Transcript

and welcome to the last planning committee meeting of the year and you're all very welcome. As we've got members of the public present, I need to read the fire precautions. In the event of a fire alarm sounding, leave the room immediately, proceed downstairs by the way of the main stairs or follow any of the emergency exit signs, leave the building and follow the signs to the fire assembly point which is in the old church path on the pathway between the rear of Eastia Public Car Park, the library end and the churchyard. We have notices of temporary substitutes, Councillor Janet Turner and will be present as a temporary substitute for the Councillor James Croushaw and Councillor Mike Rollings and will be present as a temporary substitute for Councillor Alex Coombs. With regard to temporary substitutions in accordance with the Councillor's constitution, if the original member of the sub-committee is present, then they must indicate so now as they will need to resume their role as a sub-committee member. May I also remind members that changes in the sub-committee membership will not be accepted later in the meeting. You're both very welcome, thank you. So let's go to just one application this evening. First of all, declarations of interest. All members present are required to declare at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter any discloseable pecuniary interests and/or other interests are rising under the code of conduct in respect of any items of business being considered at this meeting. Do I have any decorations for interest? Councillor Rollings. Just to say that I've met the applicant and the objector and those in the public gallery as well. Thank you. Anybody else? No. Thank you. Item two minutes of the meeting held on the 8th and 29th of January. They've been published online and circulated. Can I take those as agreed? Thank you, members. Now we move to the planning application this evening to be discussed and debated. It's 20024 0118 Station House, the parade, Claygate. May I ask the officers to take us through the application, please? Thank you, Madam Chairman. An update sheet has been circulated following receipt of an additional objection and letter of support. This application is for the change of use of the existing residential property into a HMO along with associated works including a refuse and cycle store, roof lights and alterations to the fenestration. This is the application site and it's located next door to Claygate train station and you can see it on your screen there outlined in red. This is the proposed site plan. These are the proposed ground and first floor plans and these are the proposed elevations. In the objections, concern has been raised regarding parking and land stability. There's been extensive planning issue on the site including appeal decisions. In previous applications and appeals, the inspector found the zero car parking scheme to be acceptable given the site's sustainable location and these were for some slightly larger different schemes. For the last application reference 2023/1301 which was for an 11 bed room HMO, the application was only refused for the internal layout and room sizes and insufficient information on land stability. Both reasons for refusal have now been addressed through a reduction in the number of rooms from 11 to 10. A change to the internal layout provided larger community areas and application reference 2023/2675 provided the evidence to demonstrate that the land stability issue has now been addressed. It is noted that there are concerns regarding parking however given this was not a reason for refusal previously and given the extensive planning history and appeals where the inspector found no harm in relation to parking it would be unreasonable for this to be raised as a reason for refusal now and would result in a risk of cost. The full assessment is set out in the officer's report and the officer's recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the agenda pack. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anybody have any technical questions to ask for officers before I go to public speaking? All of you. Right. Okay. I saw Councillor Houston first and then Councillor Lina. Yes, it's the question about the fire grade detecting system basically which is on here. It says it's to be installed and maintained. How do we track that? It's just a general question. How do we track of it? It's being done. That would be subject to building regulations so they would need to provide that as part of their building rigs. Councillor Lina. Yes. One of the objections points out the retaining wall. Could you just tell me exactly whether it is a retaining wall or a retaining fence? Sorry. Yes, it is a retaining wall and so on your screen here you can see this line going along here and basically it's timber sleepers that have been put up to kind of hold the soil in place. So on previous schemes which were proposed there was sort of a terrace of houses here so it was important that the land was made stable to make sure that no soil would fall down those houses. That work has all been done and that has been conditioned as part of the application reference 2023/2675 so they need to keep that retaining wall in situ. Is there a history of land slip there? Not that I'm aware of but it is quite a steep bank which is why the works needed to be done. Thank you. Any other member? No. In which case let's go to public speaking we have Mrs. Donna Holt who is speaking on behalf of the objectors and we have Mr. Anthony Draper who is speaking on behalf of the applicant. So Mrs. Holt as I explained you'll have three minutes, I'll time you but I'm sure you've practised and you know that it's three minutes. So when you're ready thank you. Does everybody have