Transcript

It's a order for the first meeting of the Planning Committee in this municipal year. Before going on, I'd just like to place on behalf of the committee, and I'm sure other colleagues within the council, my thanks to John Hodgkinson for his work, and that the previous year, and wishing well for his future responsibilities as well. But he's been a good steward to the committee, and I think it's important that we recognize that. My name's Councillor Glo, and I'm a proud representative of West Park Ward, and I chair this meeting. And I always start these meetings by just for the benefit of the people on the live stream and people in the room, just give them the understanding that we are a tribunal. We get to decide things according to sets of laws and regulations and policies, so that when we don't have a carte blanche when we come in here, we have to do things that are consistent with previously laid-down sets of policies, et cetera. If we don't do that, potentially we incur costs on behalf of the council taxpayers, because our decisions can be appealed, and I've recently been through an appeal. And at that point, the people appealing can ask for costs if we've not done it according to our policies. And sometimes this isn't an ideal kind of outcome, but those are the rules within which we operate. And so I don't apologise for the rules. I just say that you need to understand that we are subject to sets of rules when we make decisions. We don't have a free hand for doing it. Just in terms of colleagues who are in the room, I'd like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing. The whole of the meeting will be filmed, except where there are confidential or exempt items, and the footage will be on the website for six months. If you make a representation to the meeting, you'll be deemed by the council to have consented to being filmed. By entering this room, you're also consenting to being filmed by the council and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. Members of the public are allowed to take photographs, film, audio record, blog, or tweet the proceedings of our meeting so long as this is done in a manner which is not disruptive or otherwise inappropriate. I must also emphasise that we strive to be a paperless authority and so members will be referring to their computers. Members of the world will be referring to their computers during the period of this conversation. And just finally, just in terms of perhaps today, rather than any other day, we've just heard the decisions recently about the infected blood scandal and the failure of the political culture and government and civil service to do the right thing by the residents. And what I always say before these meetings also is that we have to balance a number of complex issues. Bearing in mind are the heritage in the borough, the needs of people at the moment, and the needs of people in the future as well, and we have to balance those things. And it's important that we at least try and uphold the standards of public governance in this country if other people in the country haven't done so. So on that point, I will now introduce people around the table so that you know who's here. So David.

• David Kogan, principal solicitor.
• Kelly Howe, I'd seen your Democratic service officer.
• Linda Maloney, Councillor Blackbrooke.
• Richard McCarley, Fatarith Ward Councillor.
• John Hodkinson, Councillor to Sutton North West.
• Councillor Dear Banks for Newton West.
• Councillor Keith Laird for Newton East.
• Seve Gomers, Asperon from Newton L.O.s.
• Andy Bowden, that's centre in the community of power.
• Carl Collier, Newton L.O.s. Alan Macon, Bolden Lee Green.
• Paul Housen, Hayduck Ward.
• James Tasker, Rainhill Ward.
• John Case, Rainford Ward.
• Jeff Pearl, Ekelson Ward.
• Mike Peterson, principal environmental health officer.
• Alex Ball, planning officer.
• Joe Nantzen, development control manager.
• Kevin Burch, head of planning at the council and on my left are Alice Swatson and Ella Spence, the graduate planning officers and Lewis Hatchet, planning officer at the council. Thank you, Chair.
• Thank you very much. So moving straight on apologies for absence, Kelly.
• Yes, I've had apologies to hear from Councillor Murphy.
• Okay, Julie noted, I have the minutes of the meeting held on the 16th of April. Is that agreed I signed these as a correct or proper record? Thank you very much, colleagues. Decorations of interest, just to explain, it's always important that we demonstrate that we're a transparent authority and there are no conflicting interests of whatever type and many of us have had training, a re-retraining on that very matter just before we came into the room. So are there any decorations of interest from members? Okay, so Councillor Collier first.
• Thanks, Chair. I've got a prejudicial interest, item four, say the applicant is Friend and Ward, colleague. So I'll leave the meeting at that time. Thank you.
• Okay, thank you, Julie noted. Councillor KAIS.
• Yeah, I'll leave the room for item four B because it's two parties in the Reinford Ward.
• Okay, thank you.
• Goodness, what sort of interest?
• I'm, the paranormal voice that asked me what sort of interest is that? Is it a prejudicial interest or a pecuniary interest or a pretzel?
• I've not been directly involved in this but I have heard about both parties. So I've got information, basically.
• Okay, so up to you as a Councillor, we can't determine how you respond to interest but Julie noted that you're declaring the interest and are you leaving the room at that stage or?
• I am, yeah.
• Okay, all right, okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for that. I should also add that the planning committee is not subject to any political whip. It's not appropriate because as we're just like a court, we're deciding on the basis of evidence. So ask if anybody's been subject to a political party whip over this meeting. No, that's great, never had one yet but was asked the question. Okay, before I move on to item four, Kieran has the protocol to deliver.
• Thank you, Chairman. Just to assist those members of the public who wish to address the committee today, I need to point out the following. A total of five or 10 minutes for the first item is allocated for those speaking in favour or against the applications. Comments that you make should be restricted to material planning issues. Members of the public will not be able to ask questions of officers or the committee. However, members of the committee, if they wish, can clarify matters of fact with a person addressing the committee. Interruptions from the public are not acceptable and the Chairman reserves the right to suspend the meeting, have the room cleared and recommence without the public being present. And then finally, if you have a mobile phone, please can you make sure it's switched to sound? Thank you, Chair.
• Thank you very much. We will ask questions. Questions of fact, essentially, of opponents or proposals of planning applications at the end of the initial presentations of the planning application. So just to let you know that. Okay, can we move on then to item 4A, which is on page 47, a planning application for four Haydock Park Gardens. Alex, you've got this.
