Transcript

Transcript

Good evening and welcome to the first meeting of the South Area Planning Subcommittee of the Municipal Year 2024/2025. As we have members of the public present, I'd like to draw your attention to the fire precautions. In the event of the fire alarm sounding, leave the room immediately. Proceed downstairs by way of the main stairs or follow any of the emergency exit signs. Leave the building and follow the signs of the fire assembly point, which is in the old church path, on the pathway between the rear of the Isha public car park, the library end, and the churchyard. As the agenda for the meeting was dispatched prior to confirmation of the membership, I can confirm that the following councillors are members of the South Area Planning Subcommittee. Councillors Burley, Harman, Johansen, Mann, Parker, Soed, Sterry, Tilling and Wells. However, we do have one substitute for this evening's meeting. Councillor Ormond Varty is present as a temporary substitute for Councillor Sterry. The first item on the agenda is the appointment of chair. Please can I take the subcommittee's nominations? Thank you, Matt. I'd like to nominate Councillor Burley as chair. Is that seconded? Are there any other nominations? No? Therefore, I can confirm that Councillor Andrew Burley is appointed as the chair of the South Area Planning Subcommittee for the municipal year 2024-2025. Thank you, members. Thank you for your support. Good evening, everybody. Fantastic to see so many people here. It's really good to come and see how we make these decisions. I am going to briefly read out the instructions for this evening simply because it's a new committee although I think we've all -- nobody's new, are they? No. Okay. I think given the fact there's so many people here, I think we'll skip that. So the second item on this agenda is we must appoint a vice chair. So may I have nominations, please, for vice chairman of South Area Planning Committee? Yes, Councillor Wells. I haven't spoken to him, but if he's prepared to accept, I'll nominate Councillor Parker. Okay. Any other nominations? Seconded. Do we need to put it to a vote? Councillor Parker, you didn't realize you were going to be nominated, but -- right. Okay. Okay. Well, you're entitled to nominate anybody you want. Okay. All right. So in that case, Councillor Parker is appointed vice chair for this municipal year. Councillor Parker, would you like to take your seat in the firing line, please? Thank you. So while Councillor Parker makes his way over, I'll quickly go through the declarations of interest. So all members present are required to declare at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or other interests arising under the code of conduct in respect of any item of business being considered here this evening. Do I have any declarations of interest, please? No. Okay. Thank you, members. So moving on, we have a raft of public speaking this evening, but what I'm going to do is normally, because there's a lot of members of the public here, we would take the application that we have public speaking for first, but we have public speaking for everything. So I'm going to stick to the agenda. So I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, if you're hanging around. So the first item on our agenda is item 4A. That is Lam, south of 28 Leehill Road in Cobham. That's application 20232988. And I'd like to ask the officers to introduce the application. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. This application at Lam, south of 28 Leehill Road seeks full planning permission for a detached two story house with rooms in the roof space with an attached garage, swimming pool and entrance gates. The house will be accessed via broad highway to the south. There are two updates to this item. Firstly, a further letter of objection has been received from 16 Harebell Hill concerning the impact upon trees adjacent to the access from broad highway, specifically inaccuracies in the size of root protection areas, the impact of the access and driveway upon those trees and whether the trees should be considered as veterans. The council senior tree office has reviewed and confirmed the trees are not veteran due to their size and that the suggested conditions are still sufficient to address the impact of the access and driveway due to the combined RPAs of T two, T three and T four. Secondly, an amended ownership certificate has been submitted confirming that notice has been served to the landowner. The proposed house would contain five bedrooms, although policy CS 19 requires 90% of new homes to contain either one, two or three bedrooms. However, given that the overriding character of the area is that of large detached houses with multiple bedrooms, the provision of a four plus bedroom unit here is considered to be acceptable. On screen now we have the proposed site plan which shows the layout of the proposed site. Here we have the proposed floor and roof plans. Here we have the proposed elevations. This is a proposed street scene serving the relationship with 25 Oxford rise. Here's a plan elevation of the entrance gates. This is a tree protection plan. And finally we have some photographs of the sites. Thank you, chairman. >> Thank you very much. Members, any questions of clarification for the officer, please, before we go into debate? Yes, Councillor Charles? >> Thank you, Harvey, for a very comprehensive report. Can you just confirm the appeal status and current policy process with the inspectors, et cetera, around CS 17, CS 19, so density and housing need, because on first prima facie this would appear to be meeting neither of those two policy requirements. Thank you.

Policy CS 19 requires 90% of new homes to be either one, two or three bedroom. However, there is a 10% need in the policy for four bedroom plus units. So in this case given that the overriding character of the area is large detached houses containing four plus bedrooms, officers are satisfied in this case that this proposal would be acceptable and make a contribution to that 10% need for four plus bedroom homes. Typically if an application like this does go to appeal and it is refused due to housing size, in my experience it can be unsuccessful and the appeal can be allowed. >> I'm sorry, density. Again similar in terms of density, the density of this particular proposal is comparable to neighboring properties. There is some text within policy CS 17 saying that if the density is in accordance with the requirements of the policy in terms of 30 dwellings per hectare, in some cases that can result in overriding harm to the character of the area if for example the surrounding area is characterized by lower density as is the case here. Thank you. Councillor Tilling. >> There are quite a number of paragraphs from paragraph 31 onwards to paragraph 38. I've read them and I can see what the conclusion is, but I think it's just worth drawing out that my reading is that there will be an affordability contribution and that later on it will qualify for civil payment as well. Is that correct? That's correct, yes. So the applicant submitted a legal agreement to secure a policy compliant financial affordable housing contribution for approximately 64,000 pounds and also the application is liable for seal as well. >> Thank you. Any other member for the officer please? No. Okay. Thank you. So as I said earlier, we have public speaking for this item and all items this evening. We have Mr. Tom Grimshaw who is here as the applicant and Mrs. Rosemary Bailey who is here as the objector. So in the first instance I'll ask Mrs. Bailey to -- you can do it from there if you wish. You don't have to come forward. You press the little red button when you're ready to speak. I have to be -- because there's a lot of people here today. I have to be quite strict with timing. So you have three minutes to address the committee. