afternoon. I'm Roger Davidson, Councillor for Exelsaw Ward. Good afternoon. Barbara Masters, Councillor for Exelsaw Ward. Good afternoon. My name's Active Woodcraft and I'm a Councillor for forward ward. And I'm a Woodcock Councillor for East Eccleshire and more modern charity meeting. Before we get into it, I'd just like to remind members that Peter, it is his last planning meeting. Never to be seen again in part unless he comes, unless he comes as a member of public. So, from all of us to each, a good look, thank you very much for your time. [applause] John, we'll do our housekeeping, please. Thank you, Chair. In the event of the fire alarm sounding, please take instructions from staff and stewards. The assembly point is at Tudor Square. Please can I request everyone to switch mobile devices to silent mode so as not to disturb the conduct of the meeting. The meeting today will be webcast and the recording will also be available for people to be alerted through the Council's website. It is also possible that Sheffield Live TV will record and rebroadcast this meeting. While ever the meeting is open to the public, photography video and sound recording with the proceedings is permitted. However, the Chair has discretion to withdraw or suspend this permission. For example, if the recording is disrupting the conduct of the meeting or is being undertaken in a manner which would capture personal information or in the event that a member of the public participated in the meeting objects is being recorded. Thank you. Do you have apologies for what you're hearing? I had apologies from Gladys Chapman and Councillor Williams is here at the substitute for Councillor Chapman. Also, apologies from Councillor Little and Councillor Ola. We have nothing for exclusion of pressure for work, no? Thank you. Deparations of interest. Does anyone agree with that? Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to make a statement with regard to item 10A on the agenda regarding the planning application of 45A Booklands Crescent. We last looked at this in July and it was about three months after I was canvassing on board. It was canvassing on Booklands Crescent and a gentleman who I didn't know or have any connection with or any contact with since did raise a concern over what he felt was a dangerously leaning tree from the site of 45A Booklands Avenue. Leading over his back garden and so I wrote some Mr Hinchliffe on the 24th of October to make him aware of the situation because we didn't want any mishaps. So, in my mind, there's never been any connection between this leaning tree and the planning proposal before the committee, so I have a fully clear conscience in taking full part in the determination on this planning application. If that's okay with you, Chair, or the rest of the committee? Yeah, sorry, thank you. Anyone else? No. I have a statement to read out. With regard to application number two, three, stroke, zero, three, six, three, one, stroke, FUL. But, as only again today, I can confirm that I have no disposable security interest or additional interest in the application. I have an open mind in relation to the application with board. Thank you. The mission previously submitted, again writing number five, page nine, page nine, page nine, page nine, page nine, page nine. Thank you very much. Site visits, then we'll go into members, diaries, direct, as in when it's needed. Thank you. Item seven, full diversion, full bullet, SHE, stroke, 162, it's shy of life, Sheffield. Thank you, Chair. This is an application that received from colleagues in the Politvisa weight team to divert the legal rule of SHE-116, which used to run along the site of the old landfill site of cold. A couple of slides just to identify the new routes. So, it's not very clear on the road. That is looking at point B on the plan, if you've got the plan. So, if you look from, that is looking from point from Standish where the current slide, that is an informal link that links into the new route. You can see the paths crushed brick type surface, it's well maintained by the public rights away team, and it will lead through to informal public paths on the part of Spring site. That shows the connection at point A, so that takes back onto the formal route of the public rights away with the route going out onto part, springs onto the open space there. I think that might be the last of the slides. Yeah, okay. The existing legal rule doesn't exist anymore, it's just basically a line on the map. Sure. I remember those questions. Yeah, yeah. I was just wondering, did you do the public comment on these proposals get a chance to raise objections? Yes, there will be a six week consultation period once we make the order. Thank you. Peter. This is a new path virtually for members and I think it's very welcome, it's a nice introduction onto the grassy part of the, I think it's important, it's a fully supportive team. There we go to help, please. For the recommendation. For chair. For chair. For chair. For chair. For chair. For chair. So, let's the previous one, this is another application from the full rights away team. These are parts of two paths at the Sky Edge Manor Oaks area that have become all loved for a better word. They're very often grown, inaccessible, there's a series of other paths, both public and parks paths that cross the site and link up. The dotted line indicates a new path, although that's not been provided as a consequence of this order. I'll just show the next slide, please. So, that is the point A, looking towards point B and you can see that it's just impenetrable or undergrowth, a bit of woodland. Point next slide, please. And that's the other end that is point B, looking from not all place, again, it's impenetrable and you can see one of the alternative paths that run just behind the green rail fence. And that connects just a bit further forward of where I put the area. Next slide, please. I don't think there might be one more slide, I'm sure. No, sorry. So, yeah, these have been inaccessible for many years, we've not received complaints from the public. There will be a public consultation as part of the automaking process. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Look out very many of this comments. Any questions? Can we go for a help, please, Mike? For the recommendation chair. For chair. For chair. For chair. For chair. Agree chair. For chair. For chair. For chair. That's his pass, thank you very much. We're moving out to item nine, three preservation order, number four, seven, four, four to seven mobile chair field, S10, MIPE, GQ, which on page 29 of the agenda. I'll pass it to you. I was seeking confirmation of TPO 474, an order made on the 14th of November, 2023, to protect two mature beach trees, and one line within the curtledge of four to seven more back road. You can find a copy of the TPO within the report at appendix A, and you can see images of the trees within appendix C. On the 23rd of March 23, we received communication from a member of the public requesting the trees at the property be protected. The inquiry stated that the house had been unoccupied for several months, a change of ownership prepared lightly, and the inquiry was concerned that new owners may not view the trees in the same way as their current custodians. As the trees are not within a conservation area, they're not afforded any form of protection, such as that afforded by section 211 of the time and country planning act. Oversubsequent months, the inquiry contacted us again, detailing activity at the house, which led the inquiry to believe that the house was being emptied for sale. The Council can make a TPO if it appears expedient in the interest of immunity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in the area. And it might be considered expedient to make an order if we believe there is a risk of trees being felled or pruned in a way which would have an impact on the immunity of the area. But it's not always necessary for that to be in immediate risk, for that to be a need to protect trees. Government guidance that accompanies the regulations provides an example of other sources of risk, such as changes in property ownership. It states that intentions to fell trees are not always known in advance, so it may sometimes be appropriate to practically make orders as a precaution. Given this and that the Council have been informed of a possible change of ownership, an inspection of the trees was conducted to see whether it would be expedient in the interest of immunity to make the subject to an order. The site was visited by myself from 1 November 23, and it was noted at this time that the house appeared unoccupied. The trees were assessed using the TEMPO method, a copy of which can be found at Appendix B. And the inspection revealed a group of very striking trees, consisting of a line and two beach, and also two sycamores, which are of less equality and therefore not included within the order. These trees form a group along with other trees which sit within the adjacent garden and which are also not included in the order. Visible from a number of different locations, the trees were in very good condition with potential attention spans within the 4,200 year range. The protected trees are principal members of the group, and a loss of them would negatively alter the symmetry and cohesion of the group. The boundary wall has been designed to fit around them, and the group is a distinctive feature of the local area. Two duly made objections to the TEMPO were received on 15 December 23, and more representation in support of the TEMPO. The objections, which can be seen within Appendix D, state that the owners, sorry, the objectors are part owners of the property, and they dispute that the property is undergoing a change of ownership, as is stated in the formal notice accompanying the TEMPO, and that given that the trees have been previously maintained under good agricultural management, and that the house is not undergoing a change of ownership that the TEMPO is unnecessary, and may create an owner's layer of administration. While not related to the TEMPO, additional points were also raised, but as the Sheffield City Council adapted upon hearsay when serving the TEMPO, and that one of the objectors didn't receive notification of the TEMPO. In response to the objections, notifications from the TEMPO were sent by first class record to delivery as is the custom. I'm confident that we fulfilled our duty in order to make all relevant parties aware of the making of the TEMPO. With regards to the owner's nature of the TEMPO, the TEMPO doesn't prevent owners from maintaining their trees. In most cases, it only requires that work to protect the trees be subject to consent from the council. The consent ought to be granted where the work shows were justified with regards to its potential impact on the health and the meat of the trees. It's not considered to be a substantially owner's process, or a reason why TEMPO should not be made or confirmed. In assessing whether it be expedient in the interest of community to make the trees subject to the order, the council based its assessment on information received from members of the public and observation of the officers who attended the house and determined that it was unoccupied. In this regard, the council was acting in good faith with the information available to them at the time, although it's accepted that the wording of the order could have been framed to indicate the impression that the house may be undergoing a change of ownership as opposed to stating that it was. With regards to whether the order is appropriate, given information that the house is not under imminent change of ownership, as has already been described, there doesn't need to be an immediate risk for the need to protect trees. Changes in property ownership and intentions to fill trees are not always known in advance, and this means it's permissible for the council to make orders proactively as a precaution, which is, in fact, the basis that this TPO has made. The trees offer a very high level of immunity to the surrounding area, and while the house may not be undergoing a current change of ownership, it has been stated that the house may change ownership at some point as all houses must. At this point, there would be no form of protection for the trees as the house is not within a conservation area, meaning that the trees could potentially be removed at some point, and that would offer a significant loss of immunity to the surrounding area. In closing, we have one representation in favour of the TPO, which was made by a member of the public who commented on the view to the trees, their contributions by diversity, and who referred to the trees as a community asset. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, can I ask Vanessa? I mean, it's stated that they've been under good oil, but I've written that, our Oracle management, is that true? Yes, they are well maintained, and well, it's after trees. And is it because they've been following a regime that you'd approve of? Are they approved in an acceptable way where pruning has been conducted? Yes, because, you know, for well, that we've questioned sort of what the pruning could be. Is it a case that if the TPO was granted, that sort of they were allowed to continue with the pruning regime management regime until now, and only sort of require permission if they depart from that regime? Any pruning unless it fell under an exception would be subject to the need for consent, but we would be minded to grant consent for that works where it is appropriate, yes. Right, no, it's just, you know, as I say, checking that they're allowed to continue without permission. What is specific permission for each intervention they use, unless it is the departure from what we've been doing until now? Each intervention, unless it was covered by an exemption, i.e. the tree was dead, it was dangerous, etc, etc, would require consent, but I would have thought that we would be likely to grant consent for that works, because the works that we've done are appropriate. Yes, so basically, yeah, we can't depart from what usual processes is what comes to, is what you're saying, the processes that we've done at TPO, then they have to apply regardless of what they've done in the past, and whether it's different or what they're doing in the future. That's correct, yeah. Thank you. Anyone else? Questions? No comments? They are impressive trees, but yeah, I'm voting for the recommendation. Yes, support the recommendation chair. Yeah, for the recommendation chair. For the recommendation. For the recommendation chair. Yeah, for the recommendation chair. For the recommendation chair. For the recommendation chair. Thank you, I've just passed. Now move to item 10, application under various acts and relations. We have one application here today, item 10, by application number 23, 0, 3, 6, 3, 1. The application site is accessed via Brooklyn's Avenue, as you can see from the image on the screen. Access via a narrow access way in between number 45 and 47 Brooklyn's Avenue. The site is located to the south of properties on Brooklyn's Avenue, and to the north of properties on school green lane. The area of view illustrates the existing bungalow on the site, and the rest of the site is largely vegetated, used as garden area, and it features a number of trees. The most mature belt is located to the east of the site and is covered by a tree preservation order. It's proposed to demolish the existing bungalow on the site and erect for detached dwellings. These will have parking to the front and immunity space to the rear. The drawings indicate that the majority of the trees are to be retained, and adequate root protection is proposed. There are a small number of trees to be removed for in total, and one small tree group. These are located to the south of the site, and are all category C, and not covered by the tree preservation order. The loss will be compensated for by replacement planting, with a landscape plan indicating approximately 20 replacement trees. The dwellings are predominantly two stories, with a third story in the roof and served by windows in the gable elevations. That top section illustrates the front elevations of the dwellings, which step down the site to take account of the topography, which falls from west to east. This slide illustrates a number of sections through the site, so the first two sections show the relationship of the proposed dwellings with properties to the front on Brooklyn's Avenue. The bottom section illustrates the section through dwelling, and you can't quite make it out on there, but it does show one of the properties, which has got planning permission on school, green lane to the rear of the site. It's not very visible there, but it is indicated by a dash line. These are some more sections through the site, so the top sections show sections through from north to south, and the third section shows a view to the rear of the properties. The very bottom section illustrates the properties on Brooklyn's Avenue, and you can just make out the dwellings behind the existing properties. You can see plot one and plot two there, plots three and four are screened by the trees in that image, and you can see that there will be glinged views of the dwellings, but they won't be overly visible because of the existing properties and because of the separation distance, which is approximately 40 to 50 meters. This is an image looking up Brooklyn's Avenue, the dark property that you can see there is number 47, and the access drive is situated between the hedge and the grey fence. This is a view stood on the access drive looking back towards Brooklyn's Avenue. You can see number 47 to the left hand side of the screen and number 45 to the right hand side of the screen. This is a view looking towards the northern boundary towards properties on Brooklyn's Avenue. You can make out the trees within the site there, and this is another view of properties on Brooklyn's Avenue taken from further back within the site. Again, you can see the trees that are situated along the boundary which have to be retained in this image. I think it was taken in February. There's not much tree cover in the spring and summer months, and the trees will provide more screening between the site and the existing dwellings. This is an image looking towards the eastern boundary of the site. The trees that you can see there are subject to a tree preservation order, and those are proposed to be retained by the proposal. This is a view looking towards the south boundary of the site. You can just make out a yellow digger there, which is constructing a new property on the school green lane. This is an image of the existing bungalow, which is to be demolished. This is another view taken towards the south of the site of existing properties. Again, these are existing properties to the south of the site, and an image at the front of the bungalow. This is a view of properties on Brooklyn's Avenue. This is taken from the western side of the access drive, so it illustrates the properties around 47 upwards. I'll just go back to the site layout and discuss the key points whilst this is on the screen. I'll leave that up for a moment. Members will recall this site as it was previously presented to the committee in July of last year. The scheme is very similar to that scheme, which was presented at committee, but there are several material considerations, which must now be taken into account in the assessment of the scheme, and critically these relate to an appeal decision and a noise survey. There are two previous refusals on the site, which are relevant. The first was for five dwellings that was decided in September 2022. The second was for four dwellings, which was decided in July 2023. In the intervening period between that decision for the four dwellings and the current date, the application for five dwellings has been appealed, and that appeal has been dismissed. Although it was dismissed, it did narrow the focus of the reasons for refusal and those that the outcome of that appeal and its findings are material to consideration of this current scheme. The four dwelling scheme is currently being appealed, but no decision has been issued as of yet. I'll go through the key points relating to the application and highlight the key material