• Thank you, Chair. So the application is for the change of use of one residential dwelling to six self-contained departments. There will be extensions and alterations following the change of use. The application building consists of a large two and a half storage touch property positioned at the head of Haydock Park, called this app. The area is characterized by open plan notices, density development, where buildings often being set back from the road. The trees to the north and to the western boundaries are protected by TPOs. And to the western boundaries is the A49 large lane and to the northern boundaries is the entrance to Haydock Park race course. The first photo is the entrance into the site from the cul-de-sac. The middle photo is the location of the attached garage. While the third photo is the existing rear elevation of the building, which will involve the removal of the canopy. The first photo is the existing rear garden. Again, the trees are protected along the boundaries. The next two photos is the application building in relation to number three and number five Haydock Park gardens. The principal development is acceptable and in accordance with the MPPF and the St. Helms local plan. On each level are two apartments. So on the ground floor apartment one, which is 176 square meters and apartment two, which is 178 square meters. Again, to the first floor, it's subdivided to two separate apartments, apartment three, 110 square meters and apartment four, 130 square meters. Again, into the attic, there'll be two apartments, apartment five. These are gonna be smaller apartments. In terms of a mean to an outlook, it's all acceptable and in accordance with the Council's SPD and local plan. The proposal will involve alterations to the building itself. For example, the roof lights on the roof slot being replaced, direction of a single storey side extension, which will be used under the garage and the installation of a new balcony to the front. To the rear of the property, it'll involve the removal of the existing pitch stoma roofs for a single flat roof. The replacement of roof lanterns, in terms of the external alterations, they've been designed to complement the host building, which similar openings to the fabric of the building. The proposal will provide 11 parking spaces within the courtesy of the site, which is in accordance with the Council's SPD. The highway's engineer has reviewed the application and notes that there's not gonna be any severe impact on surrounding the highway networks and has raised no objection to the change of use. In terms of residential amenity, the apartments will have more comms and goings than single residential property. However, it's a large attached property in a spacious plot. It's not considered to be significantly adverse impacts from the neighbors' amenity. In terms of the trees and landscaping, since the publication of the committee report, the trees officer has responded since the submission of the agricultural impact assessment and landscaping plan and has raised no objections subject to the mitigation measures. It's recommended that there's a landscaping tree protection and agricultural supervision conditions attached to the extent. In terms of ecology, me as have been consulted as part of the application. At the time of consultation, ecological reports was submitted at the time. Further survey works are gonna be undertaken. Once they are undertaken, me as will be reconsulted following the additional information. It's recommended that a grant of plan permission be delegated to the head of planner, whether the decision being subject to me as would during their objection to the proposed development and scheme of appropriate conditions. Thank you.
• Okay, there's an update note as well, which you just need to slightly change the recommendation.
• Thank you, Chair. So in terms of the update, the agent has confirmed that the ridge height won't be increasing in height, so it will remain the same at 8.1 metres. Further representation has been received from an objector in terms of the appearance of the extension alterations to the property and the increased ridge height. However, this has been assessed by planners in terms of the proposed development as being considered and is acceptable. As mentioned in terms of the tree assessment and object cultural impact assessment and landscaping plan has been submitted, Council's tree officer is satisfied with the information and has recommended three additional conditions. As mentioned, landscaping, tree protection and agricultural supervision conditions. And again, it's a recommend to grant plan to mission and be delegated to the head of planning following the resolution of the outstanding ecology issues and impose or alter conditions as deemed appropriate by head of planning. Thank you, Chair.
• Okay, thank you very much. Colleagues, the additional notes just put down beforehand. Council Members, I'm not gonna open it up, but I presume you have a material point, yeah.
• It's just a quick one. As I said, the highway's officer is something something and it sound like refused. What did you say in between the first part and the last part of that sentence?
• I think the word was reviewed, actually.
• That's the answer.
• That's the answer.
• Yeah, thank you.
• Thank you, Chair.
• Thank you, Chair. Members, that's one of the acoustics I see or as consistent as they used to be in this room. So that's helpful. Okay, nothing further from the planning side at this point. So can we then move on to the objectives and we have Linda Smith? Can you come forward and sit yourself down there? You've got 10 minutes, up to 10 minutes, and if you're getting close to it, I'll start sort of agitatedly waving my arms around or something like that, just to let you know. 'Cause whatever happens is that whatever you get, if you go over them, the applicant gets to equal time as well. So you okay, Val? You're okay?
• I'm fine.
• Okay, so can you press the mic button and then--
• Yeah, that's fine.
• Oh, there's a file.