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening. My name is Rosemary Bailey and I'm here to ask you to refuse permission for application 2023/2988 on the back garden of 28 Leehill Road in Cobham. I've lived opposite the application site for 32 years. I'm here to represent myself and the 30 objectors to this application which includes many directly affected neighbors. In his report the officer says the application site contains and is adjacent to a number of significant trees which contribute strongly to local character although they may be impacted by the development. The trees to the south of the site adjacent to broad highway which contribute to local character most strongly -- sorry, contribute to local character most strongly would be retained and offered sufficient protection to ensure they would not be damaged. We would argue that this kind of comment makes -- and the fact that the oak tree in question that we're going to talk about is over a hundred years old surely that makes a tree veteran. So the tree we're concerned with is tree T3 which is towards the bottom of the diagram there. So we all agree with what he says here but that's the tree we're concerned about. The officer has used the applicant's arboreal report concerning the impact and mitigations needed. This report contains a fundamental error as it provides a diameter measurement of T3 of 375 millimeters. Whereas measured in accordance with British standard 5837 its diameter at 1.5 meters above ground level is at least double this. We wonder if the diameter given by the arborealist is the diameter of one of the side branches because the tree has central trunk and two side branches which one of those is about 300 millimeters. So we wonder if that's what's been given. With the correct measurement the driveway is directly over T3's protection area. The leaf canopy of the tree extends over this proposed drive and beyond confirmation of the root area. So the tree is likely to be lost over time. DM6 and government planning policy which I have here says that such trees must be preserved at all costs. The planning inspector says that no hard standings should be over root protection zones of veteran trees save when there are wholly exceptional reasons for them. And I would we would argue that another five plus bedroom house with plenty of bonus rooms upstairs if you look at it it's not five bedrooms is simply not exceptional requirement. T3 is a veteran oak that has stood where it is for about 100 years running over a drive. I must ask you to draw to a conclusion. I'm the secretary of the Commonwealth Downside Residents Association and we have discussed the local plan endlessly at many meetings over many years. I know that Elmbridge is now required to have more one to three bedroom houses and feel that this single five bedroom house with plenty of bonus rooms upstairs does nothing towards that goal. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Members any questions for Mrs Bailey please. Councillor Wells. Mrs Bailey you need to turn your microphone off. Thank you. Thanks Mrs Bailey for putting forward your case so well I know it can be a bit nerve wracking. Can the case officer I think case officer has bring up the plan. So to my understanding that even if the the T3 was correctly measured and the RPA was shown to have gone over the access route is it not the case that two of the trees root protection areas already go over the access route in any event and so whether the tree was a veteran tree or not the the issue lies in any event. I'm not sure if that's really addressed the case officer or maybe case officer then maybe Mrs Bailey can come back after. Yes so the senior tree officer has considered the combined RPA of T2, T3 and T4 and we can see from that drawing there that the access and part of the driveway is within the route protection area there. The suggested conditions do ask for further information to be submitted in relation to how that driveway is going to be constructed within the route protection areas. So that has been recommended. Mrs Bailey do you wish to respond as well? We just feel that that that all those trees along there are very important to the nature of the area and we would hate we would we would just hate to see any of them be lost over the few in the future so we just feel the application should be turned down. Thank you. Councillor Tilling. My interpretation of the drawing is actually that T3, T4, T6, it's like going to the opticians, T5, T6 they're actually outside the boundary of the the development itself aren't they? So do you know whose land they they lie on? The land belongs to the Oxford Way estate and the house has a covenant which allows access over that land. Okay so so that won't change it's still up to the Yorkshire estate to make sure those trees are properly looked after. So the only question we're trying to resolve then is whether the the new access way will damage the RPA of those of those trees and in particular the oak at T3. Councillor Mounted I see your hand go up in the background. Yes chair just just a question for Harvey. If we condition the and you may not know the answer but is it possible to construct a hard-standing and access road over a TP over a route protection area that achieves the objective of allowing vehicles and maintaining the the routes? Is that possible or not? Yes it is possible to construct hard-standing accesses roads over routes of trees. It is a technical question for the tree officer however there are ways that they can go about that and as part of the conditions they have asked for construction and installation methodologies to be submitted for approval so that would be sufficient to address the impact in that regard. So Councillor Mounted we could add an informative a specific condition. Well there is a condition already but we can we can be more specific with the wording if that would assist you. Any other member for Mrs. Baby please? No okay thank you. So in response we have Mr. Tom Grimshaw who is the applicant. Mr. Grimshaw similarly you have about three minutes there are thereabouts please go ahead when you're ready thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman and good evening Councillors. Thank you for allowing me to speak in support of our application to erect a detached family home to land south of 28 Lear Hill Road in Cobham with access from Broad Highway. As you will see from the case officer's detailed planning report the proposals conform to all current policies and contribute towards the council's housing targets. As identified in the officer's report the council does not benefit from a four-year housing land supply and as such the tilted balance is engaged. The officer confirmed this within paragraph 20 of the report. I note some concerns from objectors have been raised regarding the measurements of some of the off-site trees. The project tree consultant and the council tree officer have reviewed this matter and have concluded that providing the tree protection and methods and materials detailed within the submitted tree report are complied with all the retained trees are adjacent to the site and will be suitably protected both during and post development. Given the sensitive nature of the site we've worked closely with neighboring residents and the Oxford Way Residence Association to produce a sympathetic well-designed property which is in keeping with the local area. The officer confirms this within paragraph 45 of the report. The report also confirms that the proposed dwelling will not result in any adverse impact being created upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighboring residential dwellings. You will note that none of the statutory consultees raised any form of objection to the proposed development and no objection from the Oxford Way Residence Association was received. Should this application be approved this evening the council will benefit from a policy compliant affordable housing contribution of £64,096.74 an enhanced biodiversity value on the site and a community infrastructure levy of £140,930.25. In summary the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan and I hope that you will support your planning officer's recommendations to approve this application this evening. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr Grimshaw. Any questions? Members of Mr Grimshaw. Councillor Wells. Thank you, Mr Grimshaw and thank you for your time. I've just got a couple of questions if that's all right. Firstly in relation to the access route and the issue with the route protection area, there appears to be some tarmac already laid. Is that tarmac of a kind of temporary nature and therefore is going to be replaced as part of the build out process? Yes. When we agreed the access with the Residence Association we were allowed to put an access way in to be able to carry out surveys on the land and that was the access was actually put in accordance with the arbor culturist method statements and that was provided to the Oxford way Residence Association who approved that before we actually installed the access. Okay. Thank you very much. And in relation to some of the objectors, they have asserted that at some point prior to the application some of the trees and around the locality had been removed prior to application. Are you able to confirm this and whether this was acknowledged as part of the ecological assessment report, please? The only trees we removed was a few beech to allow for the access through. All the trees removed prior to us actually purchasing the site by the previous owner because he obviously had a development in there that was withdrawn. So none of the trees on the actual site other than about six beech hedges, beech