Transcript
Right. Good morning, members. Good morning, officers. Good morning, residents. Yes, again. Welcome. Firstly, you know this bit by now, but I'll do the fire alarm. There is no fire alarm scheduled, I believe. I haven't been told this of this. But in the event of an alarm, please exit out of the council chamber and turn left and go straight up the fire hill at the top of the hill and wait until you've been ticked off.
No sneaking off in the cars, please, until you've been ticked off. So welcome to the, I should have done this first, the Planning and Regulatory Committee, and welcome anybody that's joining us on YouTube. Firstly, having done the fire, apologies for absence.
Thank you, Chairman. We have received apologies from Jonathan, Halley, Christopher, Victor Lewanski, and Richard too.
That's why I was looking at the, we banned a few on our Shakespearean.
The minutes of the last meeting, I know that there was a technical issue. They haven't come out very long. Are you happy for me to sign or do you require further time to review them?
Can I sign them? Yes. Thank you very much. Petitions, none received. Public question time. There were four public questions submitted and the questions and responses were published in the supplementary agenda.
And I believe everybody wishes to ask a supplementary question. So firstly, Jackie, if you don't mind me calling you first time, I feel we know each other by now. So if you'd like to ask away, please. Thank you.
Thank you. Your reply to my question concerning the applicant profiting from the unlawful production of oil at the Horse Hill site suggests that the course of action has not yet been decided upon.
I would therefore like to ask, what is the committee's view of this unlawful profit? Do councillors feel that it should be ignored? And when do you anticipate your careful assessment will be concluded and the outcome shared with the public?
In short, the issue of the sale of oil and the profit made of it is not something that the planning enforcement system is set up to deal with.
There may be other ways in which enforcement action can bring consequences to bear on an operator in an unlawful situation, but it is not usual to pursue matters financially like that as the purpose of the planning enforcement system is to remedy the planning harm.
Now, the planning harm is going to differ from case to case, be it an environmental impact, impact on the highways, whatever it is. That is where the planning enforcement remit really lies.
So at this moment in time, within the remit of that planning enforcement investigation, it is not looking at the profit from the sale of that oil.
I caveat that, as with everything, in that because we are still looking at the case is not closed, so of course nothing is absolutely final.
But I think it is good to be aware of the context of what planning enforcement is about.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Deborah.
It has been stated in previous answers from this committee that UCOG are looking to work with the Council with regard to voluntary succession and remediation of the site at Horse Hill.
Will the committee publish the stages of remedial work being undertaken and the time limit imposed for each stage?
At the moment, that is still a subject of ongoing discussions between the planning enforcement team and UCOG and Horse Hill Development Limited, the two organisations that are involved.
It isn't something that is normally put into the public domain as part of a live enforcement investigation, because we have to be conscious of prejudicing those discussions.
But if there is information that during the course of it we are able to publicly share, I will do so.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now on to Sarah, please.
In your answer to my question, you emphasise what UCOG have done to vacate the site so far.
You state that a continuous review is in place.
But what exactly do you mean in your answer when you go on to say there is an ongoing process of redetermination happening?
Do the planning department officers anticipate there being a new planning application?
Yes, probably the wording I use will be very clear.
So as in previous discussions, the quashing of the decision at the Supreme Court earlier this year means that that application comes back to us.
So when I'm talking about redetermination, that application where the previous grantor planning permission was quashed is now a live application back with the planning team to determine.
So because it effectively nullifies the decision that was made.
So when we're talking about redetermination, it's redetermination of that planning application.
So there will be more information being submitted on that application.
And there will be more information given about that for public consultation in due course.
But it's not a new application as such.
It will be the one that was determined being redetermined.
Hence my use of redetermination.
Great.
As the committee has previously stated, the information of how much oil has been obtained at the Horse Hills site since this activity became unlawful in June 2024 is publicly available.
Can the committee explain why it did not take steps to prohibit this unlawful oil production for such a long time?
I mean, I think that has been addressed in previous answers where we have responded regarding the enforcement investigation that has been ongoing during that period of time.
I don't think there's anything further I can answer in this committee meeting beyond referring to those previous answers.
I can take that away and compile those answers into a single written response to that question.
I think that would be helpful if it circulated to all parties that we did that.
I get it's frustrating that progress looks to be slow.
But again, all of these issues, it's a legal matter.
And we have to take care of things.
We just can't go up feast willingly.
So it is illegal, but we will get that information published.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That is the end of the public questions.
And we now come on to the member questions.