• Okay, I've heard all the and read the report, 70% of the households have objected to this proposed development. Basically, I'm here to represent some of the representatives so everyone wasn't speaking separately. We feel, in reference to the Human Rights Act, that sets out depends right to a peaceful enjoyment of property and rights respect to private and family life at home. But this increase in traffic, either by vehicle cycle or footfall of potential 26 additional people, contravenes the piece of the immediate environment on a daily basis. As mentioned in the report of paragraph 7.15, the mixed tenure increases the likelihood of some residents being home during the daytime, impacts on the peaceful nature of the property and the cul-de-sac. It also has the likelihood of different work patterns and shifts in an increasing movement in and out of the estate. And it's the smallest part of the cul-de-sac on the whole of ADOT Park Gardens. The garden being split into three gardens, one being a communal garden for four of the apartments, increases the noise level that residents will be subjected to when in their gardens, and therefore impacts on the piece and enjoyment of residents, in particularly through the summer months, and not only when wanting to be in their gardens, but having to close windows trying to block out noise. We've had two incidents, one in the early hours of the Friday 7th of May, we're screaming, shouting, agronate, splitters, as well as door slamming for over 10 minutes. That woke us at 3.40 a.m. to the point we're about to call the police. This disturbed residents' sleep, impacts on physical and mental health, a disturbance of the piece, antisocial behavior and potential criminal behavior if it was a domestic abusive incident. Saturday morning work, men will play music so loud that residents at the end of the cul-de-sac number eight are to come down and ask for the music to be turned down. This is two instances before the property has been developed as per the proposals that have contributed those rights. Also in paragraph 135 of the MPPF, the developments create places that are safe, inclusive, accessible, not health and wellbeing, and where crime and disorder and fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life of community cohesion and resilience we feel that has been breached. The parking arrangements in 11 spaces, including a garage, do not allow for disabled parking, therefore not promote an inclusive visitor or accessibility, and should spaces be allocated to meet this need, it further reduces the parking communities, which current council transport and travel, SPD criteria says an allocation of 1.5 per apartment. However, residents are concerned, as are lighted in objections, like given the size of each apartment, 13 bedrooms, potentially 26 residents, but each apartment would likely have more than two vehicles. It is highly likely that a development housing of 26, oh, sorry, I've completed that. Residents will ensure how you partner 0.5 of a car as well. This reinforces the increased noise and air pollution, as well as vehicles regularly passing resident zones on a very small cul-de-sac, impact on the peace and enjoyment of their environment. Additional resident and visitor vehicles impact on the access of the estate, emergency vehicle access and refuse collection, and again, changes the visual aspects and ethos of the estate. This impacts on the safety of pedestrians, as there are no pavements on that part of the cul-de-sac, sun cyclists and narrows accessibility of all. LPAO6 transport assessments top up limiting any arm from trafficking respective noise safety and air pollution and have already stipulated the above, which also impacts on the wildlife due to increase in noise and movement where the vehicle cycles are footfall. It does not meet sufficient on-site parking of persons with limited mobility, therefore does not meet LPAO6, all councils transport on travel SPD, and paragraph 116B of MPPA to address the needs of people with disability and reduced mobility. Also part C minimising the scope for conflicts between pedestrian cycles, vehicles, and avoiding unnecessary street clutter. Part D also for the efficiency delivery of goods and access by service and emergency vehicles. MPPF Para-101 of addressing the accessibility of the development and local car ownership details have not been addressed. The impacts on trees and landscapes, paragraph 7.38 in the report, there are concerns about the future proximity to dwelling, the impact on the garden layout, I don't understand you saying you've got an update, and the light access to the proposed gardens would likely increase requests of future work, which vindicates the office's original concerns. This development with parking plans and separated gardens will not conserve or enhance existing trees, woodlands, and hedgerows to allow habitats to thrive. And on to paragraph 118 of MPPF, this contravenes the natural and local environment being enhanced and does not minimise the impact for biodiversity net gain. It's important that those reports in the meas are obtained because the variety of wildlife present on Ellejap Park Gardens, bats, squirrels, rabbits, deers, foxes, their jogs, frogs, toads, dogs, and a wide variety of birds, including owl, sparrow, horse, jays, wood, page, and magpies, drops, name a few, and I'm no David Attenborough to name all the species of the birds, but they're a plenter. MPPF requires plans to take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure, and plan for the enhance of natural capital. The division of the gardens into three gardens, with one being a communal garden, will impact on the wildlife of Haydop Park Gardens, due to overcrowding that plot of land with potentially 26 additional people, along with the increased car parking areas, though building of a garage, the refuse and cycle storage provision. Not to mention, again, the traffic and footfall through the estates of the property, which will prevent such wildlife on the whole estate, and denying residents the impact wildlife has on their mental health and wellbeing, as well as those that enjoy more than nature at its best. Paragraph 185 at MPPF refers to identifying and mapping to safeguard components of local wildlife rich habitats, including wildlife corridors, and stepping stones that connect them. The development of the larger lane of 130 houses, and the Wigan Council Haydop Park overflow car park development of 84 houses, and this development, will impact on the wildlife corridor. Paragraph 118 refers to combination of all the plans and projects to be taken into consideration. Paragraph 7.3, LPA2, state secure and high quality design and high standard of immunity. Residents are concerned as the existing development, although having planning permission, was not of a high standard or meeting to sign plans, which is on the appearance of the area, and was subject to an enforcement case. LPCO1 states avoid the harm to the character and appearance of the area, and satisfactory living conditions for neighbours, as outlined in all the objections in this report. A three-storey building is out of character, and goes to the mix of the housing types in this estate. It is already intrusive in its appearance, and can be seen from photographs supplied by residents, as it looms over the estate, and impacts on the views of properties number six, seven and eight. And as can be seen, as you enter the cul-de-sac, the photographs provided in this report showing the views of number three and number five of the frontage, the side view on the boundary with number three is imposing and intrusive. As the enforcement order on the previous planning application, requesting the roof height be reduced as it contravene those plans, the neighbours are fully aware of the impact of the lack of light this produced on their houses, in particularly number six. This has been on one paragraph 13 of MPPF, significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area. Paragraph 135A will function well into the overall call for the area, not just for the short-term, but over the lifetime of the development. Part B are visually attractive as a result of good architecture layout and appropriate and effective landscaping. Paragraph 7.4, the development with an established residential estate, again, this development is out of character with the established estate. The change from a single dwelling to six apartments would not make a positive contribution to the housing supply. An estate in the Centellings Plan, LPAO 4.1, existing strategic developments will already meet the bulk of Centellings needs, and the plan does not enlist the lodge lane development of 130 mixed homes. And as well, we've got the Wigman Council in the immediate vicinity of 84 homes. This will also impact on the traffic on the A49, which will have a resulting knock-on effect of traffic trying to join the A49, which may be a park garden, the A49 services, the business park, hotel, public accommodation, two high schools, the race course, and the main thoroughfare for the M6 and the A580, all which are impacted by events the A.part race course or multi-way incidents, which is a regular occurrence. All have an impact on the noise and traffic pollution of the area and convenience and wildlife corridor. This proposed development adds in the increased noise and traffic pollution impacts on LD01, LPD01, visual appearance and design. Paragraph 7.6, LPD01 requires all new developments to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the local environment. This goes against character and appearance of existing dwellings on the estate, all of which are single dwelling. Paragraph 7.9, the proposed external alterations designed to complement the host building, which is already detrimental to the area, an unfold view to the UK and international visitors to events at A.part race course, which fails to promote some television of their local plan. The existing street scene photographs, street scene photographs have only been taken from the vicinity of number three and number five, are not taken from the whole street scene or entrance to the call site and the view from number six, seven and eight. Cockley has been supplied by a resident.