trees were removed by us. Thank you. Before I ask my final question, could I just ask the case officer, if a previous owner on a previous application had removed trees, does this give grounds under schedule 14 paragraph 7 of the Environmental Protection Act where you can assess the baseline as being from 2020 rather than the time of the application? Or because it was by a previous applicant, does that nullify that provision? >> Yes. So the recent updates to the Environment Act don't apply to this planning application because it was received last year before those changes came into play. The policy of Elmbridge says that only no net loss needs to take place. So the mitigation measures proposed in the Ecology Report in terms of hedgerow planting, grassland, consideration to protected species are considered to be sufficient to ensure there is no net loss in this case. >> Yeah, sorry. That legislation I thought did pervade because my understanding was that the advisory note on biodiversity, supporting biodiversity and conservation, et cetera, et cetera, makes direct reference to the fact that it's a restatement of policy rather than any new policy. And it refers to that provision. And that provision is some years old, although the BNG requirements doesn't come in. I don't know whether, Pete, maybe you can just confirm what the status is. Thanks. I'd have to look at it. I don't know off the top of my head. So I can have a look whilst we're debating if that's okay. >> And then final question. So, Mr. Grimshaw, would you be amenable to maybe a tweaking of condition 12B to include the access as well as the access driveway, piers and gates rather than just piers and gates. I don't know if you got the -- whether the case can bring up conditions. I just want to mention this is all subject to debate in any event. And maybe a construction transport management plan just to provide the assurance to residents that the trees won't be -- and the tree protection areas won't be impacted by construction vehicles, et cetera, during the build-out process. Yeah. I don't see that being a problem. >> Would it assist if I read out condition 12 so that you can be clear? Is that -- that would be useful? Okay. So condition 12 especially says additional arboricultural information, no development including ground works and demolition shall take place until all supporting arboricultural information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This should include details of A, the location installation of services, utilities, drainage and soakaways including services to automatic gates and how they can be installed in an arborculturally sensitive manner to limit the impact to retain trees. B, details of construction and installations including methodologies within the root protection area or that may impact on retained trees, specifically the proposed piers and gates. C, full specification on the construction of any roads, parking areas, driveways, hard surfacing, including details of no-dig specification extensive the areas to be constructed using no-dig surfacing. D, methods to improve the rooting environment for retained and proposed trees and landscaping. And the condition goes on to read the development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details. I won't go through the reason, but does that give you enough -- yeah, okay, thank you. Is that okay, Councillors? We're still -- I'm buying time, actually, for Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks, carry on, please. Yeah. It's paragraph C of schedule 14 of the Environmental Act 2021 that I was alluding to. I don't know if that helps just in terms of when that became enforceable in terms of enforceable legislation. Thanks. It's a very big act, so it'd be hard to read all of it, but in terms of the DMA Vice Note about preemptive site clearance, it says schedule 12 of the Environment Act 21 deters against site clearance ahead of the planning application by allowing planning authorities to recognize any habitat degradation since 30th of Jan, 2020, and to take the earlier habitat state as the baseline for the purposes of biodiversity net gain. This approach should also be taken by the Council in our approach to ensuring no net loss of biodiversity on application sites, which implies that the policy is hardly set out. If it's clear that habitats on the site have recently been changed to a detriment, it will be necessary to make an informed assessment about what the best condition and distinctiveness of that habitat would have been prior to the change, and then this will need to be justified to the LPA and agreed with them. So my reading of that and the recommended condition 16 is that we have sufficient protection via condition to ensure that there wouldn't be a net loss of biodiversity, which is the intention of the policy. But Mr Grimshaw said that prior to his taking ownership of this application, the previous applicant did remove trees, et cetera, at the site, and that would have been post this legislation taking effect, whilst the ecological report pertains to since Mr Grimshaw's application, and therefore doesn't cover it off to the same extent that our policy says that we would do. Well, the policy is no net loss, so if we know because the applicant said that there were X number of trees have been felled, that will be taken into account in my understanding in that ecological enhancement plan condition. So we would, if there's evidence to say there were 10 trees and now there's two, we know that eight trees have been felled, so that would be covered in that condition. So I'll be satisfied, and on the basis of that condition, we can secure a no net loss, which is what the policy says. Thank you, chair. At the risk of splitting hairs, Mr Grimshaw confidently asserted that this plan helps meet the council's housing needs. Can you tell me exactly how many five bedroom houses we're short of? >> I'm afraid I don't have that information in hand. >> So the natural extension of that is how can you be confident that this, I call it five bed house for the sake of convenience, how can you be confident this five bedroom house contributes to our housing need if you don't know how many we need? >> I followed the officer's report who confirms that within his report. >> Just to assist, so 10% of the borough's assessed need is four bedroom plus, if that assists. Any other member, please, for Mr Grimshaw? No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So this application is in Cobham and Downside Ward. We're fortunate enough to have two Cobham and Downside Councillors here this evening. So I'll invite either of you to begin or if you prefer to leave your comments to the end of the debate, you're welcome to. Councillor Wells. Thanks. Yeah. I mean, I appreciate Councillor man deferring on this. So I did refer this application on the basis that I had concerns over the ecological impact principally. The application also did cover quite a lot of concern from residents when it was under its previous guise. It does leave a tricky situation, frankly. I think there were 150 objectives when the original application came forward, which was to have a greater density of properties and therefore, in my opinion, providing a greater service to what's needed in Elmbridge. The application as it currently stands, however, accepts the fact that the many objectives objected to the fact that there were going to be multiple dwellings on the location. So how do you square the balance, how do you square the circle of objectives as regards a denser building out vis-a-vis what will be an extremely expensive house with multiple bedrooms, including certain ones that are I think principal bedroom has its own drawing room, its own en suite, its own walk-in cupboard. It can be turned into a seven bedroom house with the bonus room quite comfortably. So it doesn't sit comfortably with me. I would also ask Mr. Grimshaw on behalf of Claremore Finesse to note that once the design code has been, I get my phraseology of what right, it has been adopted but it hasn't yet been implemented, that there's a recognised concern in Oxshott, Stoke Daven and Cobham in terms of mimicking architecture from a bygone era. And in particular, I think it's fair to say concern is regards neo Georgian buildings, et cetera. So maybe that's just taken on board. It's not policy yet. It won't even be policy once it's been adopted. It will be a material consideration I think, but just going forward. So it doesn't sit comfortably with me in regards its design, but I appreciate that the houses all around are quite large as an understatement. And this may be, whilst there are residents who would prefer to have properties that are meeting the need of the community and of the borough, this one is more in keeping potentially with the character of