the presentation which I put in? We've seen it it was locked online but we don't have physical copies in front of us but maybe you just read it to us and if we need to ask questions we can't. So a summary of concerns versus evidences on page two of the presentation, the transport situation is not sustainable now due to changes since the parking survey was carried out. A number of the determinations made by SEC and the planning inspector at the time are based on change circumstances and now parking stress and highway safety are major concerns. The occupants are unlikely to use local shops and travel by chain. Many clagate residents do not travel by train or shop locally. A London annual season ticket costs £3,660 from this station might the occupant prefer a car available to them at all the time when it costs less and allows far more flexibility of travel, the answer is yes and census data supports this. The census data in the presentation advises that 60% of people in clagate travel to work by car. That means of the 20 occupants in the HMO up to 12 or six of the households are likely to have cars and further exacerbate the parking situation. Now there are charges at all times in the network rail car park where there weren't when the parking survey was carried out. Weekends used to be free with a minimum slot of either one hour or one day now needing to be purchased for any slot. There's a smaller turning space on the approach. When a train arrives there's a real risk that a person may be injured when people turn vehicles on station approach as a result to the out of control parking in the parade and also a one station approach. And on page three of the presentation which we submitted you can see the out of control parking that's already taking place. The size of the problems apparent from the photographs and these were taken on the 16th of April, Tuesday the 16th of April at 11 a.m. It shows multiple legally parked cars on the parade and ten illegally parked cars on station approach only. If you look at page four you can see parking stress and safety issues are frequently occurring and there's a plan of where those cars tend to be parked. The numbers on page four go back to the numbers on page three showing the photographs. Congestion of up to 13 illegally parked cars. In summary we object to this development due to parking stress and safety. The situations change substantially as a result of network rail changing their parking charges and their time since the last survey was carried out. We've talked about the one hour and the 24 hours that can be purchased. There are three other properties on the parade that have been further developed with three additional car owners amongst those occupants already and the situation is getting worse and worse. We believe that 20 more occupants with their associated cars deliveries rubbish collection would bring an unsustainable parking problem. Parking is no longer sustainable in this area for anything more than the existing dwelling and I have read the rebuttal and the rebuttal. I'm afraid Mrs. Holt that's your... Okay. Just overrun a little bit. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now, does any member have any questions for Mrs. Holt? No? Oh, Councillor Rollings. Could you press the button to turn your microphone off? Thank you. A very straightforward question. You said the pictures were taken on Tuesday 16th at 11 a.m. So, we're not talking about the weekend at all in relation to the parking issue. This is a Monday to Friday as much as a weekend issue. Anybody else? Councillor TANNA. Has there been any accidents or near misses or anything like that in this area? I think it's something we need to look at. It's obviously going to cause a problem. And I think we have to take it on board that if in fact there is parking stress there, what do we have to look at to mitigate anything that is untoward there? So, do you know of any accidents or anybody or near misses? Thank you. I don't know of any accidents at the present time, but what I would say is the turning circle on station approach is very small now as a result of all of the uncontrolled parking. And the parking is controlled by network rail. It is not controlled by Enbridge Borough Council on station approach. So, it's very hard for Enbridge to do anything about this, I think. You would need to obviously talk to network rail. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions? In which case, thank you very much. Oh, sorry, Councillor, you're not quite off the hook yet, Councillor Lange. Yeah, sorry, could you hear from when the decision for network rail has changed there, the parking fees, et cetera, over weekends took place? Sorry. I'm not 100% sure of when it was, but I know for the last six months for sure it hasn't been possible to park for free over the weekends on Saturdays and Sundays. I do know that they have recently changed the requirement for people. People can actually park for one hour or they can park for the 24 hours. They're the two options. So you either visit for an hour and quickly scoot out or you are there and you have to pay for a full 24 hours, which is probably the more practical option. But of course, it does mean that you are paying for a full 24 hours if you're in to see somebody in station hours. And this is why people don't use the copock. Thank you very much, Mr Salt. Right. I think I can't see any other member wanting to ask questions. In which case, thank you very much indeed. Mr Draper, your next – likewise, we'll have three minutes, I'll time you. And then members may wish to ask you questions. Thank you. What the objection regarding parking completely ignores is it's a six-bedroom house at the moment, all double bedrooms, and that means there could be and there has been up to twelve