• I just say you've got a minute left, all right.
• Yeah, but they're objections. And he's very much incongruous, overly dominant and discordant in location design. Paragraph 7.10, the first individual street scene are of a state that is clearly visible from the A49 in both directions, certainly from the A.part race course entrance and that access road. Advice side extensions saying it's set behind the front face. However, this report suggests this needs not be adhered to, due to the extension not being overly dominant. Any extension to this, as I already stated in the report, it's the largest on the estate, will not minimize any periods and will continue to overdomelate the plot of land, width and height. To say the visual appearance will not comprise compromised architectural style of character building is not sufficient. The quality of life, health and well-being of residents work in the visit of the quality of natural environment, Paragraph 9, LPD01, to seek improvements to the quality of open space within and around new development is contributed by splitting guard and producing car parking area, cycle storage and bin storage. Detrimany, that's why I like it. You've had your 10 minutes, have you? Keep the, if you want to finish up in like 15 seconds, I'll give additional time to the applicants as well. That's OK, consistently concerned about mental health and well-being, also the communal bin storage, and the number of bins allocated, and where will they be when refuse to come, because we have to put with the end of the drive, it will impact on driveway access and turning circle access. Six apartments, 13 bedrooms housing, 26 people, love an increasing impact, noise generated, and as mentioned, significant impact on the general day to day, comings and go into the everyday life, the peaceful nature of the estate, the diverse wildlife. OK, I've got to stop here. Sorry about that. OK, it's no problem, I'll add additional time to the applicant. Karen, do you want to just, there was a lot of detail in terms that, you want to respond just before we move on to the applicants? Yeah, I'll respond to any members who have got any questions, they can ask questions as well. And there was a lot of points made there, so I'll try and cover them all. In terms of reference to the Human's Right Act, that's covered in the report, in terms of this officer's view, this complies with that. Mixed tenure, there isn't a mixed tenure. There's no different tenures of housing, it's all housing, so there's no mixed tenure proposed. The existing behaviour that was described by existing or former residents, that's not a material consideration, this application, that's not something that can be considered as part of that. In terms of what's actually proposed, you'll see in your report the plans and elevations, obviously it's conversion and alterations to the existing building, but in terms of built development, the only built development is that side extension, that small side extension. I think it's one of the pages at the end of the report, you'll be able to see the plans. And a terrace, sorry as well. In terms of our parking standards, there's obviously six apartments and a requirement for 1.5 spaces per apartment, so obviously if you've got two, that's three parking spaces, that's how that works out. So the requirement has been met in terms of our guidance of parking spaces by providing 11 spaces on site, so that's complied with. In terms of impact on ecology and biodiversity, obviously the only built development is that side extension of the garage. In terms of hard-standing at the front of the property, that does not need planning permission. If you're a householder, you can time act, you drive without planning permission. So that's not a consideration. Impacts, obviously the report covers all this, impacts on wildlife and trees have all been considered. And in terms of the size and design and nature of the building, it's already there. And as officers report on the update sheet, there isn't going to be an increase in the ridge height. So the only built development is the side extension. I think that covers most of it. In terms of the number of people, well, that's obviously acceptable, in terms of the size of the apartments that's shown in the park and is sufficient to cover that. Free story being out of character while the building's already there, so we're not considering what's already there. We're only considering what's proposed. All of the matters are considered in the report, Chair. Thank you. OK, thank you very much for that. Unless there are burning questions from colleagues at this stage, which we can pick up in the discussion at the end, I'm going to move on to the applicant. That's OK, and we'll come back one question. Both applicants and opponents at that time. OK, thank you for that, Smith. I have Mr. Grinnell and Mr. Smith. And admittedly, my eyes are failing, but I feel, are you, Mr. Grinnell? And is there still Mr. Smith? I am, Mr. Grinnell. OK, so, well, so be prepared to come forward. Well, it'd be partly tough. So you've got 10 minutes and about 15 seconds to make your points. I'm Mr. Grinnell. Thank you, Chair. My name's Carl Grinnell. John McCullough, Architects, Actoners, Agent for the Client. Members of the Planning Committee. The application for number four, hey, Doc, has been submitted by our clients and the new owner of the property. And whose intentions are on completion of the work that he will live in one of the flats on site. The application is for the internal remodeling of the large, existing property at the above to create six apartments, as I said, one of which will be for the new owner. The site's a large corner plot with hey, Doc Park Gardens, within the hey, Doc Park Gardens of state, and has been previously extended a number of times by the previous owner to the point where it was difficult to sell and have been on the market for two and a half years prior to our client buying the property. The proposed scheme is to redevelop the existing house, mainly through internal remodeling, to create six luxury apartments of varying sizes, one of which will be lived in by the applicants and family, and all of whom would share the spacious garden which surrounds the property. Whilst the hey, Doc Park Gardens of state is mainly made up of bungalows and large family houses, there are no apartments available in the immediate vicinity for those wishing to downsize. The proposed mix of the schemes develops, specifically to meet this identified need in the area. A high quality design is proposed to the apartments with quality materials, responding to the existing residential location and existing fabric. New heating systems and services will all be improved to meet the latest standards of the property. As the previous owners had not maintained the property, the existing house had become unkempt and the gardens overgrown and need some care and attention. As the new proposals largely involve internal works only and also removal of unsightly rear extensions, there will be little or no impact on the property itself other than the cleaning repairing the existing facades. And so the existing street scene will largely remain as it currently is and without significant change. The large driveway area to the front of the house will be relayed to us to provide a suitable parking area for the residents, along with some cycle storage and the electric car charging. High quality landscape schemes pose to the existing gardens of the front and rear with additional planting. The layout of the units has been arranged to ensure all existing mature trees on and around the site, including those which are TPO'd, where we retained and incorporated into the landscape and along with additional ecological improvements on site. All units will share the common and amenity space to the rear and the front of the property. As part of the full planning process, highways have been fully engaged in the discussions and are set out in the planning committee report have no objections to the proposals and they are not likely to have an impact on the local traffic in terms of increased trips. Visibility displays, the junctions have been checked and commented by highways drawn the plan process have been incorporated into the completed scheme. That's all I have to say to you.