the area and causes less concern to those living in this locality. So whilst concerned about CS17, CS19 in terms of housing need and density, I accept the officer's position on this. And so don't bring up a particular issue. As obviously people have inferred already, I do have concerns twofold with regards to ecological matters. The fact that there has been a recognition that there has been some kind of clearance in a previous state post 2020, but I have to defer to officers a view that the ecological report and the conditions in terms of biodiversity net loss together with four trees, which although not stated in the report directly, I understand are implied to be planted out of a minimum girth size. And therefore that will provide some comfort and some solace to the loss of the nature there. I also understand that Claremont Finesse are on board with this more generally. They are a widespread developer and have taken on board these concerns. So I appreciate that because it's developers that need to lead the way so that others can then follow in my opinion. And so I appreciate that from the applicant. So it essentially boils down to my sole reared issue that stands is the RPAs, the root protection areas for those trees that are going to be underneath the access road. I recognize that the condition 12, as well as a potential construction transport management plan could hopefully alleviate that. And I thank the applicant for accepting that. And if other people, if they are minded to grant permission would be to consider that 12B be amended to include the access and driveway rather than just peering gates of 12B and also the insertion of a construction transport management plan, I think then the issues could be alleviated. And so I'll leave it to others to put forward their opinions more generally. Thank you. Thank you, chair. And thank you, Councillor Wells. It's always thoughtful to understand what you say so I can do the complete opposite of what you -- no, I'm only joking. Yes, well, I am -- you could probably guess what I was going to say. I probably am going to take a different stance to you and a little bit more of a -- I like to use the word optimistic approach. I actually think it's a very nice designed house. Not that that's particularly relevant because that's all subjective, but I thought I'd voice it to kind of counter the pessimism over there. I wanted to voice my point a little bit more about the whole housing contribution element of this. I personally don't get it. I don't get really why almost it seems that just because it's a nice big house, it's almost like, ooh, ooh, we don't like that. We do live in a nice area. There are wealthy people here. We should celebrate that. And I think nice houses are a good thing. It's a sign of good things. But I want to make the wider point of in the sense that at the moment there's nothing there. And I guess it's all right, yes, it's not an affordable home. But it's not aiming to be an affordable home. And at the end of the day, a developer has looked at this block, thought, can I make some money out of it? There's nothing wrong with that. The point I'm trying to make is that when we were talking about affordable housing, we're going from something that is completely a blank piece of land to developing something. Then there will be contributions to make affordable housing accessible or whatever word you want to use. So I think for us to say, oh, just because it's not affordable housing, we should snub it and refuse it. I think, no, let's take the benefits of utilizing more land. Okay, fine, it's not exactly what we'd want. But we've got to look at where it is. You wouldn't put, you know, a block of social housing and it wouldn't work. So I think we should take into account that this is a good balance. It's a nice house. They are, you know, generously giving on their contributions on their sill. And that money will then in turn be used for the right reasons. So on that, you probably won't be surprised that I will probably be supporting this application. Thank you very much. It's probably worth me adding as well. We did hear earlier on the previous withdrawn application on this site was four, seven or eight flats. Forgive me for not remembering. And that drew a very significant number of public objections. So this clearly is a very different proposal. So you may wish to bear that in mind. Councillor Mann, do you wish to come back or should we go to vote? Just very briefly, chair. Just countering some of Boisterous Tigger's comments. Recognizing the sill that we generated is there for a purpose. It's there to develop and the infrastructure required to effectively offset the infrastructure impact of building the property. So it's not a net gain in that respect. It's a requirement. So the 64,000 pounds is welcome. And the point I made earlier about how this contributes to our housing supply. There are two points. Firstly, it doesn't. The housing requirement we have will not be ameliorated in any shape or form by the introduction of this property. None of our housing need none of the people who need a house in the borough at the moment will live in this house. What this will do is somebody else will move into the borough and it likes to make our housing problem worse not better. But that's by the by. That's by the by. My particular point about the applicant's comment confident assertion this will add to it. One of my bet was sitting in the committee having people read me things that they don't really mean or haven't really read through. And they formulate comments that add no value. Actually, whether this property is or isn't attractive is, as you rightly said, a matter of subjective opinion. In planning terms, my concerns are, as we've already said about the protection of the root protection area and my particular point to the office of the question whether it is achievable to build -- I don't want to spend time debating something and approving something that can't be delivered. But if we can deliver hard standing in a driveway and access that is root sensitive, that's the point of asking that question. So I'm struggling to see why there are -- I've got reservations, as I've just said, but I can't actually see any planning specific reasons why we would refuse this, recognizing the heartfelt opinions of people who don't like this subject to those reservations. That's why I'm sitting on it. Any other member? Please. No. Okay. I'm going to ask Mr. Brooks, there's a very small change to condition 12B. I'm just going to ask Mr. Brooks to read it out because that is the condition specifically as well as the others that you'll be voting on. So I just invite Mr. Brooks to do that. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So condition 12B, so that's been suggested to be amended. So it starts details of construction and installations including methodologies within a root protection area or that may have an impact on retained trees, specifically the proposed, and then it's proposed to be added in the word access and driveway and then to keep the piers and gates just so it's clear that that additional arbor culture and information relates to the access and the driveway that's been proposed and that the members have discussed and obviously you can see on the plan there. And it is also here referenced to construction and transport management plan. So I don't know whether that's been covered as to what's in that or not. >> Yeah. I do have I have thought about this and drafted from scratch a potential construction transport management plan. I don't know whether anyone wants me to read it out, but it is fairly similar to the standard one that would be used where there's concerns over the impacts of construction. Should I read it out? Yeah, for completeness we should because you will be voting on that additional condition. Okay. So my reason for this is partly due to the access issues that we've discussed and therefore provide belts and braces approach, but also because of the nature of the area and there could be impacts from a large build out of this property and therefore I think a construction transport management plan would be appropriate. So prior to the above grounds, a construction transport management plan should be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The CTMP, abbreviation of construction transport management plan should include details of parking for vehicles, of site personnel, operators and visitors, loading and unloading of plant and materials, storage of plant and materials, program of works including measures for traffic management, provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones, HGV deliveries and hours of operation, vehicles, vehicle routing, measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway, before and after construction condition surveys of the highway and a commitment to fund the repair of any damage caused on site turning for construction vehicles. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development and the reason is the condition is required in order that development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users. The above condition is required in order to meet the objectives of the revised MPPF, satisfy policy CS25 of the Elmbridge core strategy 2011 and policy DM7 of the Elmbridge development plan 2015. Just one point of clarification. I think Peter said earlier he would be satisfied that we'll get the baseline to reflect the prior removal of trees. Is that included satisfactorily in the condition? Yeah. >> So just the member's guidance, the condition or the construction management plan that Councillor Wells just read out is broadly standard. There's no surprises in there. So oh, yes, of course, I need a seconder to Councillor Wells. Yes, thank you, Councillor Mann, seconded by Councillor Mann. Can I have a proposer? The proposer for the amended wording I'm assuming will be Councillor Wells. Yes. And the seconder will be Councillor Mann. Thank you very much. Okay, members, so in that case, we won't go through all of that again. I think that's on record. So I'm going to take this to vote unless there's any other comments. Okay. So this is application 20232988. That's land south of 28 Lee Hill Road. Cobham comes to this subcommittee with a recommendation to grant planning permission. Can I see by a show of hands, please, all those members in favour of grant? Any against? Any abstentions? No. Thank you, members. 20232988, land south of 28 Lee Hill Road is consented by this planning subcommittee. Thank you very much. Moving on, members, the next item on our agenda this evening is item 4B. That's 20233047, the Chatley Cottage Pointers Road, Cobham. And I will invite the officers to introduce the application. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. This application has been referred to committee by Councillor Wells if officer recommendation is to refuse and by Councillor Mann if the officer recommendation is to permit to assess whether very special circumstances in relation to development in the Greenbelt have been demonstrated. This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of land as a dog daycare facility, which is a sui generis use. This slide shows the application site outlined in red. And it is located to the southwestern side of Pointers Road and to the northeast of the M25. The land in blue is the land which is owned by the applicant, which is in association with the existing residential property. Here is a site plan which shows the outline of the different exercise pens. So number one here where the cursor is, this is the lower pen, which fronts on to Pointers Road. Number two here is the upper pen, which is located within the woodland. Number three, this is referred to as the jungle and is the emergency escape route. And number four is a transition pen, which is used for the safe transfer of dogs between the pens. Here is a site photograph of the entrance to the site. Here we have a view of the site looking towards the lower pen from Pointers Road. Here we have a photograph of the entrance to the facility behind Chatley Cottage. Here are the two existing outbuildings which are repurposed in association with the dog care facility for office storage and cleaning areas. Please note the grey shed in the site photograph has since been removed from the site. This is a view from the lower pen looking back towards Pointers Road. Here we have a photograph within the upper pen. Here we have a transition pen which includes a photo of the post no more fencing, which is similarly used to subdivide the rest of the pens. The application follows on from the most recent refusal last year under reference 2023 0533, which was subsequent to the dismissed appeal in 2019. The main differences between the current application and the 2023 refusal is that all the associated containers, shed structures and waste have now been removed from the site. What remains now are the two existing outbuildings and the outdoor exercise pens with associated fencing. The proposal is considered to amount to inappropriate development in the Greenbelt as it would fail to preserve the openness as set out in the committee report. Officers consider the harm to openness arises from the fencing erected from the exercise pen and from the intensification and the level of activity on and around the site due to the number of dogs, staffing and associated vehicles. While officers acknowledge that the impact on the Greenbelt has been reduced since the refusal of application 2023 0533, the proposal overall would still fail to preserve the openness, whilst in this instance the loss of openness is limited. In accordance with paragraph 153 of the MPPF, substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Greenbelt and assessment must therefore be made as to whether any very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm. Officers have considered the various matters put forward as part of the very special circumstances case as outlined in the committee report and consider that whilst the proposal does deliver some benefits, these are not considered to demonstrably outweigh the harm by inappropriateness and harm to openness in this instance. As set out in the committee report, the officer's recommendation is to refuse. Thank you very much. Any questions for the officers, please? Yes, Councillor Salih. Yeah, thanks. Again, just to clarify the drawing there which had the red and the blue outlines. So, I mean, it says in the report that the blue is owned by the applicant as part of Chatley cottage. I guess the red as well is also owned by the applicant. So, they own the entire site. >> Yes, the red is owned by the applicant as well. >> And I note that from the previous application, lots of things have been removed. So, the three detached out buildings, et cetera. But the two existing buildings which are just sort of to the northwest of the cottage are going to be repurposed. Does that involve any extension work to those out buildings? Are they going to be changed in any way? Are they going to be do you have any details of this repurposing? >> No, it's just internal works. Outbuildings for me as they have always been. It's just the reuse of the building internally. Thank you. Councillor Wells. >> Thank you, chair. I understand that had this proposal come in post February, this would have required a 10% biodiversity net gain. But because it was submitted prior to that, there's no such requirements other than policy for no net loss enhancement where feasible. Can you just confirm that's the case, please? Yes, so, yeah, just a note. Because it's a minor application, it would have been subject to the April 2024 net gain. So, currently the current policy is no net loss on the site. Any other member for Caroline, please? No? Okay. So, we have here this evening Mr. Hugh Sowerby who is here to speak as agent for the applicant, I believe. Is Mr. Sowerby here? Yes. When you're ready, Mr. Sowerby, you have three minutes to address the committee. They may want to ask you questions afterwards. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Good evening. I'm Hugh Sowerby. I live in Cobham. I'm a good friend of Duncan to my left who's the applicant and his family. Last year he asked me to help out with this application. So, tonight I'll speak now and then we're both happy to answer any questions you may have. Tonight's incredibly important for Duncan, his family and his staff, the majority of whom are set up in the gallery. I've got three minutes. I'd like to make three points. Firstly, the changes Duncan has made since the 2019 application. Secondly, the impact of this application on the openness of the green belt. And thirdly, the very special circumstances justifying the grant of planning permission. The 2019 application identified substantial impacts to the openness of the green belt. And I completely agreed with this assessment and I completely agreed with the decision the council made at the time. Since then, Duncan has done everything possible whilst maintaining a viable business to reduce those impacts. And that includes halving the size of the site, removing two exercise pens, removing five unlawful buildings, removing all dog-related paraphernalia, for example, the grooming hut, and reprofiling and replanting parts of the site. Those changes are substantial. It is now a wholly different operation. All that you're being asked to approve this evening is the change of use of land and two existing buildings. Turning to the impact on the openness, I agree with your office assessment at paragraph 41 that the impact is inconsiderable, which is