differences, including referencing what the inspector said in relation to the dismissed appeal. So in relation to the design of the scheme, the five dwelling scheme was refused. One of the reasons for refusal related to the designed and cramped form of the development, which was considered to result in over development. The inspector agreed with the concerns about the design and the cramped form and appearance of the proposal. However, the four dwelling scheme was not refused for issues relating to design and appearance, because it was considered at that stage that by removing one of the properties that that reason for refusal had been addressed. In terms of design, the proposal is for large detached dwellings to be constructed of stone. They've got contemporary detailing. They won't be particularly highly visible from outside the site boundary because of the intervening dwellings and the separation distances and officers considered that the design is acceptable. In terms of immunity, this was a reason for refusal for both of the previously refused schemes, and there are two key areas to consider in relation to immunity. So firstly, there's the impact from the development surrounding properties in terms of overbearing, overshadowing, and privacy. And then secondly, there's the impact from the use of the driveway and the general use of the site for residential living. In terms of the first matter, so overbearing, oversharing, and privacy, the inspector concluded that the impact on properties on Brooklyn's Avenue was acceptable. There's a separation distance of over 40 metres between the dwellings, and that's considered to be sufficient to ensure that there's no one acceptable impact in terms of overbearing, overshadowing, or privacy. The inspector did raise concerns about the impact of privacy to the rear of the site, so the dwellings to the south, because the separation distances between the rear of the properties and those dwellings was less than 10 metres. However, the four dwelling scheme previously looked at and this scheme pulled the dwellings away from that rear boundary, such that there is now at least 10 metres between the rear of the properties and the garden boundary, and there is at least 21 metres between main facing windows. So in that regard, that issue, the scheme does comply with relevant policy in terms of separation distances. There will be a clear difference between the site as it's used now and how it would be used for residential living, and the previous refusal referred to a perception of overlooking. Clearly, there will be a different perception from the use of the site for residential or four dwellings compared to how it is now, but officers consider that the separation distances do comply with policy, and that in this regard, this scheme is acceptable. The second area to consider in terms of amenity is the impact of the intensification of the use of the driveway, which was a reason for refusal in both of the previous applications. The inspector commented on this element as part of his appeal findings and narrowed the reasons for refusal. So essentially, the inspector found that concerns about privacy from the use of the driveway wasn't a concern. They considered that the impact of lighting from the use of the driveway wasn't a concern, and they considered that the noise from general use of the site for residential properties and gardens, et cetera, wasn't a concern. They did, however, express concerns about the intensification of the access and the noise and disturbance, which would result from the use of that access, and they highlighted in the absence of any information or evidence to conclude how the noise would result from the driveway that the impact of the use will be unacceptable. In response to this, the applicant has submitted a noise survey with the current application, which provides evidence of the impact of the noise from the use of the driveway. There are a number of mitigation measures also proposed, so at the moment the driveway is gravel, the proposing to tarmac it and the person to construct fencing to either side of fencing is already constructed on side, and fencing will be constructed at the other to replicate the existing. The noise survey essentially concludes that the increase in the number of movements will be offset by the reduction in noise. So each vehicle passing will result in less noise because of the resurfaced driveway and fencing, and that although there will be an increase in the number of movements that really the noise implications will be very minimal. In light of this noise report, officers are of the opinion that the noise issues would not result in an unacceptable impact on neighboring residents. EPS officers have also commented on the noise report, and they too consider that they couldn't substantiate a reason for refusal based on noise impacts, given the noise report that's in front of us. In terms of ecology, the first application was refused partly on ecological grounds because there was no net gain proposed for the site. In relation to the second refused application, that reason wasn't taken forward because it was agreed that we could secure a net gain in biodiversity through condition or a section 106. A condition is proposed with this application to secure and net gain in biodiversity. But and badger surveys have been carried out on the site and have not found any protected species, and there's a condition attached to the recommendation which would require those surveys to be updated prior to the site being developed. In terms of highways, the access is narrow, and it will result in increased use of a narrow access, which is not ideal. There are some visibility issues, particularly with pedestrians, so crossing the footpath, but not in terms of visibility when entering the highway itself. The speeds will be low when using the driveway, and on balance it's not considered that the issues relating to the intensification of the use of the access could quantify as a reason for refusal, and we haven't refused the application on highways grounds previously. There are 42 objections to the proposal and five letters of support. Those have all been summarised in the officer report. Given the above assessment and having regard to the findings of the appeal decision, along with the evidence provided in the noise report and in the absence of a four year housing on supply, officers consider that the balance tilts in favour of the application. I'll just draw members attention to the supplementary report, which relates to some additional representations which have been received. The representations largely relate to some land ownership questions which have been raised by one of the neighbours. They've suggested that a strip of land adjacent to number 47 is outside the ownership of the applicant. Officers have checked this with the applicant and the applicant has confirmed that that land falls within their ownership. Officers are satisfied with this and any further land ownership issues are not something that we can become involved with and will be a private legal matter. Thank you, Sarah. We have some speaking. Obviously, my goals, Councillor, I'll still play as well. You have five minutes, so. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillors. I'm here today to represent the views of a significant number of constituents who live in the houses surrounding this proposed development sites, which, as you can see, is on three different roads around the full site. And based on their comments, their views, I'm going to ask the committee to refuse this application. And last attended to speak about this development in July last year when the officer's advice was to refuse the application. The neighbours and I are actually at a loss to understand what of significance has changed since then. And indeed, the officer report acknowledges that this application is very similar to the proposal we considered last time. The houses that were originally five bedrooms in earlier applications are now described as four bedrooms within the addition of a study and play or playroom. But all you need to do is put a bed in there and then we're back to five bedrooms. So again, this is acknowledged by the officers in their report. In effect, we still have a proposal for similar houses to last time. A situation described in the reasons for refusal last time has overdevelopment of the site with the dwellings being over large and not commensurate with the size of the plot. There are several more specific reasons to refuse this application. The first group of issues concerns the number of cars that will be associated with these properties. Households with large houses, this type, will often up to at least two, if not three cars. There is simply not space within the development for this number. We know very few people make use of garages as a regular place to park their cars. We are left with cars being parked on Brooklyn's Avenue as there simply isn't space otherwise. That will further reduce visibility to the entrance and the roadway. The entrance is a long, narrow driveway that could only be used by one vehicle at a time. It is slightly curved and therefore reduces visibility as you enter or leave. So if two vehicles meet, one will need to reverse. That will obviously often be onto the road, across the pavement. And I wonder if this happens quite often whether the residents of the new properties would simply decide that it was easier to leave their cars on the road instead. The driveway also lies between the drives of the adjacent properties, adding additional hazard. There will be a risk to residents walking or cycling along the driveway. And as has been mentioned in the report, there is poor visibility for pedestrians walking up the road on that side of the pavement. The second major point is around the effect on the residents in terms of the privacy and the ability of them to enjoy their own homes. These houses, as I've said, are in the middle of a number of houses facing on the three surrounding roads. These properties look over the rear of the homes on each of those roads. And the size of these houses will lead to a real feeling of reduced privacy. There is a proposal for louvers at some of the windows. But those are very quickly and easily removed if the new owners don't like them, again acknowledged in the report. The planning proposal also has a requirement for opaque glass at some windows, which again suggest their proximity. The noise of vehicles manoeuvring and using the driveway will impact on the current residents, as will the light from these large houses and their vehicles. The proposed noise-reducing fence will have a limited impact on this, and again could be removed in the future. Other neighbours, specifically those on Whitfield Road, which is to the east of the site, are particularly concerned with the surface water drainage, which will significantly increase when this site, which is currently mainly earth and vegetation, when it is covered in buildings and driveways, leaving a much smaller area for water to be absorbed in the ground. And the slope of the site means that surface water will run into the properties on Whitfield Road. And again, they have raised that as a significant concern to themselves. There is also concern raised by many people about the loss of flora and fauna at the site and the net loss of biodiversity. Mammals, including badges, have been seen there in the past, and a significant amount of hedging and shrubs have already been removed, along with a number of trees. The ecological survey finds that a number of measures would be needed to mitigate against the damage to the ecology of the area. And finally, the need for housing. I do not dispute the need for more housing across the city. But the difference that an extra one or two properties on this site will make is negligible. This site did have a single dwelling, and I believe that most of the neighbours would accept a smaller development with two to three smaller properties. As suggested in earlier reports produced from the planning department about this site. But this proposal, the number and size of properties, is, I believe, overdevelopment. And the residents would face practical issues with the use of their homes once they moved in. As well as considering the adverse impact on all their neighbours. So, Chair, I urge the committee to refuse this application. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I would like to speak with, then the application has gone hard to place. And again, you only have five minutes. Yes. Right. I'm speaking on behalf of people who live around the site. This application contains the same issues as the previous one, which was discussed last July, when the Planning Officer recommended refusal and the Planning Committee unanimously agreed. These issues have just been dismissed rather than resolved. The drive, it has an inadequate width, only a bicycle comfortably crossed or past the car. There's no passing place on the 47 metres. The retaining wall is going to be needed on the bottom side, on the lower side of the drive, and drainage before any construction starts as the whole thing is slipping down the hillside. There's a difficulty in turning on a steep hill into the narrowest part of the drive. There are two drives immediately adjacent to this access road. So, that's really talking about six properties trying to get out to the same place. Overlooking, the officer's report acknowledges that the large expanse of glazing over three floors would result in a perception of overlooking and have a negative impact on residents' immunity. However, she states that the key in this instance is the distance, which accords with the Council's separation distances and would be comparable to other developments throughout the city. Shouldn't the design of these houses be a major consideration in that? The large area of glass intensifies the perception of overlooking when compared with houses having standard windows, and it's therefore different to many other developments within the city. Lovers are proposed, but these could be removed at a later date. The perception of overlooking would be significant on residents of school green lane, impacting on their privacy. It's a shame that the proposals meet only minimum standards in a setting like this at the edge of the city. At the planning committee for overdevelopment, Sarah Hall said that four properties just tips into being unacceptable, whereas if it was three, then you're reducing the movements, again by 25%. Our advice has been she says that two to three properties would be more suitable, and it's just finding the right place where the development would be acceptable and would reduce the negative impacts. These three-story properties are now described as four bedrooms, although the layout had six bedrooms originally, who just renamed the rooms to dressing room and playroom. The planning committee voted to include overdevelopment as a reason for refusal, and nothing has changed in this regard. The next thing is tilted balance. There's tilted balance as coming to play for all previous applications. The inspector for the earlier appeal found that four additional units would make a very modest difference to the housing supply of the city. In this case, it's three additional properties, and the previous planning officer found that the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits even with the presumption of sustainable development. The officer now states that increasing the housing supply has been given a considerable weight in determining this application, but a reduction in the number of properties to three would mean only one less house and reduce the problem by 25%. Bio-diversity, there would be a 46.1% habitat loss and a biodiversity net loss. The framework says that if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated, or as a less resort compensated for, planning permission should be refused. In this instance, it can be avoided by building less properties. Lastly, noise impact assessment based on an acoustic fence and change of surface. In section three of the noise assessment, there is a disclaimer. It is the client's responsibility to ensure the product chosen is suitable for the proposed use. Hill fence, which has been installed alongside number 47 by Hillsborough fencing, confirm and Hillsborough fencing themselves have confirmed that this fence is not acoustic. An acoustic fence, called enviro fence, has been mentioned in previous applications, and it's widest point, it's 145 millimeters, because it involves two panels with an air gap between. Installation will have an impact on the width of this narrow drive, which has not been addressed in the application. Calculations in the noise impact assessment are supposedly based on improvement because gravel on the drive has been replaced by tarmac. The consultants were not to know that the gravel was only recently installed by the applicant, and was not in use when the property was occupied. Therefore, this is not a true baseline. Neighbors would move from occasional traffic generated by a single bungalow, having an earth driveway, including some pebbles, to a continuous traffic resulting from four large family houses on a tarmac road. The officer has recognized that it would represent a significant intensification of use of an unsatisfactory access. It is acknowledged that the fences will have no effect on the first floor rooms. The impact of noise and visual intrusion would have a major detrimental effect on the eminitude of the houses, either side of this drive. I would say refuse. Thank you. Next week, it will soon be proudly for the applicant. We are speaking. No. Would you like to respond? No thanks, Jen. I'm going to respond. Love to work. Remember questions then? I've got Roger first. Thank you, Chair. Yes. First of all, on that map that we see before is here. I'm now looking at the global view from Google Earth. You can't see the kink in the exit and entrance point, whereas on the Google Earth, it is visible. I didn't know the length, but it is 47 metres, I'm sure. That is the correct side. If two cars meet, one has to back up. That is quite a way to back between. There is no way in which they can move into a kind of labour where there is a passing point. There is no passing point. That is one thing. I would be a bit worried about any masking that cars parked either side of the exit or entry, particularly the exit would have on any cars exiting because, again, you must have a clear view of the roads to either side. The first one is about that exit and entry point. The second, really, is the, of course, the width of the driveway. The next one is the ecology. Now, do we know that there are badges sets actually on the site, not just badges, but badges sets? If there are, what accommodation has been made for any change that may occur in that respect? Finally, how permeable is tarmac? One of the things that we have to make sure about, apart from all the other things that have been mentioned in terms of the ecology, is that water can drain through. I suppose a question would be, since a number of people are putting these fake lawns down or astroture for lawns or whatever, they are not permeable and damage the ecology, in fact, because nature can't react in the way it does to normal lawns. So, would there be a point in that where, if that were to be passed, that you could say that a condition has to be, that every surface has to be permeable, whether in the garden or whether on the driveways and paths. Thank you. All right. Yes, so I'm going to let Helen answer the highways questions, but I'll just answer the other ones firstly. So, in terms of ecology, there was a budget survey carried out in August 2021, which didn't find any evidence of badges on the site. We have, however, got own condition requiring updated surveys to be carried out because they are now over two years old. So, there is a condition, if I can just find it. Condition six requires further work to be done, further surveys to be done to check the protector species, which would include bats, badges, birds. So, that's the first one. In terms of the driveway, there is a condition requiring full details of the surfacing of the access driveway, but that's mainly to demonstrate how it will prevent surface water from spilling onto the highway. That condition