• Okay, thank you, you just stopped talking, you know. Yeah, and we'll do them at the end together here. Mr. Smith, fan, so you've got about seven minutes left.
• Don't you express this? - Don't you express this?
• No, no, is it, are they?
• It's already on. - It's already on.
• Okay, first I was born and bred in the area and it matters to me what happens within the local community. I have invested heavily into the community. I own several businesses, all of which are conscious of the environmental impact. We have no gas in any of my businesses. Everything is powered by a solar and electricity used to lies in the latest technologies. Most of my drop businesses are actually all technology best, by the way. I'm bringing a carbon neutral solution to departments along with the latest tech. Some of so we are now a government approved supply for the public sector. I currently employ four to seven staff and I'm also on the board of trustees for local charity. I'm very community driven. I had a need that I would like to live on a prestige table with the upkeep and maintenance of a large single dwelling. Many city centres now have luxury apartments and I wanted to create the same in my local area. I understand the neighbours having doubts about the scheme as flats for apartments do have a negative stigma attached to them. I could have opted for an HMR, I converted the pool to a business, as someone else has done a mile down the road. I was actually approached by a social, for a social curve to do something with the council on there, which, but in the end, I did consider the neighbours and I chose the most estate friendly option of wanting long-term residents and luxury self-contained apartments. With the rising cost of living mortgage interest rates, a lot of successful people are relatively tired, are domed size and look for something small with less maintenance, but prefer the finer qualities and luxuries that they have worked hard for. Thank you for considering my scheme.
• Okay, thank you very much. Obviously the emphasis is not upon what you might have done but what the planning application is, that's before us. So just to make that clear, look, we're only allowed to comment on those things.
• Karen, you want us to respond first before we go?
• Just, sorry Chair, just something that I remembered, I didn't address after the first speaker. In terms of the housing need, and obviously the local plan allocates sites, but members will recall that part of meeting our housing needs is from windfall development and the local plan policy, LPAO4, says that the requirement will be met from the following sources, including sites and planning permission, housing allocations and windfall development, which includes development on small sites, not individually identified in the SHLA, which is the Strategic and Housing Land Availability Assessment, subdivision of dwellings and conversions. So this is a legitimate way for which the plan allocates housing in terms of meeting our housing need next year.
• Okay, so you don't need to answer any of that, so, are there any questions for the applicant first from colleagues' questions of fact or point, okay, I wanna keep it obviously to take questions.
• It's all right. (indistinct)
• Okay, yeah, yeah. Councillor McCauley. (indistinct)
• The report mentions pin storage, and it doesn't quite meet our way, it doesn't meet our design standards on the bin storage, but there's a notice, there's no condition around that. Oh, how come Z1, that's a bit through it. So I was just wondering what your plans are for the bin storage and obviously, on the pictures already, well, then your all bins, okay, I'm gonna have to take it, the builders are using.
• Yeah.
• So what are your plans for the bin storage?
• So the plans for the bin storage is it's set away from the next door near the property, and then it's got like kind of a fence, and then it's fenced in, and then there's bushes, kind of put some bushes around the fence and so you can't really see just an unsightly fence and either try and keep the natural look of the property. But that should be on the plans.
• Yeah, can I just come in and be there, Chair?
• The design guide is obviously sets up when we have put on the new build apartments and the priority is to locate them within the building, but obviously with this being a conversion, it's a bit more tricky, and there's no condition because we've already got the details that show on the plans. So we've got the details of the bin storage offices considered to be acceptable.
• Councillor Taskill.
• Thank you, Chair.
• No, I'm just gonna reiterate. So you've not, 'cause it was mentioned in what the objection was saying was about the unsocial behavior, that type of thing. The gentleman, you've completely new to this. You're both, that you're not associated with what's gone on previously.
• No, I'm not gonna associate with what's been going on in the property previously, no.
• That's fine, that's all. Thank you.
• Yeah, unsocial behavior was based into business.
• Okay, we're not here to determine how to set your behavior, no, no, no, no, no. It's sorry, I have to keep order over this because otherwise it descends very rapidly. The unsocial behavior is not there's not.
• Well, not perfectly, I mean, that was--
• Okay, that was because you didn't understand a development property.
• Right, okay. Any other questions of fact, material fact to the applicant, okay? Any questions to the objection? Objectives at this point? No, okay, thank you, you're welcome. Sit down.
• Thank you.
• I'll have the discussion now. So, do you wanna sum up at all in terms of this? Okay.
• Okay, so we have a recommendation to approve. Councillor Gemma's, that's fine. (mumbles)
• Just to get the discussion started, I think both speakers include a load of stuff that was totally relevant. It's what we can consider as a planning committee. So, with all due respect, what you work with, what you do isn't relevant tonight as much as antisocial behavior on the site last week, isn't it either? So, I've tried to make notes about the stuff that is.