or more cars generated from station house and we have lived there for 24 years. There has never been an accident, so the amount of cars that are suggested that could emanate from the property actually exists or can exist now. So there's no change, with regards to the location of the property, it is preposterous to suggest that this use would not use the shops locally. The people who this property could offer accommodation to, which is so badly needed, can use the shops, use the trains, use the buses, or, as I've previously quoted, get on their bikes and not need to own a car. It's suggested that the season ticket is £3,600. The RAC latest surveys or figures, it costs in a minimum of £3,600 to own a car to run it, and that doesn't include for depreciation. We must take this on board with regards to the possibility of no one owning a car, reducing pollution, enjoying the community, supporting the community and offering much-needed, affordable homes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Draper. Would you mind Tony and Michael Finlow? Thank you very much. Does any member have any questions for Mr Draper? No, in which case, thank you very much indeed. Right, let's open this up to debate. There was a site visit here last Thursday. I'm going to go to the ward Councillor first, so, Mike, Councillor, if you'd like to take us through... Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the applicant and the objective for speaking, and thank you also to the officer for presenting the report, as you have done. I want to just sort of take a little while to go through some of the issues that have gone on with this application and previous applications before it. The site is, as those who have been will know, right on the station in the middle, or at the end of the parade, and it's effectively a turning circle. It's the end of, if you like. I'll come back to parking, if I may, in a moment. I just want to look through the papers I've seen that there are conditions and informatives that have been put forward by network rail, environmental health, or the noise and pollution and on the contaminated land, sorry, County Council, highways and, sorry, police. The objection to the application has come from Claygate Parish Council, and it is principally in relation to parking as the Chair of the Council has just said. There was one other particular objection raised by one of the residents around noise pollution, and I've got a question for the officer, just on that one, which was, if I can find it. There was a reference, I think, to the environmental health officer referring to, or on a previous background, referring to mitigations, and that was contained within the report and referred to in the objection. I just wondered, aside from the condition that's been put in there, if there was anything about objections for noise pollution, vis-a-vis other residents, i.e. the impact on amenity for other residents, I could see that the condition that was in the report related to the impact of noise on the residents, or the future residents of the property. Is there anything other than that particular condition? There is a condition, as you correctly point out, which is condition number five, which relates to the noise for the building itself, but given the distance to neighbouring properties and given that it's an existing six-bedroom dwelling, and it's obviously in a location where there are comings and goings, it's not considered that the intensification of the site and the use of the HMO would have an impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of noise, so that's the advice of officers. Thank you, I just wanted to establish that for this evening. I note from the report that the HMO in principle has already been granted from the application. I forget which one it was now, it was two years ago, I think, three years ago, let me have a motion, and under the, I think it's the DM10, the HMOs are not, I think the phrase is whilst the Council is not promoting the creation of additional HMOs, it will resist their lost, and it goes on to say alongside this, the Council's housing services team will continue to seek to regulate the HMOs through the licensing regime to ensure they are effectively managed and maintained, and so that would include presumably any noise issues that arise from it, or any breaches in terms of any of the planning that we have or that we're talking about today on the conditions. So in terms of any breaches in planning, that would be a planning enforcement issue, which could be looked at later on, in terms of the licensing, I'm not 100% sure on what their criteria is and what they have to meet, I'm not a licensing officer and it's a separate legislation and regime. Thank you, but it is a separate regime and they will seek to make sure that the management of these, as it says, will continue to seek to regulate HMOs through the licensing regime to ensure they are effectively managed and maintained, so they will look at the management of these HMOs, right, I do understand, thank you. So there isn't a reason why there shouldn't be an HMO and indeed our housing policies recognise that they are there and that they do meet and need as the applicant has stated to some of them on lower incomes and so on. The room sizes have now been effectively termed to comply and that was through the licensing officer. There's no adverse impact on the character and appearance or heritage matters, that's all seems to be passed and the highways and the parking issue is very much the issue raised. I recognise that there are problems at certain times of the day, it would not be fair to say that it's a 24/7 problem but there are problems at certain times of the day and county highways authority hasn't raised any objection. Can you just tell me