doesn't specifically request permeable materials, but there is potential to request that if members thought that that was needed. In addition to that, however, there is a condition requiring details of drainage and drainage from the development as a whole, which does require sustainable drainage. So, in combination with those two conditions, we've covered drainage. We've covered details of the surfacing of the driveway, but we haven't specifically mentioned permeable paving within that condition. Are we allowed to put conditions in terms of God where these false lawns are put down, where nature can't express itself, let's put it that way, and it may be less permeable? We have got a condition requiring the hard and soft landscape scheme, so as part of that, we could ensure that the landscaping was appropriate and didn't include those sorts of elements. Helen, do you want to comment on the highways? In the first instance, I just want to say something, I've heard the word substandard access banded about, and I'm not. From a highway perspective, it certainly isn't cut and dried that it is a substandard access. In terms of the width, there's been a topographical survey carried out, and the width is between 3.9 metres and 4.4 metres. In terms of the absolute minimum to get two cars passed, and this is both Sheffield's own guidance and national guidance, the minimum width is 4.1 metres. So certainly, yes, there might be one section where you might not be able to get two cars passed, but it is not along the full section of the access. I think the other thing that we've got to bear in mind as well is that how frequent are two cars going to meet on that access, because obviously that comes into consideration when determining whether it is safe or not. Given that there's likely to be 19 cars generated over a 12-hour period and a potential maximum in a peak of 2 to 3 cars, I would suggest that the likelihood of two cars meeting is limited. Again, this is based on information that is national information. It's not something that the developers transport consultants as dreamt of or the highway authority of dreamt of. So in my opinion, the access is absolutely acceptable. Yes, it is narrower in some instances than if we're wearing an ideal situation, which is certainly not narrow to the point that it would be of recommendation for refusal from a highway perspective. In terms of the sidelines from the access, the sidelines meet the requirements of the manual for streets and the South Yorkshire residential design guide. And I think in some cases, slightly in excess of that, which is 2.4 metres by 43 metres, it's the appropriate sideline for the speed limit of the road. Mention has been made of the lack of visibility for pedestrians. It's actually pedestrian vehicle into visibility, which is just to the rear of the footway. Yes, ideally, we would have a 2 metre by 2 metre display that can't be provided. I think what, again, what we have to bear in mind is that if you look at the vast majority of the houses along that stretch of road, exactly the same situation exists, there is no pedestrian vehicle into visibility display. Again, I think the frequency of pedestrian movements up and down the road is something that needs to be born in mind, which are limited. That's combined with the frequency of the vehicle's use in the access. Again, I don't think that meets anywhere near meeting the requirement or refusal in the application. Tracking has been submitted to demonstrate that a fire appliance can get up. The acts that can turn into the access can negotiate the access and can turn within the side. The minimum width for a fire appliance is 3.7 metres, and that's where the crew may have to work alongside fire appliance. So, again, obviously, the width of the access more than meets that. So, best from a highway's perspective, I don't think there is any justifiable reason to refuse the application. Yes, there are certain elements that don't meet and bang on the guidelines, but it's determining whether they are reasonable, whether that makes reasonable refusal, and I don't think it does. So, just in terms of the parking, the parking meets the guide, like the council's guidelines. Garages at the moment are included within the council's parking guidelines. I completely appreciate what people say about the use of them, but as things stand at the moment, the council's parking guidelines do include garages. And so, therefore, within the latter, we'll consider that there is adequate parking for the development. Thanks, Chair. Thank you, Chair. We know a few points. Page 57 says, A condition the accommodation be retained for the sole purpose intended, and that's to do with sort of a car parking. But time and time again, we're told that each application has got to be considered by its merit, and there's nothing in there that will stop future application changing the use. I mean, it also concerns me about sort of page 60, what about the distinction between a bedroom and city or playroom, which has been mentioned as well. The other thing is page 77, again, it's this access. I do apologize, Helen, but basically, sort of, I think that the remit or the judgment calls that transport makes does not take into account. Human behavior, and we cannot legislate or put in conditions for that. What's the width of the car? It's because some of them are massive. These are family homes, which means more than just two people occupying it. Families imply visitors and sort of growing children who want their own sort of means of transport. We cannot assume there's only going to be limited access and limited use of that driveway. And I think I would regret the fact that it's just not addressed, just says there's a potential for conflict of two vehicles passed without sort of taking to account the wider considerations and drainage. Time and time again at planning, I've said, What about the impact lower down? We might protect the site from runoff itself, but what a family homes implies sort of, you know, sort of increased use of water. I'm not sure if that's got to go somewhere, whether it's in the sewage systems, as opposed to sort of, you know, sort of surface drainage. How can we protect properties lower down the system by being impacted by things like this when there's only sort of limited consideration about the actual site itself? So what am I asking? How much of this have we got control over? Because we haven't got, have we got control over maintaining the accommodation for its old purposes on page 57? Have we got any control over the number of vehicles that can use that driveway and the size of those vehicles? Have we any control over what happens to the drainage, either surface drainage or from the water that's produced from four family homes on the site? And can we prevent the four bedrooms being used, what the extra rooms being used for as bedrooms? Thank you. So, right, I'll try and answer those questions. So, firstly, in terms of changing the use, are you referring to condition 15? Yeah, okay, so condition 15, which says that the car parking accommodation shall be provided as shown on the plans. So there's that condition, and then the next one down is the removal of committed development rights. So they wouldn't be able to change the garages without applying for planning condition, essentially. But that's my point. There's nothing to stop from applying, and every time, I mean, we've had application application for a change in conditions a few years down the line. We can't prevent it. Is that correct? Because we've got to them. We've got to judge each application on its merits, regardless of what's come before. Absolutely, absolutely. So, yes, there's nothing to prevent them applying to either remove one of those conditions or applying for planning condition to change the garage. We can't prevent that, and all we would do is assess the application on its merits at that time. So, that's the first question. In terms of bedrooms, you correct, it shows four bedrooms to each dwelling at the moment, and then an additional study area. So, there's nothing we could do to stop maintaining that study area into a bedroom, but equally, I question whether that would be necessary anyway, because does it really matter if there's four people living in the house or five people? Is the impact going to be materially different? My view would be that, in this case, it wouldn't potentially, if a family lives there and they've got two children or three children, there's not much material difference. And then, in terms of drainage, we have got a condition relating to drainage on the site, and that will ensure that we've assessed that fully, and that the site will be drained by sustainable drainage where possible, it will look at the site and itself, and it will also seek to ensure that there is no impact, knock on impacts elsewhere within the local area. So, can I just say that doesn't make it clear in the documentation, you know, that there will be, you know, that the impact of the wider area will be looked at, it implies that sort of it won't be affected. It's a standard condition we use for drainage, and it looks at the site, and obviously the site impacts upon the wider area. It's something that we would, the condition we would put on to all developments of this nature, and it is my view that that will be adequate to address drainage conditions. So, I'll leave it there because from previous conversations, it is a concern of mine, especially with sort of flooding and the impact of the range we've had recently. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, thank you. I just want to remind members about the importance of consistency in planning decisions. So, in that respect, obviously, we've previously had a similar application, which was refused, I believe, for one reason. And in the intervening period, we have the new material consideration of the planning inspector's decision. And there's also been some amendments as well, the application that have been of sought to deal with those reasons. In respect to other matters, such as drainage and highways, my understanding from the planning officer is that the application is broadly similar. And such that if it wasn't refused those reasons last time, members would need to be thinking about what has changed since then that would mean that it's now a concern, whereas it previously wasn't. Thank you, Chair. Mike. Thank you, Chair. I'm pleased to hear that we can, if we choose, condition a permeable road surface to that narrow lane. Because my worry would also be what would happen with the water runoff if we do not do that. So, I also have a question then. Can we condition the louvers, the louver windows, so that they cannot be changed at a future date? That's not my only question, but it was said earlier that a fire appliance can get up and down that narrow lane. So, I'm a bit confused as to why a refuse collection, Laurie, cannot also go back and down that lane and provide the service by Sheffield City Council, rather than having to buy that in. I wouldn't have thought that Laurie was any wider than a standard fire appliance or pumps, as they call them in the trade. Thank you, Chair. So, in terms of the louvers, yes, and there are a number of louvers shown on the upper floor windows to the revelations of the properties. If the application was approved, it would be a requirement to install those louvers because the development would need to be built in accordance with the approved plans. However, we have considered whether it would be reasonable to condition those louvers to be retained to put condition on stating that they shouldn't be retained. And it's our view that that condition wouldn't pass the test, one of the tests, which is that it would be necessary because ultimately the separation distances between the dwellings is 21 metres. And therefore, if it meets our policy requirements in terms of separation distances, putting a condition on wouldn't necessarily be classed as being necessary. I can just clarify, this is a virtue of the same application we rejected unanimously on office's advice less than a year ago. All the officers now telling me that the view of the inspector's opinion that we have now solved all the objections you held it with to clear this one. I mean, I couldn't quite follow what the inspector was saying when he backed our decision that now says it's okay. What has changed that the inspector has required for us to give approval this time? So, the inspector's decision is a material consideration, and I sort of brushed upon what the outcome of the appeal decision was. So, we've got to take into account the findings of the inspector's decision, and we've got to take into account all the material changes, which the key one really is the noise report that we've got. So, it's officer's view that those are material considerations, and that the findings of the inspector's report, coupled with the noise report, address the majority of concerns now. No application is perfect, and the officer report makes it clear that there are still several things which aren't perfect, but looking at the application on balance, taking into account the changes in those material considerations, is an opinion that the balance now tips in favour of supporting the application. And that's taken on by the inspector's view. Thank you, Chair. Couple of questions. Could we go to the footprint slide, please? Thank you. Couple of questions. I went and saw this slide this morning, and I noticed that the difference in topography is quite dramatic. Looking at the four proposed buildings, the one, the second on the left, and the one second on the right, either two middle ones, one is going to be significantly higher if I've got my geography correct than the other. Is there issues of overlooking from one to the other? That's my first question. The second one is the furthest on the right, my right, and the right-hand middle one. Does the 45 degree issue, is that actually fulfilled in any of the windows on the furthest right? Thank you. So I'll bring up some sections which might help understand levels, so you're right, the site is not level at all, and it's kind of built on plateaus at the moment. So I'm not sure if you can make it out, but there's a red line across that top section which is looking at the dwellings from the front. The red line indicates the existing land levels, so there is some alterations to land levels. So essentially, if you're looking at the right-hand side of that screen, which is the west of the site, there's going to be some lowering of land levels, and then there's going to be some building of land levels towards the east of the site so that the differences in levels aren't as exaggerated as they are at the moment. So that was the first question. In terms of the 45 degree line, it does look as though I haven't actually checked the 45 degree line, and there could potentially be some encroachment on that. I would have to investigate that further. However, what I would say about that is that people will be buying these houses off plan, they will know what the situation is like, they will know whether the neighbouring property projects beyond them or not. The gardens are south facing, the windows are south facing, so in terms of overshadowing, that shouldn't be an issue. And I'd also like to come back to the issue of the access. I'm really, I was up there this morning, unless I've suddenly grown long legs. At the narrow point, it was about three and a half of my paces, and I certainly don't pace it a meter. I would really question the measurements, and I'd like them to be re-measured if that's possible, because I can't see how two cars could pass at all on that access road. And inevitably, my real concern is that if the car tried to get onto the site, had to back backwards. With the screening on both sides, one on the edge, one with that grave screen, you're not going to be able to see at all the pavement. And the way the pavement is laid out, the pavement comes first, and then it's the verges before you hit the main road. So you are going to have, at some point, a driver is going to have to make a leap of faith that there isn't a pedestrian coming. More and more pedestrians these days, eight, because of government laws, guidelines, think they have the right of way when they don't. And so they just walk on, and be a lot of them wear headphones, so they're in the world of their own. And I'm just concerned it's a potential accident waiting to happen, so that's a genuine concern. And I would question whether you could get a fire engine up there, that's a narrow spot. Especially as I've just heard already, that the current grave screening is not acoustic when it would have to be widened, and a similar one would have to be put on the other side, so that that access is becoming more and more narrow about a second. And whilst it might not be a reason to refuse certainly in terms of a condition, I think that has to be resolved before approval is given up. So accurate plans have been submitted, they'll be based on the site survey, so I don't think it would be appropriate to ask for those measurements to be taken again. I believe that Helen has answered the majority of the highways presence, and as Vicki said, we didn't refuse the application on highways grounds before, so to bring that as an issue now would be difficult. So even in the case of the membership of this panel, this committee changing, does the make-up of the committee at any point when the decision is taken, is that material? Chair, you're okay. Chairman, it was a decision of the committee, so the committee made a decision, it's not your decision or her decision or anybody, it's the committee's decision. So the consistency in planning decisions is about the committee being consistent. Thank you. Barbara. Can I just question that? I mean, sort of the issue now is there's going to be two acoustic fences, which material effects movement along the driveway. Isn't that sort of a material, a change that we could now condition? I just need to clarify, so a change that we can now condition. I'm not sure what you mean by that. You were saying that because we didn't actually put this in as an objection, well, a reason for refusing the preface application, we can't consider it now. But what I'm saying is that surely this is a change from then to now, and therefore it would be in order to put in this as an objection. This is a query. Thank you, Chair. And just to respect sort of going back a few stages, if you like, my understanding is that part of the previous refusal was about the concern to do with the access and the noise. So the applicant has put in the noise survey and suggesting acoustic fences, which I'm not sure whether that has had any material impact on the highway in respect to the width, etc. I think that's probably something you need to take advice from the Highways Officer on. If the Highways Officer thinks there has been a change in the highway situation compared to last time such that it could support a reason for refusal, you'll need to ask her. But my understanding is that in respect to what the Highways and the National Planning Policy Framework is that it's only going to be a reason for refusal if the impact is severe or it has an unacceptable impact on safety. And I believe the Highways Officer has already said that's not the case in this instance, but I think it's something the Highways Officer can come back on and just reiterate if necessary. Can I just add as well? So in terms of the fencing, reading into the noise report, the noise report was carried out and it assessed the existing fence that's there at the moment. Although it's not a true acoustic fence in terms of technical specification, it does any fencing would have some acoustic properties and this fencing does have some acoustic properties because the panels are all meets and there's no gaps between them, there's no gaps between the boards at the bottom and the boards at the top. So the noise survey took account of that existing fence and used the measurements within the survey based upon that fence. And the noise survey, which illustrates that the noise levels are very low, was used with that in mind. So if that fencing was to be replicated on the other side, it would be very narrow anyway. There is also a condition about fencing, about details of fencing, so