defined as being small and insignificant. I'm honestly struggling to think of a less impactful business in the rural area. The impacts are now far less than any of Duncan's competitors in Elmbridge, all of whom are in the green belt. And with the changes Duncan has made since 2009, we're just asking for some consistency. The level of impact on the openness is the key consideration. At paragraph 64, the recommendation cites the conclusions of the inspector who described the impacts as substantial. I agree with that as far as it relates to the 2009 application. But not for this one tonight, which identifies insignificant impacts, which in my view clearly outweighed by the benefits. Those benefits are threefold. Economic. The business employs 18 full-time equivalent staff. The majority are here tonight. Should this application be refused, they will lose their jobs and Duncan his livelihood. Social. There are four similar facilities in Elmbridge. All have a waiting list. Duncan clearly offers a service in high demand. You only have to look at the 90 plus letters of support from existing customers and neighbors. As an aside, there are no objections. Environmental. Duncan has committed to extensive natural habitat planting, both along the site boundary and within the lower exercise pen. This would increase the biodiversity of the site and return the site to more native planting. In my view, it's clear that these benefits outweigh the inconsiderable impacts to the openness of the green belt. And planning permission should be granted. We welcome any questions. Thank you very much. Any questions for the gentleman here this evening, please. Yes, Councillor Wells. Thank you, Mr. Subaru and thank you, Duncan, for your presence. Just a question in terms of the environmental enhancement plans. Muted in the report with a number of things, including a woodland management plan and native hedgerow planting and native tree planting. Would it be appropriate also and considered acceptable if what looked like beautiful plants but are actually invasive, non-native species, rhododendrons be removed as part of the ecological enhancement to allow native species to grow in their stead. There's quite extensive amounts of rhododendrons. So it wouldn't be an inconsiderable work. But I wanted to ask that question before I suggested it as part of maybe an alternative movement to the officer's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. When we submitted the application, we only submitted the ecological report. But we did make commitments to planting. But we haven't done the required survey work to understand exactly what that planting could be, what the species could be and what the soil conditions would allow for. I did speak to our ecologist who unfortunately couldn't be here this evening. And he had no concern whatsoever about being able to improve biodiversity on the site. It would require further engagement with the ecologist and with Surrey Wildlife Trust. I did actually mention, mistakenly, as it turns out, how beautiful the site was looking with the rhododendrons. And he threw it back in my face because he doesn't like them as a species. Because as you say, they are invasive. And for whatever reason, this part of the world just seems to be full of them. So no objection to removing rhododendrons. No objection to working with you subject to sufficient time being allowed for to creating a woodland management plan and a biodiversity plan. Obviously I can't speak for other members. But if it were considered to move an alternative motion, would a three-month time frame give enough leeway to get whatever the recommendations were in place to then start moving on them? So obviously normally on an application it would be prior to commencement. But obviously because things have already commenced, would a three-month time frame be suitable? Depending on what the three months is, three months for the preparation of the information, not an issue. From speaking to the ecologist, he'd like a second planting season. So that would essentially be March next year before those plants could be in place. He does think that autumn this year would be quite tight. Thank you. Any other member for the gentleman? No? Okay. All right, then. So again, this is -- pardon. This is Cobham and Dansard Ward. I just wanted to make a few comments myself if I may. And we are here this evening to consider change of use. And we're here this evening to establish whether that change of use, given that the site is Greenbelt, is satisfied by very special circumstances. Having read this report and having listened to the applicant's agent, I feel very strongly that very special circumstances do exist in this case. I'm particularly swayed by the economic benefits. The employment that you bring, gentlemen, is clearly significant. I'm also particularly swayed by the community benefit. We all know that since COVID, dog ownership has gone up dramatically, particularly in this borough. And the demand for these facilities -- I'm going to call them services, actually, because that's exactly what it is. The demand for these services is particularly strong. And I would argue that the nature of this use actually seeks to protect and preserve the Greenpels, rather than presents any risk to it. The harm as defined in the MPPF is definition harm. So we have to assume there's harm, even though we may not necessarily be able to see it day-to-day. But it's clear to me that there are a raft of very special circumstances that exist in this particular case. And I also -- I do echo your point, sir, about consistency in decision-making. Of course, we do very much take that responsibility very seriously. We are, of course, required to opine on the application before us. But I do agree that there should be an element of consistency and consideration of an application of this type. So just to give you a few comments from me. Councillor Mann, thank you. Thank you, Chair. And just since I was the Councillor to promote this for this discussion on the grounds that -- should the officer recommend approval, just to state my position on this, again, it's a consistency point because Greenbelt is important, and I'm particularly protective of it. So we should be discussing it, not necessarily because I'm minded to refuse it, but I'm certainly minded to discuss it. A couple of points that I'll echo of yours, Chair, so I won't repeat them. But a further consideration or two further considerations, firstly the location of this bit of the Greenbelt. I'm not strictly sure of its planning relevance or context, but the fact that it's so close to Junction 10 of the M25. If we're going to have a bit of Greenbelt that has definitional harm, this type of definitional harm, this is the best location for it. But I'm also minded, bearing in mind the concern about Greenbelt. If we take the point that the Chair just made that this business is required and will exist, if it doesn't exist here, it's going to exist somewhere else. And if it doesn't exist on Greenbelt, by definition it will exist on Brownfield, where we can't build a house, where we need to build houses. So we need to put the appropriate businesses in the appropriate location, and I'm struggling to find a better location for this, frankly. So for all of those reasons, I'll be minded to support it, recognizing the fact that there is by definition harm to the Greenbelt because we're doing something on the Greenbelt. But the point of Greenbelt as I understand it is to prevent urban sprawl, and I don't see how this fails to prevent urban sprawl. As you said, Chair, if it does anything, it promotes the Greenbelt, and for those reasons, I'll be supporting it. Well, I'll be supporting a counter motion to approve. Councillor Tilly. Yeah, I tend to agree with the thrust of the argument so far. I think the officer has been put in a difficult position. It is Greenbelt, and we are looking to preserve Greenbelt as much as possible in the borough. And I think you've put some arguments down there as to why the harm outweighs the benefit. However, you know, I'm looking at some of the paragraphs. I would disagree that there is intensification of the use of the site just by repurposing two buildings. I think because they're being repurposed, I think that's actually quite a good use of those buildings. We're not suggesting that those buildings should be knocked down if we refuse the application. They'd be there anyway. So repurposing, I think, is actually quite a useful thing to do on this site. You've also sort of said that the essential characteristics of Greenbelt's are their openness and their permanence, I think as the Chair has already said. This is not a development where we're proposing, you know, 400 flats going on this estate. It retains its openness by the very fact that it is this