or explain to us generally what the enforcement regime would need to do to actually improve that position or how it would work? So I think the object to confirm that it is actually a network rail land, so if you can see on the screen, where it says access from the parade and you've got the taxi service there, there's a lot of, it's all double yellow lines but there's a lot of people parking there when they're not allowed to so it would be down to network rail to enforce that and make sure people aren't parking there. And is there any pressure we can bring to bear in relation to network rail as a council? I mean we could ask them but there's no sort of, we haven't got any powers to force them to do that but it is their responsibility to be doing that. Thank you, so I've also looked and seen that the land stability issues have been addressed. I think having gone through the report quite carefully and I think the objections that have been raised are entirely understandable and I'm entirely sympathetic, I'm just conscious that the two issues seem to be, the issues outstanding perhaps of concern are possibly noise and that impact and also the parking. I don't think I've got a magic wand to solve either of these but I'd be keen to hear of any other members, views and experiences thus far on HMOs and the parking stresses in similar areas. Thank you. Right, let's hear from other members. Anybody else like to contribute to this, Councillor CASSAMAN? I haven't really forgotten anything to say about parking stress in similar areas but from looking at the objectors report that was received very recently, there are a lot of cars parked illegally in the station approach bit but there are also lots of cars parked illegally down the parade and that is a sorry council enforcement thing which we all know we've got problems with at the moment and so I think the parking stresses are caused by lack of enforcement of parking regulations. I think it would be, in my opinion, unfair to blame parking stress and parking issues on this planning application. I think the problem already exists and the only way to stop the problem is for network rail and Surrey Council to do their job and then force the double yellow lines, the disabled bays, all of that and I can't see that that would be a valid reason for me certainly to refuse. Thank you. Councillor TONNER, Councillor WARR, and then I noticed that, oh, Councillor CASSELER, coats us here and I noticed the ward Councillor, Councillor JOHNSTON, is here so if I can hear from the members of the committee first and then I'll come to you, Councillor JOHNSTON. Thank you. If I can ask the officer, how many of the sort of establishments have we actually got in Elbridge? Because I must submit, I have never come across them before so I feel a little bit concerned there's something I've actually missed over the years and it's something that we must all be aware of and so I have, there are some things I would like to say but I just wondered how many of these we actually have and how well they're managed. I'd like to get a feel for that situation please. Thank you. I'd like to come back with some concerns that I actually have after that. Well, let's hear from the officer and then we can come back to your comment. Yeah, so in policy DM10 it confirms that there is about 10 licensed HMOs and just to let members know that under-permitted development you can do up to six individuals living together in a HMO and that doesn't require planning permission. This is a larger HMO which is why it requires planning permission but so there might be more HMOs out there that don't require planning permission which is why members may not come across them that much but they do require licensing and stuff like that so they are covered by separate legislation. Thank you, that's very helpful. But I have to say that I do have concerns. I had something in my own area a few years ago where a very large house was made into very small flats. They were supposed to be sold, in fact they couldn't be sold because nobody wanted to buy them because they were so small. And in fact they are rented to people not locally but people from some distance away. And one of the biggest problems we actually have with this establishment is parking. Parking is now, we've managed to acquire parking but not for all of the flats and consequently that spills off into the local area. Now this doesn't help with relationships within an area and we all in fact like to live in an area whereby everything is, everybody is friendly, they get on with one another and we have good relationships. So we need to be very mindful that when we're making a decision about something we're actually protecting the people who are going to live in that area, one because we need the standard of living accommodation which is important, two for the people who already live here and if you actually buy a property and then you can't get to your property because other people are parking where you would normally park, it does cause a few problems. So I'm a little bit concerned that this could cause a few problems. I personally, after reading it, don't think that there's very much we can do about it quite frankly. I think it is what it is and I actually agree with other Councillors that it really is a problem of South twist trains and sorry counter-counsel enforcing the regulations that where people can park and where they can't and take action where necessary because I think we are going to get a problem here, all of us understand that we would like to see a car-free zone but realistically that isn't going to happen. I can say that because I'm one of these people who very rarely uses a car and so but there are people who do need a car and so we have to take that into consideration. I just felt that I