at that point we'll be able to ascertain exactly how wide the fencing was, but it would be in all likelihood fairly similar to what is already there. Thanks, Chair. Victoria, I've got to ask you a question. It's been a little misleading for me anyway, I don't know if all the members have picked up the same thing. First of all, I just wanted to say that is this a new application? Yes, it's got a new reference number, it's a new application. There are some differences, I've seen this planning officer comment, there are some differences obviously in respect to what's being proposed in respect to accusing and seeing etc. But obviously we do have the new material consideration since which is playing in spectra's decision. On another application. Yes, so planning and spectra's decision relates to the previous application for five bedroom, for five houses on the site, and they have considered some of the issues that obviously relate to the previous application for four bedrooms. Some of the issues are similar obviously in respect to the site. And obviously that five bedroom application, the inspectors found a lot of the issues are acceptable in respect to that five bedroom application. So sorry, sorry, five dwellings, five dwellings. So in respect to the five dwelling application, the inspector has found a lot of the issues to be acceptable. Obviously in respect to the four bedroom application that the committee refused previously, they refused it on a lot of those similar issues, those similar immunity issues. But so now when the applicant come forward again with a similar application, albeit with a few minor amendments also to try and mitigate those previously as refusal. The committee needs to take into account the fact that a planning inspector has already decided that a lot of these issues are acceptable in their view. So the committee in terms of consistent decision making needs to take that into account, and that's how the planning regime works, is that if the sick, if the sick two state planning inspector has already deemed something to be acceptable, it can be considered unreasonable behavior for the committee to say that they want to pursue those same reasons, unless they've got evidence which can substantiate the post evidence is still in their view substantiate. There's reasons for refusal. So it's not in your application that you have to just listen to all the inspectors, so the old application. It's a different application, but in terms of the planning regime, one of the aimed is consistent decision making. So in that respect, people need to be able to make applications on the basis that decisions are going to be made in a consistent manner. So obviously in this respect, it may be that members thinking consistent decision will be the same decision as last time, but the basis of planning applications is it needs to be made in accordance with a development plan on less material considerations indicate otherwise. So since last time you've got a new material consideration of that planning inspector decision has already ruled on a lot of these issues, and the planning practice GAN says that it can be considered unreasonable for a local authority to ignore that essentially. And obviously, you need to take it into account is what we're saying it's a new application, but with with the material consideration and new material consideration which relates to previous application. Thank you. Thank you. I just wonder whether there's any variance in the in the width from the bottom right through to the end. I mean, obviously this was a road that was meant for one dwelling. And I presume also that there are children or there could be children in these dwellings that would walk down that passageway, and they would come into conflict or possible conflict with them with the vehicles that are exiting or entering that very narrow exit entry. And are we saying that because the inspector may not have been considered that maybe I don't know, but I'm telling us that because it wasn't mentioned by the inspector that we cannot make any consideration of them of the problems that may occur with the width of that. And it's the only exit entry point, if there's a fire, for example, where did the escape to if there's a fire engine coming down at the hurtling down the speed. Thank you. How are you? How are you? What's going on that, please chair. Yeah, the driveways does vary. And that from the topographic survey that's submitted, it varies in width between 3.9 meters and 4.4 meters. In terms of a shared pedestrian and vehicle use, we have many shared pedestrian and vehicle areas. In fact, I'm not quite sure whether it is still the guidance now, but something up to 25 to 50 dwellings, it's acceptable to have a shared pedestrian and vehicle area. So, as I say, given the fact that the traffic generation up and down the access is going to be quite limited, we're talking 2 to 3 vehicles during the peak hour. I think the likelihood of conflict between pedestrians accessing the site and vehicles accessing the site will be limited. I think the other thing that you've got to bear in mind is that the access is relatively straight, and therefore you have a decent forward visibility. I have to stress, I don't think from a highways perspective, there is a valid reason for refusal due to the use of that access to serve for dwellings. Thank you chair. Excellent, Peter. I'll ask a question about any amendment that we might make. Do we have to make the amendment before we vote, or is it possible, no, it couldn't be possible, could it, to have a vote on something? I can't say it was upheld, then you couldn't put an amendment in following that, could you? So that any amendment put forward has to be put forward before the vote is taken. Okay. In respect to amendment, I presume you're talking about a condition. Yes. Yes. So if you want to amend or add a new condition, it would need to be before the vote. It obviously would make more sense because otherwise you'd be voting without making that amendment. But obviously in terms of making any amendment, just leave it proposed, seconded and then voted on. Thank you. Peter. Can I just clarify, there's a currently a dwelling on the site, which has vehicle access, obviously, and onto the road, and has done to ever, not to. There is one existing dwelling. I don't think it's occupied at the moment, but obviously it has been, and it could be at any point. So yes. Totally. Yeah, it might as just a quick one really is. Obviously we have to take into consideration the, the inspectors findings on this. And according to what I've just put, what we've read here is that decision has been appealed by the applicant and is currently awaiting a decision by the inspector. How does that configure it with what we're talking here? Please. Thank you, Chair. So that's the, so there's been two applications on the site. The first one was for five houses. That was, has been appealed. And we've talked about the decision of that appeal. The second one, which was for four houses, which went to committee last July, that is currently with the inspectorate. So it is being appealed at the moment. We haven't had the decision for that one back. So should this have come to the committee now, then before the inspectors come back to the decision. Yeah, it will be unreasonable. It will be unreasonable for us to refuse to make a decision because we were waiting for that information. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so I'm sorry to pick you up on this high raise issue. You say two to three vehicle movements per hour. I'm just thinking what it's going to be like over the morning when people are going to work. If these people are possibly two people from each house going to work, it's going to be about eight vehicles. I mean, am I talking nonsense here? Chair, no, I think the thing is, obviously, when we're looking at planning application and we're trying to determine what level of vehicular traffic any site is going to generate, we have to use something. And that something is a database called Tricks, which has a whole host of thousands of different sites of different land uses, different locations, different in terms of their accessibility to public transport. And that's what we use to determine or estimate, to say, the trip generation from any specific site. So in this instance, a site would have been chosen. I mean, I have to say, in normal circumstances, we wouldn't have requested this work to be carried out given, you know, the size of the development, but given the concerns about the access and things like that, then this work was done. Basically, the rate per dwelling is generated, and that gives you a rate per hour per dwelling, and it also gives you a rate over a 12 hour period. You're talking about, potentially, as I say, 20 or so vehicles. For the hour, the peak hour, so we're talking about the busiest hour, which is generally, you know, the morning peak and evening peak, you're looking at two to three vehicles. And that's because, you know, not everybody leaves in that one hour, you know, it's spread out throughout the day. So, I'm quite happy that the two to three vehicles, even if you say four vehicles are going to go out in that hour, that that is not a detriment to highway safety. Thanks, Chair. Gary, this should be the last one. Well, I'm such a thing like this. Sorry, can we just have a legal opinion back on Councillor Downing's point? You know, if this is an application in last July, it's still pending. We don't know what that's going to say, but we're putting a lot of weight on what is already said about a previous application. You know, so shouldn't we really wait until we find out that decision, the planning aspect, before we, before this came to us anyway? I mean, it's got to be answered, but I know, you know, it's just unclear to me at that point. And there's no reason to wait. Obviously, when that comes, when that decision comes, that may be a material consideration for a future application. But the applicant has made another application. It's an entitled to a decision. It's not really, there's no good reason to seek a further decision from the planning aspect, you know, we've got the information before, and it should enable you to make a decision. Thank you. No further comments? No. We'll move to a home. So I'll start with Mike, please. Comments, Chair. Can I just ask you any more comments? Sorry. I didn't, yeah. Well, I'll make a comment, please, Chair. I think what the discussion, sorry, the questions that members, including myself, have been asking, they have shown up the limitations of planning policy. And how the certain material considerations, particularly to do with the way the inspector operate, have rather sort of narrowed our ability. Now, for wiggle rooms, for want of a better phrase, I mean, I do share the frustrations of members around the room, and of those people who've come today, particularly represented by Susan, in lodging objections. And then finding that the planning policy for them falls short, but it is very much geared towards development. These are basically good houses, but the feeling, particularly of the residents living around about, is that there's too many of them on this plot. But the inspector is basically saying that you can have that number of houses on that plot provided you put in certain measures, particularly to do with noise reduction on the, on the road, on the road surface leading to the, to the development of this site. I've got a proposal, because I have an awful feeling that, well, I do feel that this will go through one way or another. So I'm going to propose a condition, in view of the biodiversity net loss, I'm just surprised that we haven't considered putting in swift bricks. I know we're putting in some bird boxes and bat boxes, but I would request by condition that swift bricks are included on each of the homes on the site. No, I will be with some reluctance, I will be supporting this application chair. We have got a condition requiring a landscape and ecological management plan. It doesn't go as far as actually setting out what we want in terms of bat boxes, but if boxes with boxes, that would be something that we would leave to the kind of the condition discharge. If members wanted to specify some particular elements, I can't see them in any particular issues with that. Vicki, that is my proposal, if I can have a seconder. Vicki? Sorry, just on that. Yes, if you've got proposals on a seconder and then they're on them and then, would that be amending that condition? So, be amending it. Can we clarify exactly what you wanted to say, just swift bricks? We've already got lots. You want an owl box as well? Sorry, I wanted to do that. Was that a genuine proposal? No, no. Okay. So, it's to add for the biodiversity mitigation to add swift bricks to each of the homes on the site. If that was all? I would also like to add an amendment that, and this doesn't produce how I vote in the end, but that all surfaces are permeable. Thank you. Right, so do we have a seconder? I thought you were saying for Mike. We'll go to Mike first, if Mike was first, which is the swift boxes, that's swift bricks in all of the houses. No, you can't. You've got to have them separate. They have to be separate. Mike, you also have them for mine, Jeff. Are you saying they're mics? Yes. Yeah, take a vote on that, please. Show of hands. Yep. Thank you. Chair, can I just clarify? Was that an amendment for swift bricks? Thank you. Thank you. Just in respect to the potential proposal for permeable. Can I just ask the planning officer to comment on that? Just for my understanding from the discussion in terms of the noise and the positive suggestion for Tom, would it be reasonable to sort of suggest that perhaps the noise survey actually is based on Tom, such as the change in the surface might have an impact on noise and whether that means further thought. Sorry. Thank you. That's very helpful. Okay. So, in terms of the condition, would that be relating specifically to the driveway, then the permeable materials? I'm not sure it would be reasonable to require all surfaces. For example, if they wanted a patio that was not permeable and that would be controlled, we've got hard and soft landscape scheme, we've got surface water, runoff, surface water drainage scheme, and if the driveway is permeable, which we can secure by amending the condition, then I think that that would probably be sufficient. I'm not convinced that you can't make patios permeable. I have. Anyway, I will go with what the limitations are being offered. The driveway. Yeah, the driveway. The driveway is permanent. Chair, is that being seconded? I think that's being proposed and seconded, so you just need to then amending that condition as well. Thank you, Chair. So, Chair, can we just clarify what you mean by the driveway? Is it the driveway of the access, or is it the driveway and the business bills out to the front of the houses? Yeah, I took it. The Roger meant the whole access. The whole access. Not just that narrow strip, but going right up to the homes. I'm just down to that. I think it's for the proposal to advise as well. They're proposing, so it would be for... Well, I was informed that I was very limited as to what I could propose, so I said I would go with what limitations have been offered. Which is the driveway, that's... Which is the driveway. You know, if we include the whole of that surfacing around the driveway, including the access to the gardens. You mean the access road? Yeah, the access road. That's what we're going to talk about, is it? Because we have a proposal at Margaret, do you second with that? Yeah. And I speak against it. What we seem to be adopting a policy on the whole for you. We don't exist. It's an illegal planet. The planet that comes in. Nobody said you must have a permium driveway. You've all gone through. And suddenly, we decided on this one. I'm going to have a permium drive. We're all around this length. And I don't think it's weird to make policy to you. Let's make it... Let's... Yeah. We could... We're actually moving towards more sustainable, let's say, ecology, on all the development sites. Well, that's... I don't know if you attended a planning meeting not long ago, where the ecology became a very important element of that. But I think that it may set the precedent and why not? Move to the chair on that condition, please. Sorry, Chair. I think we've got a proposal. And that's been seconded to the permium drive away. The planning officer appears to understand what the proposal is in respect to how much of the drive away that takes. So that seems to be understood. So, yeah, do you think you need to move to vote on amending that condition? Thank you. I'm going to have a show of handles for years. One, two, three, four, five, six, six, four. Seven, four. Yeah, that's a thank you. I'm going to take in the vote correctly with those conditions that we've already discussed and voted on. So... One, please. First of all, I'm actually speaking in favour of the recommendation. I weren't at the beginning, but having heard what's said, I like to see consistency, and when I see decisions, we don't take another place as it's not on. And I think what we've received from the officers and what the inspector said has led me to believe that this is just about gives all what the officer was demanding. I mean, don't forget there's been a property on this site forever which has been used by a vehicle up and down this thing onto the road. Probably more than one vehicle. And therefore, to suggest that somehow, it's going to restrict it. And 3.9 metres wide, it might not get too vehicle, but it's certainly wide enough for a vehicle and a pedestrian on the drives. I'm not...no. So, on balance here, I'm going to support the officer recommendation. I understand the difficulty, the problems that people have. It's a live sightness, and it's got to have more than one. You know, people are saying up to three, but with the original one for five, it's come down to four, and I think on balance, I'm going to support the recommendation. Does anybody else want to say anything? How are we going to go to the open? Mike, please. For the recommendation, sir. For you. For you. For you. Again, this chair. I'm staying on this one, a lot of those two. And this chair. Against chair. Against chair. I'll use my vote for. Because it was a... So, that's a pass. Thank you, chair. Item 11, record planning appeal, submission decisions, anything to say? Thank you, chair. I think the only decision I'd probably want to draw my presentation to is the one for the Moby Bay Creek Mary's Lane, where the inspector allowed the appeal against the refusal of planning permission. It was refused on the basis that the conversion and compartmentalisation would result in the special significance of the grade two list of the building being diminished. But the inspector acknowledged that while crook number two was widely visible to users of the cafe at present, the other two crooks weren't. And the use of the building could be changed without an application of planning permission, any case, which would mean that the crooks could not be seen. And actually the change of use of the dwelling house would bring the two halves of the building back into the same use, which would potentially enable the crooks to be appreciated together within the same building, and that there were no extensions or other additions proposed to the building to affect its distinctive form. So, that's just a note that that was allowed. You take the time for the next meeting, you'll be decided at the ADM 150. You can do the 50s, isn't it? Thank you, members. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