• I think one of the valid points is, I couldn't see it in there. Is it currently a six bedroom house? Is that roughly what it is?
• Roughly, I mean, the plans that have been submitted don't allocate, you know, on a floor plan, you might get lounge bedroom, it doesn't show bedroom.
• Or a six bedroom?
• At least six beds, yeah.
• So, you go from something that's got a six bedroom house which we've seen time and time again, if they come here, you've got mum and dad in one bedroom, and a lot of teenage kids in the other bedrooms, all of car only age, you can range anything from two to 10 cows, whatever it is that's going on. And there is a big change, 'cause you end up with two three beds, or three three bed flats, one two bed flat and two one bed flats, which is ultimately 13 bedrooms, assuming the three beds are gonna be a mix of couples and kids and all that type of stuff. I have no doubt that the traffic journeys on an off site will increase, but on page 17 of the report, there's a picture that highlights the site, and next to it, there's a house. There isn't part of this application. There's got 10 cars on the drive. So, the fact that this could happen at any of those other properties anyway, he's already shown in that picture. Now, some of them obviously have the driveways extended, some of them haven't bought, the fact that people may own cars who live there, and the fact that the parking policy meets our policy means that that isn't a material or reason to refuse the application. I think in relation to the part of working patterns and shifts, you could get that with any house that you move into the same way, you can get inconsiderate neighbors if you moved into any else. And I didn't really like what sounded like a benign threat that, well, I could have done this to social housing. I had supported my social housing all day long, we need more social housing in the borough. That isn't a threat, but it's also not for consideration either. But the idea that you might get rowdy, late neighbors, or noisy neighbors, or whatever, that's a risk you get with any property, whatever you move in on any estate, you might get nice neighbors, you might not. So, you end up then trying to look at are there any material considerations to refuse it? And based on the fact that we've had that note there, explains the rest and the actual application, I can't see a single one. It has the same issues as all the other houses on the street, most haven't been built with enough parking for what they currently have. Some of extended driveways into big gardens and a slab and it fits in with the local plan, and I was gonna make a part about windfall sites but Kieran came back to it just because it isn't allocated to the local plan, doesn't mean it can't come forward the same way that some sites that are might not and this is one of those sites. So, the only thing I was gonna attach is a condition. If you look at what the site used to be, it was the World Gardens for a stately hill. So, until the '60s and '70s, this was quite an ornate part of the borough. And based on the old map, the Roman road might cut through the edge of that site. So the only thing that I would like to attach to the condition is, if any works go on with the vicinity of where that road might be a sufficient or suitable archaeological studies done to map any of that, might totally miss it and might totally be wrong but it does roughly on a map go through part of that site. And other than that, it's a brownfield piece of land that we're gonna get more properties out of than it currently exists and that fits in line with policies. So, based on that, I would be happy to move approval but happy to wait if people want to debate for the rest of it.
• Thank you, Councillor Gammers-Aspen. Just in terms of clarifying your points about archaeological study, my understanding is that we can add that as a condition should we decide to accept it. So, Kieran, do you want to add anything?
• Yeah, the recommendation is obviously to delegate to myself to approve subjects to respond to the meass so as part of that delegation, we can add and remove conditions. What we'll do is we'll talk to meass archaeological advisors to see what they consider appropriate in terms of form of condition but I should say it would only really be restricted to the area of the garage where that's being developed.
• It might totally miss it but on the off chance it does then I'd like it to be done. (silence)
• So I've known this property for over 40 years. I went to the school opposite in the 1970s and in fact my classmates used to live there and over the last decades it's come from being a similar size to the house in the street. It's gone bigger and bigger and bigger. Not always to the best standard and it's always been all the burn for decades. So for me, we are where we are now. It's on Kent, it's all grown. You can't sell it. It's almost like a bad tooth within the street and I think that would actually sell start to attract anti-social behavior and we're looking what it could be converted into. There's a shortage of one, one, one, two and three bedroom flats. They're going to be very good luxury flats. It kind of feeds a need within the area for people downsize and for young professionals. I think people need to be careful what they wish for. I think this is the best kind of development for that but for what we've got at the moment with this larger of a burning property. Thank you, Chair.
• Thank you, Councillor.
• Councillor Boeh, thanks, Chair. Very quickly from my perspective here. I don't really agree with many of the comments that have been made and are listed in the representations, not least because many of them are not planning conditions. Some of them I just take personal dislike to quite frankly. In terms of rent is not taking pride in their properties. I think that's an insulting but nevertheless that comment has been made by people objecting so it is on the record. However, I do have some sympathy around the conversion of larger properties to flats such as this. Not for the reason set out, I believe it's been demonstrated that this meets all the planning guidance but if we want to have a mixed market of properties available for our communities then we have to go from large properties like this that people who are fortunate can afford can aspire to and get within the vicinity to really affordable properties. So we need to have a mix. It's one of the reasons we brought in the infill policy in the past. So that is where my sympathy sort of begins and ends but unfortunately it doesn't tell where the fact that this meets the planning guidance.
• Okay, I'm just, oh council will call it.
• Has it been farmed, a second?
• Maybe a thousand but.
• No, definitely I'll do that. It was interesting to listen to the objectors. I think it tried to pin us when he policy things as it could to the, but I think they'd all be addressed with respect in the officer's report really and then Keelan clarified that. I get a look at this, I couldn't see any reason to refuse it, no material, reasons to refuse it. On the other side of that, we've seen any number of conversions come through, mainly on tortoise properties on much smaller properties being converted into one or two bedrooms and the old cars, a little bit of controversy in the early when they do. But in an earlier, there's quite a few of them when they've really had any issues resulting from that. And I agree with Andy's comments about what people say, you can live any word and any neighbors can be, you look at the draw or whatever you live, isn't it, what neighbors you get? So I don't really agree with that. But yeah, so I've come to the conclusion around it although I'd be happy to support it and I think it's a good thing about that in the archaeological survey as well.