And Catherine Powell, you have submitted two member questions.
And the answers are in the supplementary agenda.
Do you have any further questions?
Yes, Chair, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
In response to my first question, thank you for confirming that the AMC does require the presence of local community representatives.
As the local counter-counselor for that area, I would wish to continue to sit on the AMC.
Can you confirm that that will be an acceptable path forward?
It's not for me to confirm, as the planning officer involved.
We don't dictate the membership of that AMC.
It is only as per the requirements of the agreed aftercare plan.
So as long as the membership accords from a planning perspective, that's all we can require.
But I would note, of course, your position, and I can make that known.
Thank you.
And then on the second question, thank you for confirming that planning permission continues to be required.
I know in your response that you say that I haven't provided specific details.
There are actually three specific cases listed in my question that are specific details that we know that the Countryside team are considering.
And in fact, in some cases may have already begun to action without planning permission.
I would seek to get a confirmed position from the Surrey planning team as to whether or not planning permission is required for those three changes on site,
because it is causing angst locally.
And a continued lack of decision on whether planning is or is not required is problematic,
particularly when voluntary groups have been required to submit full planning applications for lesser works previously.
Absolutely.
The sort of vagueness of my answer wasn't because any of those have necessarily been judged not to require planning permission,
but obviously the necessity for planning permission is essentially down to the specifics of the development.
There are the occasional way in which something might not,
and I didn't want to be too definitive having not seen necessarily final plans for the development that you're talking about in those three bullet points.
But in general, development falling into any of the usual categories is going to require a planning permission on that site,
irrespective of ownership.
That's not going to make any difference as to whether or not planning permission is required.
You know, it's very likely that, yes, new bird shelters, even a relocation of an existing one, is likely to trigger planning permission.
There is the possibility that, of course, works to something existing don't.
So that's where I'm saying that until I know the exact specific details, I can't be definitive.
But I can assure you that I will let you know, because one of those are things that we are having conversations about.
So just to be clear, work on one of those three, possibly two of those three,
has already commenced on site without permission, having been gained.
So I would appreciate an acceleration of the response as to whether planning is required or not.
Thank you.
Next, I wasn't aware of commencement, so I can take that up.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your questions.
On to the main part of the agenda on declarations of interest.
No declarations of interest on that.
The first item, Surry County Council proposal, land at St. John the Baptist School.
There was a site inspection.
Some have got closer to the site than others, but we won't go on that one.
But thank you, officers, for arranging this.
And I think, James, this is, as we have two Jameses here, James Noland is going to talk us through on this one.
Yep.
This application is for the erection and use of a new one-storey special educational needs building
for 30 pupils along the southeastern boundary of the existing St. John the Baptist school grounds,
as well as an associated exclusive 37-space vehicle parking area with access from Coniston Road
and perimeter landscaping and fencing.
The application site comprises a tarmac access road previously used for construction
and part of a large open field used for outdoor recreation,
although the applicant has provided plans to demonstrate that existing recreation uses
could continue to be accommodated.
The application site is entirely within Flood Zone 2 and the Greenbelt.
The wider school comprises a cluster of one- to three-storey buildings
and adjacent vehicle parking and external hard play areas
and caters for children aged 11 to 18.
It's accessed from Elmbridge Lane, and this would continue to be the case.
The school is surrounded by residential, educational, and community uses
and large areas of dense, established woodland.
Representations from a total of 35 members of the public have been received,
covering a range of issues, but mainly highway traffic and parking issues.
No technical objections have been received from relevant consultees
subject to the application of suitably worded conditions.
As the proposal lies within the Greenbelt and constitutes inappropriate development,
very special circumstances must exist for planning permission to be granted,
and those must outweigh all and any harm caused,
including harm by virtue of inappropriateness.
Officers consider that in this case,
the applicant has demonstrated very special circumstances
around the clear educational need for the proposal,
which, in accordance with the NPPF,
should be given great weight in the planning balance.
Taking all of the above into account,
the recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions.
I would like to draw members' attention towards the update sheet,
which details recent updates to the NPPF, very recent.
And I'm going to hand over to the other James,
who's going to make some comments on highways.
Thanks, James.
Morning, all.
So this site is a small-scale SEN unit.
Despite it being very small-scale, as usual,
we've required the worst-case assumptions to be factored into this.
They've included capacity modelling and parking accumulation assessments.
And that, you know, those worst-case scenarios,
they include things like we assume 100% attendance all time,
ignoring any potential for minibus use.