I'll pass you over to Joanne, I'll go through, I'll ask each member to introduce themselves. So I'll start with you Mike please. Good afternoon, I'm Mike Chaplin, I'm a Councillor for Salty Ward. Peter Price, a short-lived Councillor for Shagrion Bryson. Tolly Downey and Councillor for Mossboro, Warren. Sorry about that Chair, Councillor Gallaretha, I'll show you him right side, Ward. Thank you Chair. Councillor Richard Williams, member for Stalington Ward and substitute here today. Good afternoon, I'm Roger Davidson, Councillor for Egglesaw Ward. Good afternoon, Barbara Masters, Councillor for Egglesaw Ward. Afternoon, my name's Active Woodcraft and I'm Councillor for forward Ward. And I'm a Woodcock Councillor for East Ecclesaw Ward and Chair, as you know, he's amazing. Before we get into it, I'd just like to remind members that Peter, it is his last planning meeting. You know, never to be seen again in part, unless he comes, unless he comes as a member of public. And from all of us here, you take good luck and thank you very much for your time. Councillors interjecting. Councillors interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillors interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. John, we'll do our housekeeping, please. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you Chair. In the event of the fire alarm sounding, please take instructions from Staffing Stewards. The assembly point is at Tudor Square. Please can I request everyone to switch mobile devices to silent mode, so as not to disturb the conduct of the meeting. The meeting today will be webcast and the recording will also be available for people to be later through the Council's website. It is also possible that Sheffield Live TV will record and re-broadcast this meeting. While ever the meeting is open to the public, photography video and sound recording with the proceedings is permitted, however, the Chair has discretion to withdraw or suspend this permission. For example, if the recording is disrupting the conduct of the meeting or is being undertaken in a manner which would capture personal information or in the event that a member of the public participating in the meeting objects is being recorded. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. Do you have apologies for this, John? I had apologies from Gladys Chapman and Councillor Williams is here at a substitute for Councillor Chapman. Also apologies from Councillor Little and Councillor Aller. We have nothing for actually a presser for work now, isn't it? No. Thank you. Deparations have been pressed. Does any member of Peter? Will? Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to make a statement with regard to item 10A on the agenda. Regarding the planning application at 45A, the Brooklyn's Crescent. We last looked at this in July and it was about three months after I was canvassing on Brooklyn's Crescent and a gentleman who I didn't know or have any connection with or any contact with since did raise a concern over what he felt was a dangerously leaning tree from the site at 45A, Brooklyn's Avenue, sorry, yeah, Brooklyn's Avenue, leaning over his back garden and so I wrote some Mr Hinsley from the 24th of October to make him aware of the situation because we didn't want any mishaps. So in my mind, there's never been any connection between this leaning tree and the planning proposal before the committee so I have a fully clear conscience in taking full part in the determination on this planning application, if that's okay with you, Chair, or the rest of the committee. Yeah, sorry. Thank you. Anyone else? No. I have a statement to read out that with regards to application number 2, 3, stroke, 0, 3, 6, 3, 1, stroke, FUL, but just on the agenda today, I can confirm that I have no disposable procuring interest or any interest in the application and I have an open mind in relation to the application with the law. Thank you. Mr Hinsley, I'm going to write it in number 5. Page 9, ready to turn. Page 11, yep, I'm going to write it in number 5, site visits, then we'll go into members direct as in when it's needed, thank you. Thank you, Chair. This is an application that we received from colleagues in the PolitWISA wait team to divert the legal route of SHU-116, which used to run along the site of the old landfill site to afford a couple of slides just to identify the new route. So it's not very clear on the road, that is looking at point B on the plan if you've looked from that, that is looking from point, from Standish where the current slide, that is an informal link that links into the new route, you can see that the paths crushed through the bridge type surface it's well maintained by the PolitWISA team and it will lead through to informal public paths on the part of the spring slide, next slide please. That shows the connection at point A, so that takes back onto the formal route of the public right away with the route going out onto the part, brings onto the open space there, that might be the last of the slides, yeah, okay, the existing legal route doesn't exist anymore, it's just basically a line on the map. Thank you very much, I remember those questions. Yeah, I was just wondering, do the public comments on these proposals get a chance to raise objections, yes there will be a six-week consultation period once we make the order? Thank you, Peter, the old path goal, this is a new path virtually for members and I think it's very welcome, it's a nice introduction onto the grassy part of the hill, I think it's in progress, that's always important too. Do I remember the comments, or the data, there we are for help please, so to you, right? For the recommendation, for chair, for chair, for chair. Thank you, I remember, that's first, item A, both both parts of public footpath SHE, and SHE 301, Sky Edge Sheffield 2, right, please? So to the previous one, this is another application from the Fulivites Way team, these are parts of two paths at the Sky Edge, Manner Oaks area, that have become all loved from a better word, they're very often grown, inaccessible, there's a series of other paths, both public and parks paths, that cross the site and link up, the dotted line indicates a new path, although that's not been provided as a consequence of this order, just show the next slide please. So that is the point A, looking towards point B, and you can see that it's just impenetrable or undergrowth, a bit of woodland point, next slide please, and that's the other end that is point B, looking from not all place, again it's impenetrable, and you can see one of the alternative paths that run just behind the green rail fence, and that connects just a bit further forward of where I put the arrow, next slide please, I don't think there might be one more slide in for sure, no, sorry, so yeah these have been inaccessible for many years, we've not received complaints from the public, there will be a poor public consultation as part of the order making process, thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mark, look at how very members comment, any questions from those who will help, please Mike, for the recommendation chair, for chair, for chair, for chair, for chair, for chair, for chair, for chair, for chair, for chair, for chair, as is past thank you very much, we're moving out to item 9 3, preservation order number 4, 7, 4, 4, to 7, more bunch of you, that's 10, 5, GQ, which I've placed 29 of you, and I'll pass it to you, very soon. I was seeking confirmation of TPO474, an order made on the 14th of November 2023, to protect two mature beach trees, and one line within the curd pledge of 47 more bank road, you can find a copy of the TPO within the report at Appendix A, and you can see images of the trees within Appendix C. On the 23rd of March 23, we received communication from a member of the public requesting the trees at the property be protected, the enquire is stated, the house had been unoccupied for several months, a change of ownership prepared likely, and the enquire was concerned that new owners may not view the trees in the same way as their current custodians. As the trees are not within a conservation area, they're not afforded any form of protection, such as that afforded by a section to 11th of the time and country planning act. Oversubsequent months, the enquire were contacted as again, detailing activity at the house, which led the enquire to believe that the house was being emptied for sale. The council can make a TPO for its expedient in the interest of immunity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in the area, and it might be considered expedient to make an order if we believe there is a risk of trees being felled or pruned in a way which would have an impact on the immunity of the area, but it's not always necessary for that to be in immediate risk, for that to be in need to protect trees. Government guidance that accompanies the regulations provides an example of other sources of risk, such as changes in property ownership. It states that intentions to fell trees are not always known in our vans, so it may sometimes be appropriate to proactively make orders as a precaution. Given this and that the council have been informed of a possible change of ownership, an inspection of the trees was conducted to see whether it would be expedient in the interest of immunity to make the subject to an order. The site was visited by myself from the 1st of November 23, and it was noted at this time that the house appeared unoccupied. The trees were assessed using the TEMPO method, a copy of which can be found at Appendix B, and the inspection revealed a group of very striking trees, consisting of a line and two beach, and also two sycamores, which were of less equality and therefore not included within the order. These trees form a group along with other trees which sit within the adjacent garden, and which are also not included in the order. Visible from a number of different locations, the trees were in very good condition with potential attention spans within the 4200 year range. The protected trees are principal members of the group, and a loss of them would negatively alter the symmetry and cohesion of the group. The boundary wall has been designed to fit around them, and the group is a distinctive feature of the local area. Two duly made objections to the TPO were received on 15th of December 23, and one representation in support of the TPO. The objections which can be seen within Appendix D state that the owners, sorry, the objectors are part owners of the property, and they dispute that the property is undergoing a change of ownership, as is stated in the formal notice accompanying the TPO, and that given that the trees have been previously maintained under good other cultural management, and that the house is not undergoing a change of ownership that the TPO is unnecessary, and may create an owner-slayer of administration. While not related to the TPO, additional points were also raised, that Shepherd City Council adapted upon hearsay when serving the TPO, and that one of the objectors didn't receive notification of the TPO. In response to the objections, notifications from the TPO were sent by First Class Recorder Delivery, as is the custom. I'm confident that we fulfilled our duty in order to make all relevant parties aware of the making of the TPO. With regards to the owner's nature of the TPO, TPO doesn't also prevent owners from maintaining their trees. In most cases, it only requires that work to protect the trees be subject to consent from the council. The consent ought to be granted where the work shown to be justified with regards to its potential impact on the health and immunity of the trees. It's not considered to be a substantially onerous process or a reason why TPO should not be made or confirmed. In assessing whether it be expedient in the interest of immunity to make the trees subject to the order the place it's assessment on information received from members of the public and observation of the officers who attended the house and determined that it was unoccupied. In this regard, the council was acting in good faith with the information available to them at the time, although it's accepted that the wording of the order could have been framed to indicate the impression that the house may be undergoing a change of ownership, as opposed to stating that it was. With regards to whether the order is appropriate, given information that the house is not under imminent change of ownership, as has already been described if there doesn't need to be an immediate risk for the need to protect trees. Changes in property ownership and intentions to fill trees are not always known in advance, and this means it's permissible for the council to make orders proactively as a precaution, which is in fact the basis that this TPO has made. The trees offer a very high level of immunity to the surrounding area, and while the house may not be undergoing a current change of ownership, it has been stated that the house may change ownership at some point as all houses must. At this point, there would be no form of protection for the trees, as the house is not within a conservation area, meaning that the trees could potentially be removed at some points, and that would offer a significant loss of immunity to the surrounding area. In closing, we have one representation in favour of the TPO, which was made by a member of the public who commented on the view to the trees, their contributions by diversity, and who referred to the trees as a community asset. Thank you. Thank you, Chuck. Can I ask Vanessa? I mean, it's stated that they've been under good or boiled, but I've written that, or oral management, is that true? Yes, they are well maintained, and well, it's after trees. And is it because they've been following a regime that you'd approve of? I would have thought so, yes. I think that they've been pruned in an acceptable way where prune has been conducted. Yes, because, you know, full well that we've questioned what the prunings could be. Is it a case that if the TPO was granted that they were allowed to continue with a pruning regime, management regime up till now, and only sort of require permission if they depart from that regime. So any pruning unless it felt under an exception would be subject to the need for consent, but we would be minded to grant consent for that works, where it is appropriate, yes. Right. No, it's just, you know, as I say, checking that they're allowed to continue without permission. It's not a specific permission for each intervention they use, unless it is the departure from what we've been doing up till now. Each intervention, unless it was covered by an exemption, i.e. the tree was dead, it was dangerous, et cetera, et cetera, would require consent, but we would be grant, I would have thought that we would be likely to grant consent for that works, because the works have been done are appropriate. Yes, so basically, we can't depart from what usual processes is what comes to, is what you're saying. The processes have begun TPO, then they have to apply regardless of what they've done in the past, and whether it's different or what they're doing in the future. That's correct, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Any else? Question? No comments? They are impressive trees, but yeah, I'm voting for the recommendation. Yes, support the recommendation chair. Yeah, for the recommendation chair. For the recommendation. Yeah, for the recommendation chair. Yeah, for the recommendation chair. For the recommendation chair. For the recommendation chair. Thank you, I've just passed. We now move to item 10, application under various acts and regulations. We have one application here today, item 10, application number 23, 0, 3, 6, 3, 1. If you will, 45, 8, 1, W, 10, 4, G, V, and a 5, 5, 5, 6, 3, as we've done that. Thank you, chair. The application site is accessed via Brooklyn's Avenue, as you can see from the image on the screen. It's accessed via a narrow access way in between number 45 and 47 Brooklyn's Avenue. The site is located in the south of properties on Brooklyn's Avenue and to the north of properties on the school green lane. The aerial view illustrates the existing bungalow on the site and the rest of the site is largely agitated, used as garden area and it features a number of trees. The most mature belt is located to the east of the site and is covered by a tree preservation order. It's proposed to demolish the existing bungalow on the site and erect four detached dwellings. These will have parking to the front and immunity space to the rear. The drawings indicate that the majority of the trees are to be retained and adequate root protection is proposed. There are a number of small number of trees to be removed for in total and one small tree group. These are located to the south of the site and are all category C and not covered by the tree preservation order. The loss will be compensated for by replacement planting with a landscape plan indicating approximately 20 replacement trees. The dwellings are predominantly two stories with a third story in the roof and served by windows in the gable elevations. That top section illustrates the front elevations of the dwellings which step down the site to take account of the topography which falls from west to east. This slide illustrates a number of sections through the site. The first two sections show the relationship of the proposed dwellings with properties to the front on Brooklyn's Avenue. The bottom section illustrates the section through dwelling and you can't quite make it out in there but it does show one of the properties which has got planning permission on school green lane to the rear of the site. It's not very visible there but it is indicated by a dash line. These are some more sections through the site. The top sections show sections through from north to south and the third section shows a view to the rear of the properties. The very bottom section illustrates the properties on Brooklyn's Avenue and you can just make out the dwellings behind the existing properties. You can see plot one and plot two there, plots three and four are screened by the trees in that image and you can see that there will be glinged views of the dwellings but they won't be overly visible because of the existing properties and because of the separation distance which is approximately 40 to 50 metres. This is an image looking up Brooklyn's Avenue. The dark property that you can see there is number 47 and the access drive is situated between the hedge and the grey fence. This is a view stood on the access drive looking back towards Brooklyn's Avenue. You can see number 47 to the left hand side of the screen and number 45 to the right hand side of the screen. This is a view looking towards the northern boundary towards properties on Brooklyn's Avenue. You can make out the trees within the site there and this is another view of properties on Brooklyn's Avenue taken from further back within the site. Again you can see the trees are situated along the boundary which have to be retained. In this image I think it was taken in February. There's not much tree cover in the spring and some of them and the trees will provide more screening between the site and the existing dwellings. This is an image looking towards the eastern boundary of the site. The trees that you can see there are subject to a tree preservation order and those are proposed to be retained by the proposal. This is a view looking towards the south boundary of the site. You can just make out a yellow digger there which is constructing a new property on the school green lane. This is an image of the existing bungalow which is to be demolished and this is another view taken towards the south of the site of existing properties. Again these are existing properties to the south of the site and an image at the front of the bungalow. This is a view of properties on Brooklyn's Avenue. This is taken from the western side of the access drive so it illustrates the properties around 47 upwards. So I'll just go back to the site layout and discuss the key points whilst this is on the screen. So I'll leave that up for a moment. Members will recall this site as it was previously presented to committee in July of last year. The scheme is very similar to that scheme which was presented at committee but there are several material considerations which must now be taken into account in the assessment of the scheme and particularly these relate to an appeal decision and a noise survey. There are two previous reviews on the site which are relevant. The first was for five dwellings that was decided in September 2022. The second was for four dwellings which was decided in July 2023. In the intervening period between that decision for the four dwellings and the current date the application for five dwellings has been appealed and that appeal has been dismissed. Although it was dismissed it didn't narrow the focus of the reasons for refusal and