• Thank you, Councillor Macaulay. Just in terms of the word materiality, it's the relevance, the amount of weight that we can give to particular points. And I asked the question about the implications in terms of traffic and whilst clearly there is going to be more traffic, it's not material enough to actually make it a viable issue in terms of rejecting the planning application, unfortunately in your terms. So it's been moved and seconded. Can I have all those in favour of the resolution please show? Any against? Any abstentions? That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. If you'd like to go before we move to the next one, please feel free, you're welcome to stay as well. Thank you very much. Moving on then to item four B, which... Councillor Tashco is leaving the building and Councillor Casey is going across the road for a coffee in the members' lounge, otherwise we won't know where you are. Okay, right, I have done this before with the old days we used to not invite people back on the introduces, just because we didn't like them. But okay, right, so moving on to item four B, which is on page 79, Joe. Thank you, Chair. This is application for the erection of a two-storey side extension at nine. Excuse me, nine-haze Grove. Just as an update not following the publication of the Planning Committee agenda, an additional representation has been received. This raises several points, the first of which is that the site description references a two-storey dwelling in error. This is correct, the site description references two-storey dwelling at the end of the call the site. This is in fact the bungalow which was constructed after the original properties on Haze Grove. Secondly, that the application dwelling is at higher level than the neighbouring dwelling. This is shown on the photographs in the committee agenda and is not a substantial levels difference. Officers have fully assessed the design and immediate impacts in the report to Planning Committee on the basis of the plans on their own site visit observing this levels difference. And finally, that the report references the site extension being set in from the side boundary. Although this is small, there is a very minor set in. However, to correct the report in one area, the extension would be alongside a path rather than a full driveway at the neighbouring dwelling. However, again, this does not alter the officers assessment of the immediate impacts of the proposal and the compliance with the relevant policies and guidance in officers assessment. So the screen shows an area of photograph of the application site. It's a detached bungalow and a cul-de-sac with parking to the front and side of the property. It's in an established urban area of Rainford with no other planning policies or policy designations affecting the site. This is the image of the property and existing bungalow similar to the neighbouring dwellings on either side. The streets seem being relatively unaltered in the cul-de-sac. And again, you can see on that image though the pathway to the side of the neighbouring dwelling rather than the driveway as referenced in the report. And it also shows the slight levels difference as well to the neighbouring dwelling. Again, showing the parking to the front and currently available to the front and side of the dwelling. So the proposal is for a two-storey side extension to incorporate a dormer in the front and extend the existing rear dormer. The proposed extension is less than half the width of the house and would be close to the side boundary but set back from the front elevation of the dwelling house so that it would appear as a subservient addition and would not risk a terrorist appearance between the application, neighbouring dwelling. The dormer is modest in size set within the roof slope and so the proposal would not harm the appearance of the host dwelling or the visual amenity of the surrounding area. This showed the floor plan and site plan of the proposal. It would not extend beyond the front or rear elevations of the property so it would not reduce separation distances to neighbouring dwellings to the front or rear or extend beyond the rear or front elevations of the neighbour to result in significant overshadowing lots of outlook or overbearing impacts and there's no windows proposing the site elevation so it would not result in an increase in privacy impacts for neighbouring properties. The proposal includes an extension to the front driveway and access to maintain two parking spaces within the cartilage of the dwelling which would be in accordance with the council's SPD. The proposal would be a relatively modest two-storey side extension would respect the scale and design of the character of the original dwelling without significantly impacting neighbour immunity in compliance with both national planning policies and guidance therefore is a recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you.
• Okay, thank you very much. With that slight adjustment from the beginning in terms of papers we've got before us. I think, believe me, else from anybody else. This is right. Can we then move on to the object as Mr Gregory? Mr Gregory, please step forwards like a mastermind here. So we'll sit yourself down there. You've got five minutes, okay. And as I will, it's sort of interrupt you if you're getting close to the five minutes, okay. All right, you've got the button pressed, okay.
• Good evening, Mr Chairman. Can I first thank you for the opportunity to address the meeting and also for allowing the circulation of the additional comments pertain into the factual concerns in the planning committee report date of the 14th of May, which have just been covered. I've been asked to speak on behalf of other residents of Haysgrove, who unfortunately are unable to attend this meeting due to pressing family commitments and they send their apologies. You'll be aware that some 20 objections to this planning application have been submitted. All the objections are well documented and I don't think need to be rehearsed again this evening. They were all based primarily on the size, the proportion and the character of the proposed extension and the resulting street scene of Haysgrove if the application was to be approved. Haysgrove is a small cul-de-sac. Since being built around 1973, '74, all the houses in Haysgrove have retained their original Georgian-style features and open spacious frontages as can be seen from the photographs taken by your own officers. We would suggest that the original and unspoilt features of this small community are almost unique in the borough and it's for this reason that Haysgrove continues to be a much sought after street to live in. Over the years, a number of dorms of mongolos have received planning consent for modest kitchen-style extensions to the side of the properties. But all of these, without exception, have been single-story and none of the extensions have projected more than halfway along the depth of the property and cannot therefore be readily seen from the street, ensuring that the original style and character of all the properties is maintained without any terracing effect between them. Mr Chairman, we would respectfully submit that this two-story planning application is totally out of proportion and scale for the plot. We'll change the character and street scene of Haysgrove forever and we'll set a dangerous and detrimental precedent for any future planning applications in Haysgrove with the danger of properties becoming terrorist. For this reason, we would respectfully ask that this application, in its current form, be refused. Thank you.