dog care facility. So I sort of disagree with that weighted argument that you've tried to put in paragraph 41. I think the applicant has fallen over backwards to remove some of the really rather ugly buildings and containers that were there for the 2009 application subsequently. So the site has definitely been tidied up. The three other out buildings have been removed. So as far as I'm concerned, I think we don't have intensification of the use of the site. It retains its openness. I note there's been -- there have been no complaints about the noise from neighbors. So my feeling is that with a -- the condition that Council Wells has mentioned, the conditions that they should provide a woodland management plan and a biodiversity plan, I see no reason why we shouldn't be supporting the economic argument. It employs 18 members of staff. It does a good thing for the community. So I see no reason why we shouldn't support this application. Councillor Varti. >> Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I broadly agree with the -- I can't believe I've used the word agree with Councillor Wells. No, I broadly agree with the comment. I think the most important thing here is the employment one. From an economy perspective, this is good news. I think for this to be -- it could be devastating to quite a few people. Whether that's a planning consideration, probably not. But it's worth mentioning. One thing I'd want clarity on, really, is if we were to give this the thumbs up tonight, which I'm happy to do, what would happen in the eventuality that this is sold, what kind of happens is does it kind of fall back into Greenbelt or does it continue -- just like some more clarity on that, if that's possible. I'll ask the officers to comment specifically, but we are able to grant the permission to an individual rather than to a legal entity, but I'll ask the officers to comment more specifically. >> Yeah, so normally planning permission would go with the land. So if the land was subsequently sold on to another company or person, they could carry out the dog care business as a lawful use. However, if members consider it necessary, you can put on a personal condition relating to the applicant and his immediate family. >> Yes, please. Yeah, I think that might be worth doing. I'd like to -- when it comes to me to close, I'd like to put that as an attachment to the proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members? Is that your hand up, councillors? Can't quite see. I thought I'd just bookend it after yours and Councillor Manson's obviously tilling in Amavati. Hopefully it looks like you've swayed me, which you have done, into suggesting and subject to nominating and seconding, et cetera, a counter motion. I would suggest that the very special circumstances are economic in terms of the loss of jobs otherwise, social and community in terms of not only the benefit to the dog owners, but this is a licensed facility sitting on the countryside advisory group. We often hear issues with unlicensed dog walkers and the impact they have on other areas in Elmbridge such as the Ockshot Heath, et cetera. So this would prevent displacement into those -- into such situations. Not to say there's anything wrong with dog walking, but this is really a pertinent location for these dogs. And from the site visit, it was plainly apparent to Councillor Parker and myself, it was my second attempt to bump off a Conservative Councillor, by the way, having come close with Councillor Mann a couple of months ago, almost took out Councillor Parker on the steepest scent up Mount Everest. But it also showed that this land has limited use. It's not going to be our agricultural land. It had steep banks, et cetera. And really, if it's going to be used for anything, this is the most pertinent use. So I'd say there's a massive social and community benefit and benefit to the dogs and the dog owners. And then environmental. And so the conditions as mooted, and I agree with Councillor Tilling, a woodland management plan, an ecological enhancement plan, hopefully we could round that into one, in line with the ecological report, but also the supporting statement that came through, I think it was last month, in terms of the ideas for what would be going in there. I say in line with, because it wasn't obviously written by an ecological expert, and it talked about fruit trees, which might not be pertinent to the location. But I would suggest that where there is no current requirement for any biodiversity net gain, this biodiversity net gain would be commensurate and not insignificant, particularly allied with the removal of the rhododendron. Not quite as bad, in my opinion, as Laurel, but they're vying with each other. And I would also turn into the intensification use that Councillor Tilling touched on. Duncan's Doggy Daycare provides a facility of pick up and drop off of all the dogs. So they go around collecting about 100 dogs, I understand, in the morning, and then drop them off in the evening, and thereby limiting the number of comings and goings which would otherwise take place if they were individually dropped off. So I might suggest a condition that there be no public drop offs, and therefore that aspect of the business would retain its purpose, along with requirements for electric charging points. I understand there might be a couple already. The idea is to move over to electric vans, but that would be a Surrey County Council aspect. And I agree with Councillor Amonvati. So we've both miraculously agreed on both things in terms of the personal capacity. I'm not suggesting that at some point the business couldn't be sold and potentially, but I think it would require a separate planning application to provide the overwhelming reasoning for that, rather than its reinstatement back into native green belts. So on that basis, I'm happy to support anyone's Council recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, members. So it's probably not wholly appropriate that I move to consent this, but I will if I have to. But I'm going to come to members to ask if anybody wishes to move to consent this. I'm seeing two hands, so if I come to Councillor Amon to move recommendation of consent, and presumably Councillor Amonvati, you'd be happy to second that? Okay. All right. So that is the motion that we are now going to consider. I'm going to ask in the first instance, officers to come back with a set of conditions, including everything that Councillor Wells has come up with. So this may take a while. So bear with me, ladies and gentlemen, please. So in terms of the potential conditions, the first one would be just our normal approved plans condition, which hopefully yous are familiar with. And the second one would be the personal permission. So if I read that out, the use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr. Duncan McBride, an immediate family and shall not endure for the benefit of the land, nor for any other person or persons for the time being having an interest therein. In the event that the dog day centre run by the mentioned person shall cease, all structures including the fencing shall be removed, including any associated paraphernalia and the use shall revert back to its previous use. And the third condition is just a permitted development limitation, which is just in line with other day care facilities we have permitted in the borough. So it's removing agricultural PD rights for that type of land holding, which would restrict the erection of sheds or other outbuildings. So just another condition would be a restriction on the number of dogs on site, which would be restricted to 150, which would be in line with the licence on site. And the sixth one would be the Woodland Management Plan and Ecological Mitigation Enhancements Plan. So I suppose it's one of the main important ones, so I'll read out the wording for that. So within three months of the date of the decision notice, Woodland Management Plan and Ecological Mitigation and Enhancements Plan based upon the recommendations set out in the Ecology Technical Note, an email from Mr McBride shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, the plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable provided and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Any proposed planting shall be carried out in the next available planting season in 2025. Then subsequent condition just to do with the eradication of non-invasive species to do with the rhododendrons. So within three months of the date of the decision notice, an appropriately detailed plan for the eradication and prevention of non-invasive species shall be submitted to and approved, and that plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. And finally, the last two conditions we'd recommend is one to do with just the