those that the outcome of that appeal and its findings are material to consideration of this current scheme. The four dwelling scheme is currently being appealed but no decision has been issued as of yet. I'll go through the key points relating to the application and highlight the key material differences including referencing what the inspector said in relation to the dismissed appeal. So in relation to the design of the scheme the five dwelling scheme was refused one of the reasons for refusal related to the designed and cramped form of the development which was considered to result in over development. The inspector agreed with the concerns about the design and the cramped form and appearance of the proposal. However the four dwelling scheme was not refused for issues relating to design and appearance because it was considered at that stage that by removing one of the properties that that reason for refusal had been addressed. In terms of design the proposal is for for large detached dwellings to be constructed of stone, they've got contemporary detailing, they won't be particularly highly visible from outside the site boundary because of the intervening dwellings and the separation distances and officers consider that the design is acceptable. In terms of amenity this was a reason for refusal for both of the previously refused schemes and there are two key areas considered in relation to amenity. So firstly there's the impact from the development surrounding properties in terms of overbearing, overshadowing and privacy and then secondly there's the impact from the use of the driveway and the general use of the site for residential living. In terms of the first matter so overbearing, oversharing and privacy the inspector concluded that the impact on properties on Brooklyn's avenue was acceptable, there's a separation distance of over 40 metres between the dwellings and that's considered to be sufficient to ensure that there's no one acceptable impact in terms of overbearing, overshadowing or privacy. The inspector did raise concerns about the impacts of privacy to the rear of the site so the dwellings to the south because the separation distances between the rear of the properties and those dwellings was less than 10 metres, the gardens was less than 10 metres, however the four dwelling scheme previously looked at and this scheme pulled the dwellings away from that rear boundary such that there is now at least 10 metres between the rear of the properties and the garden boundary and there is at least 21 metres between main facing windows, so in that regard that issue the scheme does comply with relevant policy in terms of separation distances. There will be a clear difference between the site as it's used now and how it would be used for residential living and the previous refusal referred to a perception of overlooking, clearly there will be a different perception from the use of the site for residential or forward dwellings compared to how it is now but officers consider that the separation distances do comply with policy and that in this regard this scheme is acceptable. The secondary to consider in terms of amenity is the impact of the intensification of the use of the driveway which was a reason for refusal in both of the previous applications. The inspector commented on this element as part of his appeal findings and narrowed the reasons for refusal so essentially the inspector found that a concern about privacy from the use of the driveway wasn't a concern, they considered that the impact of lighting from the use of the driveway wasn't a concern and they considered that the noise from general use of the site for residential properties and gardens etc. wasn't a concern. They did however express concerns about the intensification of the access and the noise and disturbance which would result from the use of that access and they highlighted that in the absence of any information or evidence to conclude how the noise would result from the driveway that the impact of the use would be unacceptable. In response to this the applicant has submitted a noise survey with the current application which provides evidence of the impact of the noise from the use of the driveway. There are a number of mitigation measures also proposed so at the moment the driveway is gravel, the proposing to tarmac it and the prison to construct fencing to either side. Fencing is already constructed at one side and fencing will be constructed at the other to replicate the existing. The noise survey essentially concludes that the increase in the number of movements will be offset by the reduction in noise so each vehicle passing will result in less noise because of the resurfaced driveway and fencing and that although there will be an increase in the number of movements that really the noise implications will be very minimal in light of this noise report officers are of the opinion that the noise issues would not result in an unacceptable impact on neighboring residents. EPS officers have also commented on the noise report and they too consider that they couldn't substantiate a reason for refusal based on noise impacts given the noise report that's in front of us. In terms of ecology the first application was refused partly on ecological grounds because there was no net gain proposed for the site. In relation to the second refused application that reason wasn't taken forward because it was agreed that we could secure a net gain in biodiversity through a condition or a section 106. A condition is proposed with this application to secure a net gain in biodiversity but in badger surveys have been carried out on the site and have not found any protected species and there's a condition attached to the recommendation which would require those surveys to be updated prior to the site being developed. In terms of highways the access is narrow and it will result in increased use of a narrow access which is not ideal. There are some visibility issues particularly with pedestrians so crossing the footpath but not in terms of visibility when entering the highway itself. Speeds will be low when using the driveway and on balance it's not considered that the the issues relating to the intensification of the use of the access could quantify as a reason for refusal and we haven't refused the application on highways grounds previously. There are 42 objections to the proposal and five letters of support. Those have all been summarised in the officer report. Given the above assessment and having regard to the findings of the appeal decision along with the evidence provided in the noise report and in the absence of a four-year housing on supply officers consider that the balance tilts in favour of the application. I'll just draw members attention to the supplementary report which relates to some additional representations which have been received. The representations largely relate to some land ownership questions which have been raised by one of the neighbours. They've suggested that a strip of land adjacent to number 47 is outside the ownership of the applicant. Officers have checked this with the applicant and the applicant has confirmed that that land falls within their ownership. Officers are satisfied with this and any further land ownership issues are not something that we can become involved with and will be a private legal matter. Thank you Sarah. We have some speakers. Obviously, my colleagues, Councillors, I'll still play with them. You have five minutes so. Thank you Chair. Thank you Councillors. I'm here today to represent the views of a significant number of constituents who live in the houses surrounding this proposed development sites which as you can see is on three different roads around the full site. And based on their comments, their views, I'm going to ask the committee to refuse this application. I last attended to speak about this development in July last year when the officer's advice was to refuse the application. The neighbours and I are actually at a loss to understand what of significance has changed since then. And indeed, the officer report acknowledges that this application is very similar to the proposal we considered last time. The houses that were originally five bedrooms in earlier applications are now described as four bedrooms within the addition of a study and play and/or play room. But all you need to do is put a bed in there and then we're back to five bedrooms. So, again, this is acknowledged by the officers in their report. In effect, we still have a proposal for similar houses to last time. A situation described in the reasons for refusal last time as over development of the site with the dwellings being over large and not commensurate with the size of the plot. There are several more specific reasons to refuse this application. The first group of issues concerns the number of cars that will be associated with these properties. Households with large houses, this type, will often up to at least two if not three cars. There is simply not space within the development for this number. We know very few people make use of garages as a regular place to park their cars, so we are left with cars being parked on Brooklyn's Avenue as there simply isn't space otherwise. That will further reduce visibility to the entrance and the roadway. The entrance is a long, narrow driveway that could only be used by one vehicle at a time. It is slightly curved and therefore reduces visibility as you enter or leave. So, if two vehicles meet, one will need to reverse. That will obviously often be on to the road across the pavement. And I wonder if this happens quite often whether the residents of the new properties would simply decide that it was easier to leave their cars on the road instead. The driveway also lies between the drives of the adjacent properties, adding additional hazard. There will be a risk to residents walking or cycling along the driveway, and as has been mentioned in the report, there is poor visibility for pedestrians walking up the road on that side of the pavement. The second major point is around the effect on the residents in terms of the privacy and the ability of them to enjoy their own homes. These houses, as I've said, are in the middle of a number of houses facing on the three surrounding roads. These properties look over the rear of the homes on each of those roads, and the size of these houses will lead to a real feeling of reduced privacy. There is a proposal for louvers at some of the windows, but those are very quickly and easily removed if the new owners don't like them, again acknowledged in the report. The proposed proposal also has a requirement for opaque glass at some windows, which again suggests their proximity. The noise of vehicles manoeuvring and using the driveway will impact on the current residents, as will the light from these large houses and their vehicles. The proposed noise reducing fence will have a limited impact on this, and again could be removed in the future. Other neighbours, specifically those on Whitfield Road, which is to the east of the site, are particularly concerned with the surface water drainage, which will significantly increase when this site, which is currently mainly earth and vegetation, when it is covered in buildings and driveways, leaving a much smaller area for water to be absorbed in the ground, and the slope of the site means that surface water will run into the properties on Whitfield Road. And again they have raised that as a significant concern to themselves. There is also concern raised by many people about the loss of flora and fauna at the site, and the net loss of biodiversity. Mammals including badges have been seen there in the past, and a significant amount of hedging and shrubs have already been removed, along with a number of trees. The survey finds, ecological survey, finds that a number of measures would be needed to mitigate against the damage to the ecology of the area. And finally the need for housing. I do not dispute the need for more housing across the city, but the difference that an extra one or two properties on this site will make is negligible. This site did have a single dwelling, and I believe that most of the neighbours would accept a smaller development with two to three smaller properties, as suggested in earlier reports produced from the planning department about this site. But this proposal, the number and size of properties, is I believe over development, and the residents would face practical issues with the use of their homes once they moved in, as well as considering the adverse impact on all their neighbours. So Chair, I urge the committee to refuse this application. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I would ex-speak with an application in John Hard to place. And again, you only have five minutes. Right. I'm speaking on behalf of people who live around the site. This application contains the same issues as the previous one, which was discussed last July, when the Planning Officer recommended refusal and the Planning Committee unanimously agreed. These issues have just been dismissed rather than resolved. The drive, it has an inadequate width, only a bicycle, comfortably across or past the car. There's no passing place on the 47 metres. The retaining wall is going to be needed on the bottom side, on the lower side of the drive, and drainage before any construction starts as the whole thing is slipping down the hillside. There's a difficulty in turning on a steep hill into the narrowest part of the drive. There are two drives immediately adjacent to this access road, so that's really you're talking about. Six properties trying to get out to the same place. Overlooking, the officer's report acknowledges that the large expanse of glazing over three floors was a result in a perception of overlooking and have a negative impact on residents' immunity. However, she states that the key in this instance is the distance, which accords with the Council's separation distances and would be comparable to other developments throughout the city. Shouldn't the design of these houses be a major consideration in that? The large area of glass intensifies the perception of overlooking when compared with houses having standard windows, and it's therefore different to many other developments within the city. Lovers are proposed, but these could be removed at a later date. The perception of overlooking would be significant on residents of school green lane impacting on their privacy. It's a shame that the proposals meet only minimum standards in a setting like this at the edge of the city. At the planning committee, for overdevelopment, Sarah Hall said that four properties just tips into being unacceptable, whereas if it was through, then you're reducing the movements, but again by 25%. Our advice has been she says that two to three properties would be more suitable, and it's just finding the right place where the development would be acceptable and would reduce the negative impacts. These three-story properties are now described as four bedrooms, although the layout had six bedrooms originally. They just renamed the rooms to dressing room and play room. The planning committee voted to include overdevelopment as a reason for refusal, and nothing has changed in this regard. The next thing is tilted balance. Tilted balance has come into play for all previous applications. The inspector for the earlier appeal found that four additional units would make a very modest difference to the housing supply of the city. In this case, it's three additional properties, and the previous planning officer found that the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits, even with the presumption of sustainable development. The officer now states that increasing the housing supply has been given a considerable weight in determining this application, but a reduction in the number of properties to three would mean only one less house and reduce the problem by 25%. Biodeversity, there would be a 46.1% habitat loss and a biodiversity net loss. The framework says that if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated or as a less resort compensated for, plan information should be refused. In this instance, it can be avoided by building less properties. Lastly, noise impact assessment based on an acoustic fence and change of surface. In section three of the noise assessment, there is a disclaimer. It is the client's responsibility to ensure the product chosen is suitable for the proposed use. Hill fence, which has been installed alongside number 47 by Hillsborough fencing, confirm, and Hillsborough fencing themselves have confirmed that this fence is not acoustic. An acoustic fence, called in varifence, has been mentioned in previous applications, and its widest point is 145 millimetres because it involves two panels with an air gap between. Installation will have an impact on the width of this narrow drive, which has not been addressed in the application. Calculations in the noise impact assessment are supposedly based on improvement because gravel on the drive has been replaced by tarmac. The consultants were not to know that the gravel was only recently installed by the applicant and was not in use when the property was occupied. Therefore, this is not a true baseline. Neighbors would move from occasional traffic generated by a single bungalow, having an earth driveway, including some pebbles, to a continuous traffic resulting from four large family houses on a tarmac road. The officer has recognized that it would represent a significant intensification of use of an unsatisfactory access. It is acknowledged that the fences will have no effect on the first four rooms. The impact of noise and visual intrusion would have a major detrimental effect on the aminitude of the houses, either side of this drive. I will say refuse. Thank you. Next week, sir, this will be proudly for the applicant. Are we here? We're not here today. We're not speaking. No. Would you like to respond? No thanks, Jen, can you respond? I'll move to member questions, then. I've got Roger first. Thank you, Chair. Yes. First of all, on that map that we see before is here, and I'm now looking at the global view from Google Earth. You can't see the kink in the exit and entrance point, whereas, you know, on the Google Earth, it is visible. I didn't know the length, but it's 47 meters. I'm sure that is the correct side. If two cars meet, one has to back up. That's quite a way to back between. There's no way in which they can move into a kind of labor where there's a passing point. There's no passing point. That's one thing. I would be a bit worried about any masking that cars parked either side of the exit or entry, particularly the exit would have on any cars exiting, because, again, you must have a clear view of the roads to either side. The first one, then, is about that exit and entry point. The second, really, is the and, of course, the width of the driveway. The next one is the ecology. Now, do we know that there are badger sets, actually, on the site, not just badger, but badger sets? If there are, what accommodation has been made for any change that may occur in that respect? Finally, how permeable is tarmac? I mean, one of the things that we have to make sure about, apart from all the other things that have been mentioned in terms of the ecology, that water can drain through. I suppose a question would be, since a number of people are putting these fake lawns down, or astroture for lawns, or whatever, they are not permeable and damage the ecology, in fact, because nature can't react in the way it does to normal lawns. So, would there be a point in that where, if that were to be passed, that you could say that a condition has to be, that every surface has to be permeable, whether in the garden, or whether on the driveway's and paths. Thank you. Yes, so, I'm going to let Helen answer the highways questions, but I'll just answer the other ones firstly. So, in terms of ecology, there was a budget survey carried out in August 2021, which didn't find any evidence of budgets on the site. We have, however, got a condition requiring updated surveys to be carried out because they are now over two years old. So, there is a condition, if I can just find it. Condition six requires further work to be done, further surveys to be done to check the