really ought to say something about standards of living because I know how it has affected some of my residents and this will affect some of the people living locally to this site but I think it is where it is. We do have to make use of the properties we have coming available because people do know it needs somewhere to live but I think as a council we need to be aware of all those factors so that we can make the standard of living that we have here at the standard we ourselves would like to live within because that's something we can make an assumption of something but is that a good enough for people to live there? So we need to be very mindful that our standards are of the highest order so I don't really think there's very much we can do about this but I think it's sad that we can't in fact enforce selfless trains and sorry counter-council to be more active so that that does free up some parking spaces. We might be able to talk to some of our counter-councilers and get something done about it. Thank you. Thank you Councillor SON. I think I saw Councillor WARN next and then Councillor CUTES then I'll come to you Councillor Madam. Thank you Chair. I didn't come on a site visit last week because I've actually eaten in this building before and it's a restaurant many years ago so I do know some history. I've also went on a site visit years ago when it was put in for some small houses in there so I've been around the area and also I know the location very well because I commuted him from a claygate station for nearly 20 years. So I understand the Assembly Award members' concerns about parking but I think if we actually look at item 56, 0.56 on the Office's report that is really, that comes to a nub of it. That explains really why we are not in a position to turn it down on parking stress and I think we would lose at appeal if we would do so. I also think when you talk about, when Councillor TURN talked about other areas in Navarro where we have, we don't have car parking and it's not necessarily HMOs but of course in EASHA we have many flats which don't have car parking and these are obviously historical situations and EASHA has a lot more fat than claygate and yet we are able to, EASHA still works pretty well. We just have to make alternative arrangements. The other thing that no one has mentioned is that whilst we only have a small number of HMOs, they do add to our housing stock. They do actually, this scheme does actually build in our sort of village, as I say, old town centre and it is sustainable. It's right next to the railway station and I can see an awful lot of people using these buildings who would commute. I don't know say it to London but they could commute to Serviton or to Guilford. So I think it's sustainable. I think we've been very, very weak ground to turn it down on parking stress and the fact that it's actually built inside the existing envelope building means that I would support this application. Thank you, Councillor interjecting. Councillor CASS. Thank you, Chair. I really want to echo some of the points that Councillor WAR has just made. I mean, I think in getting sort of bogged down in the parking stress issues, we are not discussing the point that he made that this would add a significant number of rentable units of a very small size which targets a demographic in Elbridge, which we know are struggling to find places to live. So I don't have problems with HMOs because I think they provide a really valuable source to and to our housing stock. The other point I think which we haven't mentioned is that it is a locally listed building and is really nice to see somebody doing something with a building that actually respects that and they're not mucking about it and not proposing to demolish it and build some monstrosity. It's actually working with the building very much as it is and the modifications are very minus. And I think that's a plus in its favour. Just talking about the principle of HMOs and this parking issue, my two sons have only recently got on to the housing market themselves and for the last goodness knows how many years they've been living in various different sort of models of HMOs and neither of them have had cars in that circumstance because quite simply they can't afford it. If they could afford to run cars they would probably be able to afford to rent better accommodation than a single room in a shared house. So I think we've been speculating about parking stress but it's equally valid to speculate that there won't be a massive number of cars associated with it because it's right next to the station. It's on a bus route, two bus routes I think according to the report. There's a taxi firm literally 5 yards away from the front door and you know other firms are available including Uber which is what most young people seem to get around with nowadays. So I'm not convinced that the parking stress is going to be anything like the concerns that are being raised and as Councillor WARR has said we shouldn't be considering it anyway because we'd probably lose on appeal if we turned it down for that reason. And there was one, oh yes the noise that I think is another bit of a sort of red herring really because if there was any major noise emanating from a single occupant of a single room I think the first people who would be on it like a ton of bricks are the other residents in the HMO and telling them to pipe down so you know I can't see that turning this from a residence a single dwelling into an HMO is going to have any noise impact at all and if it does there are routes with environmental health etc to follow. So I just feel somebody needs to speak up for a few positive points on this because I think there are a number of positive things and I'm yet to be thoroughly convinced that there are any negatives. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Mcdonald, you're very welcome. I'm sure you've got something to say so please. Thank you Chair and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee tonight and hopefully what I can bring to bear as a ward Councillor is just some additional insights into what the nature of the concerns is around the highways and parking stress issues. Firstly, I'd like to say and members have already reflected this in the debate that having read both the report we had a very comprehensive report which sets out the history and I think in a very rounded way looks at the arguments and alongside that we've had the presentation from the Chair of Claygate Parish Council which sets out some detailed insights into the parish council's concerns about the cumulative effect in relation to the highways impact and parking stress. I think it's really important that as you have done that we know what we can regard as features in favour of approving the application including its sustainable location. Those are clear and I think we should all recognise given the pressure on housing that this form of HMO would address those housing pressures and I note and this is reflected and I think the parish council deserves credit for this as does the applicant in terms of action he's clearly taken that the evidence previously presented and decisions previously made have largely taken away the question around space standards. So that seems to me to take us back to the central point which my colleague Councillor Wart fastened upon and the bit of the report that I looked most closely at was 4857 because that is about the highway and parking issues and I note all that's been said in the past and I note in particular the view that's being expressed tonight that in the light of what's been said in the past it wouldn't be reasonable to object on grounds of the highways issues and the parking stress. So I have to say and looking at the plan you can see this, Councillor SISMAN made the point that the enforcement responsibility is split between network rail and sorry, counter-council and I think we in cleargate can emphatically say the enforcement regime doesn't work and there isn't any apparent serious intent to make it work. That isn't a matter for this committee but that's just how things are but the particular feature, Councillor Wart mentions having travelled from cleargate for 20 years, I can't quite write about having spent at least eight years travelling six days a week from cleargate station, I made it about myself, I wouldn't spend that much time commuting again but I can say compared with travelling from cleargate in the 60s and 70s that the whole experience of cleargate parade was qualitatively entirely different in the movement was easy and completely risk free and it was indeed entirely possible for traffic to flow down the parade, turn round in the cul-de-sac and go back the other way, unrestricted to way flow. It's many years since that's been the case, many years and that creates and Councillor Ronninges and I spent Saturday morning in the parade and we were able to observe that even on a Saturday there is and the report acknowledges this conflict in traffic movements and we have an unsatisfactory situation there, I don't think the solution, not again not for tonight is better enforcement, I think there needs to be some fundamental layout design changes. So I noticed at 56 the inspector said there was limited evidence of significant impact on highway safety, I suspect if a serious study over time were made we would reach a different conclusion, I don't think anybody can say that the way traffic flows work in the parade are satisfactory and indeed entirely safe. So I would say that there are more grounds than has been expressed thus far for having concerns about the highway and parking stress. I acknowledge the applicant's point that it is cumulative. His argument is it doesn't add that much more, I think the parish council and I would argue it adds some more to an already unsatisfactory situation. I would just say to you members that I think the concerns expressed by the parish council in terms of the highway and parking stress issues are well made and I would ask you all to give it due weight in making your decision tonight. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Councillor McDonald. Councillor Lange. I don't want to, thank you, Chair, I don't want to particularly go over the other points that were made here but I just wanted to put forward one observation which would be from the point of view of a young person in the early 20s looking to move out of their home, I think Councillor Cose mentioned this, if one, it couldn't afford to run a car, did want to go into London or down to Guildford to commute, wanted to be able to have shopping nearby, wasn't restricted by a car or the lack of a car, then this would be an absolutely ideal place to go and I think it's likely that I can't prove it, I understand the points made about parking stress, it's likely that this will actually attract people who would not be able to find accommodation elsewhere and who probably won't be using a car but obviously I haven't got the gift of a crystal ball so I can't absolutely predict that but I think it's quite likely that if somebody with a car was looking at this they'd say it might not be actually a very good place to live if however they didn't have a car to be going, bloody hell this is fantastic. So I'd just like to make that point and therefore I'll be supporting this. Thank you, does anybody else, any other member wish to speak? Councillor Lino. Talking about the size of the rooms, when you plan a building like this, is there a minimum bedroom space required for people to be able to live in a reasonable