car parking, because we don't actually have a plan on site which shows where the car parking takes place. So within three months of the decision notice, a scheme showing the parking of vehicles shall be submitted to us and approved, and the third one is for EV charging based on the consultation response from Surrey Highways. So similarly, within three months from the date of the decision notice, a scheme for the provision of a fast charging point in accordance with the Council's parking standards shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and subsequently the charging points will be installed in accordance with the approved details. Thank you. Councillor Wells, and then I'll come to Councillor Mann. Thank you. I do think it's also appropriate to have a no public drop-off. Was that a condition that you had as well? Sorry, thank you. Yeah, apologies, I had missed that one. So that would just include the site shall not be at any time be open to members of the general public or customers to drop off or collect their dogs, which is in line with other dog care facilities that has been approved. Councillor Mann. Just a small point, unless I've misheard. When we're talking about the planting, I think you said the eradication of non-invasive species. I don't think we want to eradicate the non-invasive species. I think we want to eradicate the invasive ones. Yeah, eagerly has Councillor Mann picked up on that. We'll just check, I suppose. Yes. Unsurprisingly, yes. Okay, members, so you've heard a raft of conditions. I'm assuming there's no comment. Mr Sobie, I'm ever so sorry. As much as I would want you to speak, I'm unable to allow you to. And I really do want to hear you, but I'm afraid I can't. So hopefully you're satisfied broadly with that set of conditions and we'll vote on that, including that set of conditions now. So members, you've heard one of the longest set of conditions I think I've heard. I don't think they're too onerous. But anyway, so we'll take it to a vote unless any other member has any other comments to make. I don't believe you do. So members, this is 20233047. This is Chatterley Cottage, Pointers Road in Cobham. It comes to this committee with a recommendation to refuse. However, Councillor Mann has moved to consent the application, seconded by Councillor Vatti with the series of conditions that we've just run through. So members, by voting in favour of that motion, you are voting for consent of this application. So can I see, by show of hands, please, all those in favour of consent? Any against? Any abstentions? Thank you. 20233047 is granted planning consent by this subcommittee. Thank you, members. It was definitely a unanimous vote from the audience as well. We'll just wait just a minute, let people leave. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, members. Thank you very much. So coming to a third and final application this evening. This application, item number 4C, that's 202332861, Haltwood Road, Okshot. And I invite Graham to introduce the application, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. This application has come before a subcommittee due to receiving over 15 objections. The proposal is for four pairs of semi-detached houses with rooms in the roof space and associated parking and cycle stores following demolition of the existing house and garage. This is a resubmission of a previously refused application, 20222338. The previous application was appealed and dismissed by the Inspector, but only on the single grounds related to an unsuitable legal agreement being provided to secure the requisite affordable housing contribution. The current proposal is near identical to the previously refused application. The only exception is that the siting of the cycle stores has been altered for some of the plots. This is the location plan showing the existing building and garage to be demolished. This is the proposed site plan showing the layout of the four pairs of semi-detached houses. This slide shows the plans and elevations for Plots 1 and 2. Here are the plans for Plots 3 and 4. These are the drawings for Plots 5 and 6. Finally, the plans for Plots 7 and 8. This slide shows the site section and the street scenes. There have been 21 letters of representation received from 18 addresses. These are summarized in full within the officer report of paragraph 23. As stated already, this is a near identical submission of the previous application that was dismissed by the Inspector on grounds solely related to the legal agreement to provide affordable housing contributions. As such, the proposal has effectively been found acceptable by the Inspector subject to the developer providing an appropriate legal agreement to secure the requisite affordable housing contribution. The applicant has indicated their willingness to prepare the legal agreement for requisite affordable housing contributions and this is currently being prepared. Therefore, the recommendation is to approve this scheme subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the affordable housing within three months of the decision to grant permission. Thank you very much. Members, just to reiterate, we're only here to consider the recommendation to effectively allow the negotiation of the unilateral undertaking. We are not able to offer any other reasons for refusal or otherwise on this application. So it's very simple. You have a recommendation A, recommendation B in front of you. So if any member has any specific comments on the unilateral undertaking or the Section 106 agreement, then please do. Or I should ask any questions for the officer. I'm assuming no. Okay. Any specific comments? This is in my ward. I think -- oh, beg your pardon. Goodness me. It's been a long evening. I'm ever so sorry. I'm ever so sorry. Mrs. Dovey, you've been ever so patient. I'm ever so sorry to keep you waiting for so long. You, of course, but then again, you've heard my comments, but you have three minutes to address the committee as the applicant's agent. Thank you very much. Thank you very much and good evening, members. I will keep this very short because I think the officer has essentially summed up most of what I was going to say. Just really to reassure the members that we are going to support the application with a legal agreement to provide an affordable housing contribution, and this has been agreed with the council's independent viability assessor. I think the only other point to pick up on is a small material change relating to biodiversity net gains since the appeal scheme, which didn't require an uplifting biodiversity because it wasn't required at the time. But the committee will be aware that there are new mechanisms in place to ensure that there are ecological uplifts on site post development. So this application does actually achieve a biodiversity net gain, which has been agreed with Surrey Wildlife Trust, and we believe that this is an additional positive benefit to the proposal. So I'll leave it to council to debate further and I'm very happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Very much more eloquently than I did. Thank you very much, Ms Stovey. Councillor Wells. Thank you. And acknowledging the chair that I have no room to ask you anything in particular, but seeing as you're here, firstly, thank you for the ecological enhancements that is appreciated, as said on previous applications. One concern I do have is the planning statement whereby we're going to have eight houses with gas boilers, which in this day and age just seems utterly bonkers. And maybe when it comes to actually implementing it, the applicant may consider renewable energy sources in lieu of that. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I'm not aware of policy requirements at the moment, but if committee felt it was necessary in order to secure the approval, I'm sure the applicant would consider it. The way we'll handle it, Ms Stovey, if you agree, we'll just put an informative in the condition just so that that conversation can be had. Councillor man, did you want to come back or no? Any other member? No? Okay. All right. In that case, I'll put it to the vote. 2023/3286, and that's 1 Holtwood Road in Oxford. It comes to this subcommittee with two recommendations, actually. A and B. I won't read them out again because they're in front of you. May I? And we'll take both recommendations together. So can I see by show of hands, members, all those in favour of consent? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Any against? Any abstentions? No? Thank you very much. 2023/3286 is granted planning permission by this subcommittee. Thank you very much, and we have one more SAPs before the election. So I'm really looking forward to that. So in the meantime, at 2026, I'll draw the meeting to a close. Thank you very much.