protector species, which would include bats, badges, birds. So, that's the first one. In terms of the driveway, there is a condition requiring full details of the surfacing of the access driveway, but that's mainly to demonstrate how it will prevent surface water from spilling onto the highway. That condition doesn't specifically request permeable materials, but there is potential to request that if members thought that that was needed. In addition to that, however, there is a condition requiring details of drainage and so drainage from the development as a whole, which does require sustainable drainage. So, in combination with those two conditions, we covered drainage, we've covered details of the surfacing of the driveway, but we haven't specifically mentioned permeable paving within that condition. Are we allowed to put conditions in terms of, you know, God, where these false lawns are put down, where nature can't, you know, express itself, let's put it that way, and it may be less permeable. We have got a condition requiring a hard and soft landscape scheme, so as part of that, we could ensure that the landscaping was appropriate and didn't include those sorts of elements. Helen, do you want to go in on the highways? Hi, future. In the first instance, I just want to say something, I've heard the the word substandard access banded about, and I'm not, from a highway's perspective, it certainly isn't cut and dried that it is a substandard access. In terms of the width, there's been a topographical survey carried out, and the width is between 3.9 metres and 4.4 metres. In terms of the absolute minimum to get two cars past, and this is both Sheffield's own guidance and national guidance, the minimum width is 4.1 metres. So certainly, yes, there might be one section where you might not be able to get two cars past, but it is not along the full section of the access. I think the other thing that we've got to bear in mind as well is that how frequent are two cars going to meet on that access, because obviously that comes into consideration when determining whether it is safe or not. Given that there's likely to be 19 cars generated over a 12-hour period and a potential maximum in a peak of two to three cars, I would suggest that the likelihood of two cars meeting is limited. Again, this is based on information that is national information. It's not something that the developers transport consultants are dreamt of, or the highway authority of dreamt of. So in my opinion, the access is unsuitable, but yes, it is narrower in some instances than if we're wearing an ideal situation, which is certainly not narrow to the point that it would be of recommendation for refusal from a highway perspective. In terms of the sidelines from the access, the sidelines meet the requirements of the manual for streets and the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide, and I think in some cases slightly in excess of that, which is 2.4 metres, about 43 metres. It's the appropriate sideline for the speed limit of the road. Mention has been made of the lack of visibility for pedestrians. It's actually pedestrian vehicleer into visibility, which is just to the rear of the footway. Yes, ideally we would have a two metre by two metre display. That can't be provided. I think what, again, what we have to bear in mind is that if you look at the vast majority of the houses along that stretch of road, exactly the same situation exists, there is no pedestrian vehicleer into visibility display. Again, I think the frequency of pedestrian movements up and down the road is something that needs to be borne in mind, which are limited. That's combined with the frequency of the vehicles using the access. Again, I don't think that meets anywhere near meeting the requirement or it feels in the application. Tracking has been submitted to demonstrate that a fire appliance can get up the access, can turn into the access, can negotiate the access and can turn within the side. The minimum width for a fire appliance is 3.7 metres, and that's where the crew may have to work alongside fire appliance. So, again, obviously, the width of the access more than meets that. So, best from a highway's perspective, I don't think there is any justifiable reason to refuse the application. Yes, there are certain elements that don't meet and bang on the guidelines, but it's determining whether they are reasonable, whether that makes reasonable refusal, and I don't think it does. So, just in terms of the parking, the parking meets the guide like the council's guidelines. Garages at the moment are included within the council's parking guidelines. I completely appreciate what people say about the use of them, but as things stand at the moment, the council's parking guidelines do include garages, and so therefore, within the latter, we'll consider there is adequate parking for the development. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Ellen. Barbara, I have you an expert. Thank you, Chair. We know a few points. Page 57 says, a condition, the accommodation, be retained for the sole purpose intended, and that's to do with sort of a car parking. But time and time again, we're told that sort of, each application has got to be considered by its merit, and there's nothing in there that will stop future application changing the use. I mean, it also concerns me about sort of paid 60, what about the distinction between a bedroom and city or playroom, which has been mentioned as well. The other thing is paid 77, again, it's this access, I do apologise, Helen, but basically sort of, I think that the remit or that the judgment calls that transport makes does not take into account human behaviour, and we cannot legislate or put in conditions for that. What's the width of the car? It's because some of them are massive. These are family homes, which means more than just two people occupying it. Families imply visitors and sort of growing children who want their own sort of means of transport. We cannot assume there's only going to be limited access and limited use of that driveway, and I think I regret the fact that it's just not addressed, just says there's a potential of a conflict of two vehicles passed without sort of taking into account the wider considerations, and drainage time and time again at planning. I've said, what about the impact lower down? We might protect the site from runoff itself, but what a family homes implies, sort of, you know, increased use of water, that's got to go somewhere, whether it's in the sewage systems, as opposed to sort of, you know, sort of surface drainage. How can we protect properties lower down the system by being impacted by things like this when there's only sort of limited consideration about the actual site itself? So what am I asking? How much of this have we got control over? Because we haven't got, have we got control over maintaining the accommodation for its old purposes on page 57? Have we got any control over the number of vehicles that can use that driveway and the size of those vehicles? Have we any control over what happens to the drainage, either surface drainage or from the water that's produced from four family homes on the four bedroom family homes on this site? And can we prevent the four bedrooms being used, what the extra rooms being used for, as bedrooms? Thank you. I'll try and answer those questions. Firstly, in terms of changing the use, are you referring to condition 15? Yeah, okay, so condition 15 which says that the car parking accommodation shall be provided as shown on the plans. So there's that condition and then the next one down is the removal of committed development rights, so they wouldn't be able to change the garages without applying to plan the condition essentially. But that's my point. There's nothing to stop from applying at every time. I mean we've had application application for a change in conditions a few years down the line. We can't prevent it, is that correct? Because we've got to them, we've got to judge each application on its merits, regardless of what's come before. Absolutely, absolutely. So yes, there's nothing to prevent them applying to either remove that one of those conditions or applying for planning to change the garage. We can't prevent that and all we would do is assess the application on its merits at that time. So that's the first question. In terms of bedrooms, you correct, it shows four bedrooms to each dwelling at the moment and then an additional study area. There's nothing we could do to stop maintaining that study area into a bedroom. But equally, I question whether that would be necessary anyway, because does it really matter if there's four people living in the house or five people? Is the impact going to be materially different? My view would be that in this case it wouldn't, potentially if a family lives there and they've got two children or three children, there's not much material difference. And then in terms of drainage, we have got a condition relating to drainage on the site and that will ensure that we've assessed that fully and that the site will be drained by sustainable drainage where possible it will look at the site and itself and it will also seek to ensure that there is no impact, knock on impacts elsewhere within the local area. Can I just say that doesn't make it clear in the documentation, you know, that there will be, you know, that other, the impact of the wider area will be looked at. It implies that sort of it won't be affected. It's a standard condition we use for drainage and it looks at the site and obviously the site impacts upon the wider area. It's something that we would, the condition we would put onto all developments of this nature and it is my view that that would be adequate to address drainage conditions. So I'll leave it there because from previous conversations, it is a concern of mine, especially with sort of flooding and the impact of the range we've had recently. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Chair, thank you. I just want to remind members about the importance of consistency in planning decisions. So in that respect, obviously we've previous had a similar application that was refused, I believe, for one reason. And in the intervening period, we have the new material consideration of the planning inspector's decision and there's also been some amendments as well of the application that have been sought to deal with those reasons. In respect to other matters such as drainage and highways, my understanding from the planning officer is that the application is broadly similar and such that if it wasn't refused those reasons last time, members would need to be thinking about what has changed into them that would mean that it's now a concern whereas it previously wasn't. Thank you, Chair. Mike? Thank you, Chair. I'm pleased to hear that we can, if we choose, condition a permeable road surface to that narrow lane because my worry would also be what would happen with the water runoff if we do not do that. So I also have a question then, can we condition the louvers, the louver windows, so that they cannot be changed at a future date? That's not my only question, but it was said earlier that a fire appliance can get up and down that narrow lane. So I'm a bit confused as to why a refuse collection lorry cannot also go back and down that lane and provide the service by Sheffield City Council rather than having to buy that in. I wouldn't have thought that lorry was any wider than a standard fire appliance or pumps as they call them in the trade. Thank you, Chair. So in terms of the louvers, yes, and there are a number of louvers shown on the upper floor windows to the revelations of the properties. If the application was approved, it would be a requirement to install those louvers because the development would need to be built in accordance with the approved plans. However, we have considered whether it would be necessary, whether it would be reasonable to condition those louvers to be retained, to put condition on stating that they shouldn't be retained. And it's our view that that test, that that condition wouldn't pass the test, one of the tests, which is that it will be necessary because ultimately the separation distances between the dwellings is 21 meters. And therefore, if it meets our policy requirements in terms of separation distances, putting a condition on wouldn't necessarily be classed as being necessary. Hi, Chair. Andrew's clarifying. This is a virtue of the same application we rejected you unanimously on office of advice less than a year ago. All the officers now telling me that in view of the inspector's opinion that we have now solved all the objections you held it with to clear this one. I mean, I couldn't quite follow what the inspector was saying when he went back to our decision that now says it's OK, what has changed that the inspector has required for us to give approval this time? So, the inspector's decision is a material consideration and I sort of brushed upon what the outcome of the appeal decision was. So, we've got to take into account the findings of the inspector's decision and we've got to take into account all the material changes which the key one really is the noise report that we've got. So, it's officer's view that those are material considerations and that the findings of the inspector's report, coupled with the noise report, address the majority of concerns now. No application is perfect and the officer report makes it clear that there are still several things which aren't perfect, but looking at the application on balance, taking into account the changes in those material considerations, it's officer's opinion that the balance now tips in favour of supporting the application. And that's taking on all the inspector's views. That's it. Thank you, Chair. Couple of questions. Could we go to this footprint slide, please? Thank you. Couple of questions. I went and saw the site yesterday this morning and I noticed that the difference in topography is quite dramatic. Looking at the four proposed buildings, the one, the second on the left and the one second on the right, either two middle ones, one is going to be significantly higher if I've got my geography correct than the other. Is there issues of overlooking from one to the other? That's my first question. The second one is the furthest on the right, my right and the right hand middle one. Does the 45 degree issue is actually fulfilled in any of the windows on the furthest right? Thank you. So I'll bring up some sections which might help understand levels. So you're right, the site is not level at all and it's kind of built on plateaus at the moment. So I'm not sure if you can make it out, but there's a red line across that top section, which is looking at the dwellings from the front. The red line indicates the existing land levels. So there is some alterations to land levels. So essentially, if you're looking at the right hand side of that screen, which is the west of the site, there's going to be some lowering of land levels and then there's going to be some building of land levels towards the east of the site, so that the differences in levels aren't as exaggerated as they are at the moment. So that was the first question. In terms of the 45 degree line, it does look as though I haven't actually checked the 45 degree line and there could potentially be some encroachment on that. We'd have to investigate that further. However, what I would say about that is that people will be buying these houses off-plan. They will know what the situation is like. They will know whether the neighbouring property projects beyond them or not. The gardens are south-facing, the windows are south-facing. So in terms of overshadowing, that shouldn't be an issue. And I'd also like to come back to the issue of the access. I'm really, I was up there this morning unless I've suddenly grown long legs. At the narrowest point, it was about three and a half of my paces, and I certainly don't pace it a meter. I would really question the measurements, and I'd like them to be re-measured if that's possible because I can't see how two cars could pass at all on that access road. And inevitably, my real concern is that if the car trying to get onto the site had to back backwards with the screening on both sides, one on the edge, one on that grave screen, you're not going to be able to see at all the pavement. And the way the pavement is laid out, the pavement comes first, and then it's the verges before you hit the main road. So you are going to have, at some point, a driver is going to have to make a leap of faith that there isn't a pedestrian coming. And more and more pedestrians these days, eight, because of the government laws, guidelines, I think they have the right of way when they don't, and so they just walk on, and be a lot of them wear headphones, so they're in the world of their own. And I'm just concerned it's a potential accident waiting to happen. So that's a genuine concern. And I would question whether you could get a fire engine up there, that is narrow sport. Especially as I've just heard already, that the current grey screening is not acoustic when it would have to be widened, and a similar one would have to be put on the other side, so that that access is becoming more and more narrow, but I'd second, and whilst it might not be a reason to refuse certainly in terms of a condition, I think that has to be resolved before approval is given up, thank you. So accurate plans have been submitted, they'll be based on the site survey, so I don't think it would be appropriate to ask for those measurements to be taken again. I believe that Helen has answered the majority of the highways presence, and as Vicki said, we didn't refuse the application on highways grounds before, so to bring that as an issue now would be difficult. So even in the case of the membership of this panel at this committee changing, does the make up of the committee at any point when the decision is taken? Is that material? Chair, you're okay. It was a decision of the committee, so the committee made a decision, it's not your decision or her decision or anybody, it's the committee's decision, so the consistency in planning decisions is about the committee being consistent. Thank you. Can I just question that? I mean sort of the issue now is there's going to be two acoustic fences, which material effects movement along the driveway. Isn't that sort of a material a change that we could now condition? Sorry Chair, I just need to clarify. So a change that we can now condition, I'm not sure what you mean by that. You were saying that because we didn't actually put this in as an objection, well a reason for refusing the previous application, we can't consider it now, but what I'm saying is that surely this is a change from then to now, and therefore it'd be in order to put in this as an objection, this is a query. Thank you Chair, and just to respect sort of going back a few stages if you like, and my understanding is that part of the previous refusal was about the concern to do with the access and the noise, so the applicant has put in the noise survey and suggesting acoustic fences, which I'm not sure whether that has had any material impact on the highway in respect to the width etc. I think that's probably something that you need to take advice from the highway's office of on. If the highway's office of thinks there has been a change in the highway situation compared to last time such that it could support a reason for refusal, you'll need to ask her, but my understanding is that in respect to what the highways and the National Planning Policy Framework is that it's only going to be a reason refusal if the impact is severe or it has an unacceptable impact on safety, and I believe the highway's office has already said that's not the case in this instance, but I think it's something the highways officers can come back on and just reiterate if necessary. Can I just add as well? So in terms of the fencing, reading into the noise report, the noise report was carried out and it assessed the existing fence that's there at the moment. Although it's not a true acoustic fence in terms of technical specification, it does any fencing would have some acoustic properties and this fencing does have some acoustic properties because the panels are all meat so