And then, you know, in that context, in terms of capacity,
there really aren't any severe impacts on the highway network from this.
The most significant would be at the A247 Gloucester Road junction,
where in the PM peak at 2029 to the future year,
we could see about a 20-second increase in queue times,
which doesn't represent sufficient for a highway objection.
This is a low-speed environment.
Vehicles are already travelling about 20 mile an hour in this area.
And just to make it clear, we have –
there's a recommended condition that this site is to only be accessed
from Coniston Road,
and only traffic going to this SEM unit is to access via Coniston Road.
So it should only be that traffic associated with the additional unit going in here.
Parking, you know, as I've said,
we've looked very much on the worst-case assumptions here.
And if we ignore the three disabled spaces on site
and everything else I mentioned previously,
there is a potential for an overspill onto the local highway network of around four vehicles.
There have been survey data provided for roads west of the site,
because that's where it's actually a little more constrained.
For the roads east of the site, there have been multiple visits,
including a couple by myself, made very early in the morning,
looking at the situation here,
and members will have seen those that were on the visit.
There is ample space within the roads outside the site,
including Conister and Fairfax roads,
to accommodate those potential extra parking that that overspill.
Again, the actual risk of that is quite low, though.
And then in terms of controls that are being required here,
we are actually imposing slightly heavier-handed requirements
than we normally would for an SEM school
in terms of the travel plan requirements.
That is not conditioning actual mode shift targets,
because that can be quite unrealistic
with the type of students coming to the site,
but it is requiring all the same sort of efforts
that we would expect to encourage
and enable active travel to the site.
On top of that,
there's a construction transport management plan being included,
parking management,
and alongside a parking management plan.
Within the context of all of that,
from a highway perspective,
we don't see any transportation reasons for refusal.
Thank you.
Before I open this up,
can I just clarify,
the worst-case scenario
of everybody coming by car
and the teachers coming by car,
but there is a travel plan,
so your four cars overspinning onto the highway
is very much a worst-case scenario,
because the highway just by the entrance of the school
is quite narrow,
because it leads on to the allotments,
and then you move on to the residential road,
and yes,
when we went round,
there were spaces,
but I wouldn't say there were too many spaces,
but you are talking about a worst-case scenario.
Yeah, absolutely,
and we always face on these worst-case scenarios,
which may have the risk of making things look worse than they are,
but the reality is that every time
that we have been and assessed these roads,
there's been ample parking
in the context of a potential overspill of four units.
Yeah, I get it.
Thank you.
Right, members,
over to you.
Comments, questions, please.
Ernest.
Yes, Mr. Chairman,
we obviously had the site visit,
and it all looked very much in order,
and I can't see,
and I think other members of the site visit
may be the same,
couldn't see any problem with this at all,
and I notice that biodiversity
seems to be raising its head,
but really and truly,
I mean, this is a very small strip of land.
It doesn't seem to have any kind of
critical diversity
or biodiversity problems at all,
and if it does,
they'll be very minor and insignificant.
So, I mean,
I totally support this.
The council needs this facility.
It's taking up a very small area
of the playing field,
and what area it does take up
can easily be accommodated
in pitch terms
on the rest of the land.
So, I'm totally in favour of it.
I see no reason at all
to add any conditions
or to query this application.
Thank you very much.
John.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I agree.
I've looked at this.
I think it is a special circumstance
because obviously
the county need these type of schools
for SEN,
and I think wherever we can accommodate it,
we need to go ahead with it.
I regret the loss of a playing,
or part of a playing field area
because that is where the education is
and the kids enjoy that.
So, I do regret that.
However, to get this built,
I think we have to go ahead with it.
So, as far as I'm concerned,
I would support this application.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The area of land
that's been taken
is not good land,
could I say,
and the playing field element
has been replicated,
been replaced elsewhere,
isn't it?
Yeah, the applicant has submitted plans
that show that football pitches,
rugby pitches,
and the running track
can all still be accommodated
on the remaining playing fields.
Thank you.
Right, I'll go down the line.
Jeffrey.
Jeremy, I mean, sorry.
Yeah, I mean,
we had the advantage
of going inside the school.
This is clearly an excellent school.
We saw where the SEND pupils
were currently accommodated.
There's room for one or two people.
This has to happen.
We couldn't see any problem
that would result
in the green belt
or loss of this, that, and the other.
So, I think specialists
are compensated over the way.
And I just point out,
sitting on the children's scrutiny committee,
I mean,
EHCPs have doubled,
basically, since 2017.