space, sorry, didn't work that very well. That's okay. So in terms of planning, there's no sort of minimum space requirements but it's under the HMO regulations so paragraph 32 of the report sort of starts and it explains there sort of the minimum sizes under the HMO regulations. Members will note in the last application that was refused, there was concerns raised about the size of particularly one of the bedrooms and I think the lack of some communal space. Since the application, the applicant did meet with the private sector housing team and the private sector housing team made some recommendations in terms of the layout and the applicant did make those changes and that's the plans that are in front of members tonight so the public sector housing team have viewed the plans and they're happy with the sizes and the communal areas provided. Councillor Landon. So you feel that that particular objection has been satisfied? Yeah. Yeah, we're happy that it's been satisfied. Councillor Landon. Thank you, Chair. Can I make a comment as to my observation on going down to the site myself? Yes, please do. Yeah. So the major issue that I had with this was connected with the previous reason for a supervisor which is around the construction of the site and so I was very interested to see what the amenity was to people there and also the kind of building it was, the heights of the rooms, et cetera and also different, particularly I was interested in use of bathrooms and kitchens and also if there was any easy access to outside space. I was satisfied that the rooms had in a space within them to be certainly as good as most of the rooms I've noted, my children have been entering into in quite modern university accommodation and so I think it's absolutely appropriate that they should be used in that way. I also think it's got tremendous character in terms of being a listed building and also has some really nice outside space for people to go outside as well. So I think for, as I said earlier, for a young person coming in, this is actually a very good opportunity to move out of house and start there. My life away from home. Thank you for those observations. I'm not getting a sense of anybody wanting to put forward an alternative to the recommendation to permit Councillor Rolings. Will I, I'm looking at DM7 and parking issue and it says the proposed park and provision should be appropriate to development and not result in an increase in on street parking and stress that will be detrimental to the amenities of local residents in such circumstances a minimum provision of one space per residential unit will be required and then there's a little asterisking. As I said speech saying, an individual assessment will be made on the minimum level of parking to be provided for non-residential development in areas of on street parking stress. So I do acknowledge that an HMO doesn't entirely fall within that access and parking DM7 or certainly within that paragraph as it's set out. I think the current view is that the zero parking for HMO, so zero space zero allocation of parking in nine minutes or so I read from the report, would that be correct? Yes, so this this application is for zero car parking, I'm just trying to find I think in terms of the parking standards, I think it's an individual assessment for this type of for HMO, sorry Councillor RUNNING is going to put your mic on, thanks. That's assessment of zero parking, how has that arrived at? Is that because that's straight from it's a station and there's a bus and as we've discussed. Yes, so officers consider that in terms of the sustainable location, it's right next to the train station, there are public car parks nearby that future residents, if they did have a car that they could utilise those car parks, obviously there is concern about parking in that cul-de-sac area but it is double yellow line so people shouldn't be parking there, future occupiers, when they go to view these rooms and this property they will be aware that there is no car parking associated with the scheme, so based on that and based on the previous appeal decisions where the inspector has set out quite clearly that he didn't think that there was going to be an issue with parking stress that it would be unreasonable now for members to be adding that as a reason for refusal, so there would be a risk of costs as well, so just to make that clear for members. Okay thank you, I do understand and obviously in light of that I didn't think I would be putting forward a motion to refuse. Thank you and thank you members, so the recommendation in front of us this evening is to grant permission, so may I see by a show of hands all those who are in favour of grant permission to this application please, thank you, and against abstaining, okay thank you very much, so application 20240118 has been granted permission, I do share the residents concerns at the end of this about the parking down there and I do hope that perhaps sorry we can't cancel a network rail can take note of residents concerns because as it's been clearly been pointed out to us there is an issue down there. This is our last planning meeting before the next year, so I wanted to thank members, substitutes, we've been here quite a lot Councillor Rawlings, thank you nice to see you and in absentia my Vice Chair Councillor CUMS and Councillor Young who sadly won't be standing again, I'm really proud of this committee, you will work really really hard and study the documents assiduously, so thank you very much members, I'd also like to thank the officers very much for all the support that you give to members, your great help to us. Thank you very much and at 1953 the meeting is closed. Thank you. the meeting. the meeting is closed. Thank you. The meeting is closed. [BLANK_AUDIO]