there's no gaps between them, there's no gaps between the borders at the bottom and the boards at the top. So the noise survey took account of that existing fence and used the measurements within the survey based upon that fence. So and the noise survey which illustrates that the noise levels are very low was used with that in mind. So if that fencing was to be replicated on the other side, it would be very narrow anyway. There is also a condition about fencing, about details of fencing, so at that point we'll be able to ascertain exactly how wide the fencing was, but it would be in all likelihood fairly similar to what is already there. Thanks, Chair. Victoria, I've got to ask you a question. It's been a little misleading for me anyway, I don't know if all the members have picked up the same thing. First of all, I just wanted to say that is this a new application? Yes, it's got a new reference number, it's a new application, and there are some differences obviously there's a planning officer to comment. There are some differences obviously in perspective, you know, what's being proposed in respect of accusing and seeing etc. But obviously we do have the new material consideration since which is planning inspector's decision. On another application? Yes, so the planning inspector's decision relates to the previous application for five bedrooms, at the five houses on the site, and they have considered some of the issues that obviously relate to the previous application for four bedrooms. Some of the issues are similar obviously in respect of the site, and obviously that five bedroom application, the inspector has found a lot of the issues are acceptable in respect to that five bedroom application. Sorry, five dwellings, five dwellings, so in respect to the five dwelling application, the inspector has found a lot of the issues to be acceptable. Obviously in respect to the four bedroom application that the committee refused previously, they refused it on a lot of those similar issues, those similar amenity issues. But so now when the applicant's come forward again with a similar application, albeit with a few minor amendments also to try and, you know, mitigate those previously as refusal, the committee needs to take into account the fact that a planning inspector has already decided that a lot of these issues are acceptable in their view. So the committee, in terms of consistent decision-making, needs to take that into account and that's how the planning regime works, is that if the six-day planning inspector has already deemed something to be acceptable, it can be considered unreasonable behaviour for the committee to say that they want to pursue those same reasons, unless they've got evidence which can substantiate, but bus evidence is still in their view, substantiate those reasons for refusal. So it's not in your application that you have to just listen to all the inspectors, so the old application. It's a different application, but in terms of the planning regime, one of the aimed is consistent decision-making. So in that respect, you know, people need to be able to make applications and, you know, on the basis that decisions are going to remain in a consistent manner. So obviously in this respect, you know, it may be that members thinking consistent decision will be the same decision as last time, but the basis of the planning applications is it needs to be made in accordance with a development plan on less material considerations indicate otherwise. So since last time you've got a new material consideration of that planning inspector decision who's already ruled on a lot of these issues, and the planning practice GAN says that it can be considered unreasonable for a local authority to ignore that essentially. Obviously, do you need to take it into account? That's what we're saying, it's a new application, but with the material consideration, a new material consideration which relates to a previous application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I just wonder whether there's any variance in the width from the bottom right through to the end. I mean, obviously this was a road that was meant for one dwelling, and I presume also that there are children or there could be children in these dwellings that would walk down that passageway, and they would come into conflict, or possible conflict, with the vehicles that are exiting or entering that very narrow exit entry. Are you saying that because the inspector may not have been considered that? It may be, I don't know, but are you telling us that, because it wasn't mentioned by the inspector, that we cannot make any consideration of the problems that may occur with the width of that, and it's the only exit entry point. If there's a fire, for example, where do they escape to? If there's a fire engine coming down at the hurtling down at the speed, thank you. Hello, you ought to come in on that, please. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, the drive width does vary, and that from the topographic survey that's submitted, it varies in width between 3.9 metres and 4.4 metres. In terms of a shared pedestrian and vehicle use, yet we have many shared pedestrian and vehicle areas. In fact, I'm not quite sure whether it is still the guidance now, but something up to 25 to 50 dwellings is acceptable to have a shared pedestrian and vehicle area. So, as I say, given the fact that the traffic generation up and down the access is going to be quite limited, we're talking two to three vehicles during the peak hour. I think the likelihood of conflict between pedestrians accessing the site and vehicles accessing the site will be limited. I think the other thing that you've got to bear in mind is that the access is relatively straight, and therefore you have a decent forward visibility. I have to stress, I don't think from a highways perspective, there is a valid reason for refusal due to the use of that access to serve four dwellings. Thank you, Chair. Excellent, Peter. Ask a question about any amendment that we might make. Do we have to make the amendment before we vote, or is it possible, no, it couldn't be possible, could it, to have a vote on something? Let's say it was upheld, then you couldn't put an amendment in following that, could you? So, that any amendment put forward, has to be put forward before the vote is taken. Okay, in respect to amendment, I presume you're talking about a condition. Yeah. Yes. So, if you want to amend or add a new condition, it would need to be before the vote, obviously it would make more sense, because otherwise you'd be voting without making that amendment. But obviously in terms of making and the amendment doesn't even pose seconded and then voted on. Thank you. Peter. Can I just clarify, there's a currently a dwelling on the site, which has vehicle access, obviously, and onto the road, and has done forever. Not sure. There isn't one existing dwelling, I don't think it's occupied at the moment, but obviously it has been, and it could be at any point, so yes. Jodie? Yeah, it might as just a quick one really is. Obviously, we have to take into consideration the inspectors' findings on this. And according to what I've just put below, what we've read here is, the decision has been appealed by the applicant and is currently awaiting a decision by the inspectorate. How does that configure it with what we're talking here? Please. Thank you, Chair. So that's the, so there's been two applications on the site. The first one was for five houses, that has been appealed, and we've talked about the decision of that appeal. The second one, which was for four houses, which went to committee last July, that is currently with the inspectorate, so it is being appealed at the moment we haven't had the decision for that one back. So should this have come to the committee now, then, before the inspectors come back to the decision? It will be unreasonable for us to refuse to make a decision, because we were waiting for that information. Cliff? Thank you, Chair. So I'm sorry to pick you up on this high-race issue. You say two to three vehicle movements per hour. I'm just thinking what it's going to be like over the morning when people are going to work. If these people are, you know, there's possibly two people from each house going to work, there's going to be about eight vehicles. I mean, am I talking nonsense here? No, I think the thing is, obviously, when we're looking at applying application and we're trying to determine what level of vehicle traffic any site is going to generate, we have to use something, and that something is a database called Tricks, which has a whole host of different thousands of different sites of different land uses, different locations, different in terms of their accessibility to public transport, and that's what we use to determine or estimate, to let's say, the trip generation from any specific site. So in this instance, the site would have been chosen. I mean, I have to say, in normal circumstances, we wouldn't have requested this work to be carried out, given, you know, the size of the development, but given the concerns about the access and things like that, then this work was done. Basically, the rate per dwelling is generated, and that gives you a rate per hour per dwelling, and it also gives you a rate over a 12-hour period. Over the 12-hour period, you're talking about potentially, to say, 20 or so vehicles. For the hour, the peak hour, so we're talking about the busiest hour, which is generally, you know, the morning peak and the evening peak, you're looking at two to three vehicles, and that's because, you know, the way things are, not everybody leaves in that one hour, you know, it's spread out throughout the day, so I'm quite happy that the two to three vehicles, even if you say four vehicles, are going to go out in that hour, but that is not a detriment to highway safety. Thanks, Chair. Gary, I wish I'd love to ask one. Well, I'm sorry to have a link on this, but sorry, can we just have a legal opinion back on Councillor Downing's point? You know, if it's an application in the last July, it's still pending, we don't know what that would be, they would not know what he's going to say, but we're putting a lot of weight on what he's already said about the previous application. You know, so it shouldn't be really weird until we find out that decision of the planning aspect, and before we, before this came to us anyway, I mean, it's got to be answered. I know, you know, it's always done a good job, but it's just unclear to me at that point. And there's no reason to wait, and obviously when that comes, when that decision comes, that may be a material consideration for a future application, but the applicant has made another application, is entitled to a decision. It's not really, there's no good reason to seek it further and decision from the planning aspect, you know, we've got the information before and that should enable you to make a decision. Thank you. No further comments. Yeah. I'll move to a halt, so I'll start with Mike please. Thanks, Chair. I just asked him very more. Sorry. I didn't, yeah, well, I'll make a comment, please, Chair. I think what the discussion, sorry, the questions that members, including myself, have been asking, they have shown up the limitations of planning policy and how the certain material consideration is particularly to do with the way the inspectorate operate, of rather sort of narrowed our ability. Now, for wiggle rooms, we want to have a better phrase. I mean, I do share the frustrations of members around the room and of those people who've come today, particularly represented by Susan, in lodging objections and then finding that the planning policy for them, for sure, but it is very much geared towards development. These are basically good houses, but the feeling, particularly of the residents living around about, is that there's too many of them on this plot, but the inspectorate is basically saying that you can have that number of houses on that plot provided you put in certain measures, particularly to do with noise reduction on the on the road surface leading to the development of this site. I've got a proposal because I have an awful feeling that, well, I do feel that this will go through one way or another, so I'm going to propose a condition. In view of the biodiversity net loss, I'm just surprised that we haven't considered putting in swift bricks. I know we're putting in some bird boxes and bat boxes, but I would request by condition that swift bricks are included on each of the homes on the site. Now, I will be with some reluctance, so I will be supporting this application chair. We have got a condition requiring a landscape and ecological management plan. It doesn't go as far as actually setting out what we want in terms of bat boxes, bit boxes with boxes, that would be something that we would leave to the kind of the condition discharge. If members wanted to specify some particular elements, I can't see there being any particular issues with that. Vicki, that is my proposal if I can have a seconder. Vicki. Sorry, just on that. If you've got a proposal and a seconder and then they're on them, would that be a mending that condition? We are mending it. Can we clarify exactly what you wanted to say, just with bricks? We've already got new ones and owl boxes. Was that a genuine proposal? No, no. Okay. So it's to add for the biodiversity mitigation to add swift bricks to each of the homes on the site. And if I would also like to add an amendment and this doesn't produce how I vote in the end, but that all surfaces are permeable. Thank you. Right. So do we have a seconder? I thought you were saying for Mike. We'll go to Mike first, if Mike was first, which is just with boxes, that's with bricks in all of the houses. No, you can't. No, you can't. You've got to have them separate. They have to be separate. Are you saying they're mics? Yep. Take a vote on that, please. Show of hands. Yep. Thank you. Chair, can I just clarify? Was that an amendment to swift bricks? No, thank you. Thank you. Just in respect to the potential proposal for permeable, can I just ask the planning officer to comment on that? Just for my understanding from the discussion in terms of the noise and the positive suggestion for the tarmac, would it be reasonable to sort of suggest that perhaps the noise survey actually is based on tarmac such that changing the surface might have an impact on noise and whether that needs further thought. [inaudible question] Oh, thank you. That's very helpful. Okay, so in terms of the condition, would that be relating specifically to the driveway then the permeable materials? I'm not sure it would be reasonable to require all surfaces. For example, if they wanted a patio that was not permeable and that will be controlled, that we've got hard and soft landscape scheme, we've got surface water drainage scheme, and if the driveway is permeable, which we can secure by amending the condition, then I think that that would probably be sufficient. [inaudible question] I'm not convinced that you can't make patios permeable. I have, so, but anyway, I will deal with what the limitations have been offered. [inaudible question] Yeah, in the driveway. Chair, is that being seconded? I think that's being posed and seconded, so you just need to vote on that, amending that condition as well. Thank you, Chair. So, Chair, can we just clarify what you mean by the driveway? Is it the driveway of the access or is it the driveway and the bit that spills out to the front of the houses? Yeah, I took it. The Roger meant the whole access. The whole access. Not just that narrow strip, but going right up to the homes. I'm just down to that. I think it's for the proposal to advise advisors while they're proposing, so it would be fair. Well, I was informed that I was very limited as to what I could propose, so I said I would go with what limitations have been offered, which is the driveway that's. Which is the driveway. I think if we include the whole of that surfacing around the driveway, including the access to the gardens. Give me the access row. Yeah, that's the access row. That's what we're going to talk about, isn't it? Because we have a proposal that Barbara did you second that? Yeah. Yep. And I speak against it. Well, we seem to be adopting a policy on the whole for you. We don't exist, it's an irrelevant planet. The catheter comes in. Nobody said you must have a permeable driveway. You've all gone through. But suddenly, we decided on this one time, we could have a permeable driveway all around this length. And I don't think it's weird to make policy, Jen. Let's make it. Yeah. We're actually moving towards more, more sustainable, let's say, ecology on all the development sites. Well, I don't know if you attended a planning meeting not long ago, where the ecology became a very important element of that. And I think that it may set the precedent and why not? Move to a vote, Chair, on that condition, please. Sorry, Chair. I think we've got a proposal and that's been seconded to the permeable driveway. The planning officer appears to understand what the proposal is in respect to how much of the driveway that that takes. So it seems to be understood. So, yeah, do you think you need to move to vote on amending that condition? Thank you. Okay. So, we're going to have a show of handles for years. One, two, three, four, five, six, six, four, seven, four, five, seven, four. Yeah. That's a thank you. So, I'm just going to take in the vote correctly with those conditions that we've already discussed and voted on. So, good, thank you. First of all, I'm actually speaking in favour of the recommendation. I wouldn't, I weren't at the beginning, but having heard what said, what the shall I see consistency? And when I see decisions, it's not, we don't take in other places, it's not on. And I think what we've received from the officers and what the inspector said has led me to believe that this, this is just about gives all what the officer was demanding. I mean, don't forget there's been a property on this site forever, which has been used by a vehicle up and down this thing onto the road, probably more than one vehicle. And therefore, to suggest that somehow, it's going to restrict it. And 3.9 metres wide, it might not get too vehicle, but it's certainly wide enough for a vehicle and a pedestrian on the drives. I'm, I'm, I'm not, no. So, on balance here, I'm going to support the officer recommendation. I understand the difficulty, the problems that people have. It's a large site, and it's got to have more than one, you know, people are saying up to three, but with the original one for five, it's come down to four, and I think on balance, I'm going to support the recommendation, Chair. Anybody else want to say anything? I'll go to the open. Mike, please. For the recommendation, Chair. For Chair. For Chair. For Chair. Again, this Chair. I'll abstain on this one, a lot of those. And, Chair. Against Chair. Against Chair. I'll use my vote for, because it was a, I'll pass. Thank you, Chair. I, to be 11, recorded planning appeal, exhibition, and decisions. Anything to say? Thank you, Chair. I think the only decision I'd probably want to draw my presentation to is the one for the Moby Bay Creek Mary's Lane, where the inspector allowed the appeal against the refusal of planning permission. It was refused on the basis of, that the conversion and compartmentalization would result in the special significance of the grade two list of the building being diminished, but the inspector acknowledged that while crook number two was widely visible to use of the cafe at present, the other two crooks weren't, and the use of the building could be changed without an application of planning permission, any case, which would mean that the crooks could not be seen, and actually the change of use of the dwelling house would bring the two halves of the building back into the same use, which would potentially enable the crooks to be appreciated together within the same building, and that there were no extensions or other additions proposed to the building to affect its distinctive form. So, that's just a note that that was allowed. Thank you. The date and the time of the next meeting will be decided at the ADM on the 50th, taking you to the 50th, isn't it? Thank you members. [BLANK_AUDIO]