We have to provide this facility.
So, I am much in favor of this.
And I would like to undermine
the courtesy
with which we were shown
when we visited the school,
by the way,
which is clearly a good thing.
Thank you.
Catherine.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, I 100% support this
and I was lucky enough,
like Jeremy,
to end up in the wrong place
for the site visit
and go around the school.
But it was actually
really beneficial.
One of the concerns I did have
was about it being
in flood zone two.
But the maintenance manager
on the site
was able to explain
that there had been work
done upstream
that had resulted
in significant changes
to where the floodplain went
and that realistically
that was no longer a concern.
There's also a very large berm
that you wouldn't have been able
to see from the site visit
that goes around
a lot of the site
and creates a lot
of flood protection.
And again,
they talked very passionately
about wanting to maintain
the sports pitches,
which is obviously covered
very amply in your report.
So, I 100% agree
that we need to approve this.
The only issue
that came up
when we were talking
was a turning circle
for the people
who use the allotments.
But having looked
at the design
you put together, James,
I think that it does
allow for that
and I think that that
addresses that concern.
So, I'm supportive.
And I would also like
to extend my thanks
to the school
who accepted Jeremy
and I with no notice
whatsoever.
Yes, we saw two figures
in the distance.
Ah, it might be two of us.
But well done getting there,
that's all I can say.
Any other comments?
Any of you?
Right.
Members, thank you for that.
We have an officer
recommendation to Grant.
All those in favour,
please indicate.
Sorry, that's Grant
with the amended conditions
as set out.
Yeah, thank you.
Ernest?
Thank you very much, members.
That's unanimous.
Thank you very much indeed.
Now on to another one.
Reading the papers.
This one is the application
for village green status
at Leach Grove Wood
in Leatherhead.
Just let officers change around.
Thank you, James and James.
They're gone.
And Charlotte.
Thank you.
Right, whenever you're ready,
Catherine,
if you'd like to talk us
through this one.
No panic.
Thank you.
But now.
Okay, can everyone hear me?
Excellent.
Okay.
So this is an application
for town or village green status
for land at Leach Grove Wood
in Leatherhead.
So the committee is asked
to consider whether to register
the land subject
of this application
as a town or village green.
And this matter
has already been before committee
and the evidence
for the application
has already been considered.
So there's a long history
relating to this one
and I'll give you
a brief outline
of the history
before I talk about
the matters
which you need to consider today.
The application
for town or village green status
was made by
Philippa Cargill
on the 22nd of March 2013
for land at Leach Grove Wood
Leatherhead.
The application was made
on the basis
that a significant number
of inhabitants
of any locality
or of any neighbourhood
within a locality
have indulged
as of right
in lawful sports
and pastimes
on the land
for a period
of at least 20 years
made by 116
evidence questionnaires.
The landowner
NHS Property Services Limited
objected to the application
and as part of the investigation
there was a public inquiry
which heard the evidence.
The inspector appointed
for that inquiry
recommended that
the application be rejected
as he felt
that the applicant
had not satisfied
the neighbourhood test
and that test is
that they had not shown
that the area
from which the users
of the land
claimed as TVG
originated
was sufficiently cohesive
to be classed
as a neighbourhood.
The matter was discussed
at this committee
in September 2015
and the view
of the committee
was that there was
sufficient cohesion
to form a neighbourhood
and the committee
decided to accept
the application
and register the land
as a new TVG
which is what we went
ahead and did.
The landowners
then applied to
judicially review
the decision
of the committee
and that case
was heard
in the High Court
in July 2016.
The judicial review
claim was based
on several grounds.
One of these
was an absence
of consideration
of reasoning
relating to
statutory incompatibility.
As the principle
of statutory incompatibility
is central to this case
I will explain
more about it
at this point.
Statutory incompatibility
applies where land
has been acquired
by a public authority
pursuant to its
statutory powers
and are incompatible
with the registration
of the land
as a village green.
Statutory incompatibility
can apply to land
held by public authorities
and statutory undertakers.
The principle
was established
in the New Haven case
where the Supreme Court
held that a beach
within a harbour
could not be registered
as a TVG
as there was
a clear incompatibility
between the port's
statutory functions
in operating
a working harbour
and registration
of the beach
as a TVG.
The land was owned
by a port authority
so a statutory undertaker
and the use of the land
as a TVG
would be in use
of the land
for those statutory purposes
as a working port.
And to give another example
in the Lancashire case
which was consented
by the Supreme Court
together with this case
the Leech Grove Wood case
registration
as a TVG
of land held
by a local authority
for educational purposes
was deemed
to be incompatible
with its use
for those statutory purposes.
Engage the statutory duties
of the local authority
in relation to safeguarding
and more generally
registration would prevent
the construction
of school buildings.
So going back
to the Leech Grove Wood case
the judge in the High Court
found that there was
an absence
of any consideration
of reasoning
relating to the question
of statutory incompatibility.
The judge applied
the principle
from the New Haven case
and considered
that the land
owned by NHS
property services
is held
for the statutory purposes
for the erection
of a hospital building
or used
for other hospital
related purposes.
These sorts
of uses
would conflict
with use
as a TVG
hence statutory
incompatibility.
For this reason
the judicial review
was allowed
and both
the decision
of this committee
and the registration
of the land
as a TVG
were quashed.
So by that point
the original applicant
had moved out
of the area
but the application
was taken up
by Mr Timothy Jones.
Mr Jones appealed
the decision
of the High Court
to the Court
of Appeal.
The appeal
was heard
in 2017
and the judgment
was published
in April 2018.
The Court
of Appeal
overturned
the decision
of the High Court
judge
by arguing
that the land
was not being used
for any defined
statutory purposes
with which registration
would be incompatible.
No statutory purpose
relating specifically
to this particular land
would be frustrated.
It was considered
that the statutory
duties of the landowner
could still be carried out
despite the registration.
Registration of the land
as a TVG
was therefore reinstated.
The landowner
then appealed
the decision
of the Court of Appeal
in the Supreme Court
and the case
was heard in 2019.
The Supreme Court
overturned the judgment
of the Court of Appeal.
It agreed
with the High Court judgment
and the application
of the test
from the New Haven case
in that the issue
of incompatibility
must be decided
by reference
to the applicable
statutory regime
and the statutory purpose
for which the land
is held
not by how it was used
at any point in time.
The view of that Court
was that there was
an incompatibility
between the statutory purposes
for which the land
was held by NHS
and use of that land
as a TVG.
As a result
the Supreme Court
ordered that
both the decision
to register
and the registration
of Leech Grove Wood
as a TVG
be quashed
and the application
be redetermined
by the registration authority
in accordance
with the Supreme Court.
So this is where
we are now.
The application
requires
redetermination
by this committee.
So first
we can look back
at the original application
and the recommendation
given by the inspector
following the inquiry.
He found that
the applicant
had proved
that a significant
number of inhabitants
indulged as of right
in lawful sports
and pastimes
on the land
for a period
of at least 20 years.
The issue he had
was with the identification
of the neighbourhood
which he felt
was insufficiently cohesive
and is why
we initially
recommended refusal.
The committee
thought differently
which is why
we did record it
as a TVG
and at the High Court
the judge agreed
that it is a matter
of impression
whether there is
sufficient cohesion
for a neighbourhood
to exist
and decided
that there was
no criticism
of this committee's
approach to the issue
of neighbourhood
issue on which
elected members
could have just as much
expertise as the inspector
and the finding
that there was
a neighbourhood
was undoubtedly
a decision
which the committee
could reasonably take.
Although the application
has been found
to meet the requirements
in section 15
of the Commons Act
2006 for registration
as a village green
it fails
on the ground
of statutory incompatibility.
In the judgment
of the Supreme Court
where there is
an incompatibility
between the statutory
purposes for which
the land is held
and the use
and the provisions
of the Commons Act
2006
are not applicable.
So the original
decision of the committee
has been quashed
and we are being asked
to redetermine the matter
based on the ruling
of any questions.
Thank you.
It's absolutely fascinating.
I now have a great
understanding of statutory
incompatibility
I must say.
I'll try and use it
wherever I can.
Trust me.
Catherine.
I'd just like to thank
Catherine
for the clearest
explanation
of a highly complex
issue
that I think
I have heard
in many,
many years.
And I know
it's been a very long
and very drawn out process
and taken a huge amount
of patience
and I absolutely
support your recommendation
and thank you
for conveying it
to all of us
who do not have
anywhere near
the knowledge
that you have
in as clear
a way as you have.
So thank you.
Thank you.
But I would say
thank you to Judith
for that as well
because Judith
paid a lot of
I mean who thought
when we came
on this committee
we were going to be
dealing with such
diverse and really
very interesting issues.
I mean it sometimes
makes something
look more interesting.
John.
Yes thank you.
I agree.
Thank you very much
for your report.
I will just comment
that the amount
of time
I mean we're going
back seven
eight years
or somewhere around there
the cost
with all these appeals
high courts
etc
I mean this is a
phenomenal cost
and time
for the general
public to fund
so yes I'll go
along with the
officer's recommendation
to support it.
It's a shame
that we didn't
start here
and actually finish it
but please
I don't want to
see it again
can we just
finish it all?
Yeah but it's
called democracy
I think that
it goes round.
Ernest.
Yes thank you
Mr Chairman.
Well as the
officer has sort
of demonstrated
this is a very odd
and confusing
sort of process
and in this
particular case
very very long
winded.
I was on the
committee that
actually had
the argument
before and
the argument
then was different
to what it is
now.
The argument
then was all
about community
whether a
community was
established
the QC
said it
hadn't
we said it
had
and we
took the
day
and the
point is
parliament
in this
most things
are pre-ordered
here
but one
slip up
where parliament
has made
has been
in terms
of determining
a community
or not.
Anyway
we passed
it on that
basis
and I supported
the local
member
Tim Hall
on it.
Now we're
in handcuffs
I'm afraid
to say
because basically
what seems
to have happened
that went
through a whole
series of things
and then
at the time
the actual
hospital ownership
was considered
to be
if you like
low grade
in the sense
that they
hadn't used
the site
they didn't
look like
using it
and under
those conditions
we were quite
able to decide
that their
interest was not
significant
and that was
how it was.
Now it seems
to have progressed
through ditching
the argument
about the
community
or changing
that
and they've
come to
a slightly
different
conclusion
that the
community
isn't
established
they changed
that round
and various
people have
seen it
in different
ways
so that's
a bit
confusing
but that
no longer
matters
now we've
got a
supreme
court
which has
handcuffed
us as I
say
because they
say
you know
they've sent
it back
to us
you know
odd really
it says
it's come
back to us
for decision
but in fact
they are
in their
paragraph
two
on the
last page
they're actually
directing us
how to deal
with it
so we have
no
we have
no decision
in this
really
we can't
argue
with the
supreme
court
so you
know
I mean
I have
to like
others
reluctantly
put my
hand up
in favour
of the
recommendation
but you
know
it's
well we
know
we know
full well
from other
applications
for village
greens
that we
are in
difficult
legal
positions
all the
time
because the
legal
stature
in which
the public
of course
don't
understand
and can't
accept
but the
legal
position
restrains
us
entirely
in what
we can
do
so
yeah
my
hand
will
have
to
go up
in
approval
chair
could I
just
clarify
please
on the
neighbourhood
point
yes so
from the
original
inspectors
report
following the
inquiry
he recommended
the rejection
of the
application
because on
the grounds
that he
felt that
the neighbourhood
wasn't
cohesive
enough
and so
it was
brought to
committee
with that
recommendation
and the
committee took
a different
view
and the
application
was accepted
and it was
registered
because the
committee felt
the neighbourhood
was cohesive
and the
interesting point
is in the
high court
that point
was considered
and it was
considered that
the committee
could reasonably
conclude
could have a
different opinion
on neighbourhood
from local
knowledge
so it was
accepted that
the committee
could take
a different
view to
the inspector
on the
neighbourhood
point
and that
was accepted
but what
wasn't
accepted
was that
the inspector
hadn't
considered
that there
was any
stature
incompatibility
and it was
that point
that was
taken on
through the
courts
and where
the Supreme
Court
found that
because it
was held
for stature
purposes
which would
be incompatible
with the
village green
use
then it
couldn't be
registered
so on the
neighbourhood
point
it was
accepted
the committee
could take
a different
view
but the
issue here
before you
is stature
incompatibility
thank you
thank you
so yes
you were right
but you were
also wrong
I think
it was the
same way
of doing it
members
unless anybody
else has
any other
views
we have
a recommendation
that the
application
be rejected
on the
grounds of
moustachery
incompatibility
in accordance
with the
judgement of
the Supreme
Court
are we all
in agreement
with that
thank you
members
that is
unanimous
that is
the end
of today
thank you
very much
indeed
Catherine
and I'm
looking forward
to your
next one
but members
and anybody
watching on
YouTube
thank you
very much
indeed
can I wish
everybody
a happy
Christmas
and prosperous
new year
and we will
see you
come January
for another
installment of
the planning
and regulatory
committee
so thank you
and goodbye
thank you
thank you