• Thank you very much, Mr. Kregret. That's very helpful and concise and very addressed. We'll have the applicant first, and then if we ask any questions, we'll call you back here. So thank you very much for that. So, April Kio. So rules sit down, make yourself comfortable, and press the button so you've got green light in front of you, and then...
• I moved to Haysgrove, a little over a year ago, and put my life savings into the house to change it from an unloved, extremely run-down property to a lovely family home. When we purchased the house, we were given the plans from when it was previously approved for a double-story extension years earlier, which seemed perfect for us 'cause we knew we wanted to create a family home that would be big enough to bring us all together. I was always open and honest with me neighbors, with regards to our plans. I even passed on the plans before sending them in for permission so that any thoughts of issues that may have had could be openly discussed and hopefully alleviated. However, no one has said a word to us, and we were really surprised to see all the objections on the council's side. I then received, however, a letter from another neighbor who informed us that they had been approached by a member from our street, and that it was clear that this person's gone door to door with everyone asking them to object to our planning permission, which has been quite upsetting. The way some of the people on the street have treated us and this application, I feel like I'm back at school, being the unpopular kid, being victimized and bullied. We didn't really want to upset anyone on the street, we just want to create a family home. There's been a lot of misinformation on a lot of the objections, and people are just simply guessing and throwing around wild baseless facts. My partner has two children, they're 10 and 15, and yes, I have two older children. My older daughter has autism, and she will require extra support and space which this build is going to help with. My partner works away, he has shared custody of his children, so yes, there will be six people there, but we are not all adults, and there certainly won't be six cars there as well. There will be three cars there. We've put the parking at the front, and I know on the plans it says there's two cars because we were told that's what we had to put on the plans to follow the guidelines, and in actual fact, as I have said, we're actually going to do more of the front, so there'll be more parking, but we actually only need parking for three cars. One of the comments was that there's already parking issue at our house. There isn't. As you can see on the photo, we door to park, so sit and see one outside of our house. There's nothing wrong with that, and nobody can say that that's against any rules. I know the residents on Haysgrove don't like people parking on the street, but it's just a fact of life now. We intend to have the work done by the same builder who's worked on 80% of the properties in the street, and the reason we're doing this is because all the residents do know him, and we felt it would make things easier, and have as little disruption for them as possible. We're not doing this to make money, we just want to make a family home for us all. As far as we're aware, we've been advised, we've followed all the Council planning guidelines of the supplementary planning document. We'll one meet the back, so that we don't impinge on the street scene, or we're keeping it in style. We've followed the existing roof line, we've put our car parking spaces on the front, we've got the same window styles. There are several single story extensions on the street, as has been mentioned, and they actually stand out as simply flat boxes against the side of a house, they're completely out of keeping with the street. We could do a single story under permitted development, we don't want to do that, 'cause we want it to look as though it is part of the street and part of the original house, and therefore, fitting in with the street scene. All of the surrounding streets have extensions and alterations. Ironically, the rear of our house who is also objected, he actually has a two-story extension, but is objected to our two-story extension. Whilst we understand people are reluctant to change, as you can see on every street and every town, change happens, and here's where there's not any conservation area, we could build these bedrooms, like I said, under permitted development, but we do feel this is the best way forward, to keep them with the street. The comments with regards to creating a terrorist look, it's a detached house, it's just not a terrorist house at all. We hope we can approve our plans today, because we can't see any reason to deny this, as we believe we've followed all the rules and regulations as set out by our council, and we don't believe it's fair that one particular resident in the street decides that they don't like it, and therefore we can't change our property just because they don't like change. Thank you for the time to speak, and hopefully you can support this application for our family home.
• Thank you, Mr. Keow. Any comments from the officers before we go to questions?
• Yeah, really briefly, Chair. I mean, this is a two-storey side extension that complies with RSVD. The SVD for two-storey side extension says, either you set it in from the boundary by a meter, or you set it back from the front by a meter. So this application sets it back from the front by a meter, and also from the side slightly by a meter.
• So in terms of our assessment of it, we get a number of applications like this. Throughout the order, the two-storey side extensions, obviously, the vast majority don't come before members, 'cause there's not the requisite number of objections. So the proposal in terms of compliance with development plan is acceptable. I would say that a dormabungalow isn't unique to the borrower. There's a number of dormabungalows across the borrower, and the fact is this extension retains it as a dormabungalow. It's still gonna be a dormabungalow. There's no change there. In terms of the terrorist and the fact, well, the SVD requirement of setting it back will prevent that, so it complies with that. The parking provided complies with our requirements. As I've said on the previous item, you don't be planning permission to, you know, time after your front guard. And in fact, if you look on Street View, there's a number of properties down that road that have already done that anyway without consent. So without needing consent. So there's no issue there. So officers have got no issues, what's over this application, and obviously recommended for approval, Chair. Thank you.
• Thank you, Kieran. Any questions from colleagues to the applicant first? No, any questions to Ms. Kia as the opponent? I'm sorry, Mr. Gregory's the opponent. Sorry, I'll get there in a minute. No, okay, that's fine. Thank you for the work to sit down. Okay, move it open, Councillor, Governor Zasparan.
• Again, just to get the ball rolling, really. Firstly, thank you for coming and putting your party across. I think it adds a flash to a set of plans, which is important, and my guess was that it was a family trying to upsize into something and wanting to stay in the same area, which there's no rules against that. We spoke a lot about the local plan tonight and just a few figures from that. So Rainford is one of the most expensive areas in the borough to live. Eccleston comes close second, and then it's usually somewhere down the family, looking at the Willows and Rainhill.
• Is your mic on second?
• It is, but I can shout if you want.
• Oh, she's left then Steve.
• Oh, that one's on too. I don't say she, but go for it.
• I'm sorry.
• I can shout. The part is there are parts of the borough that are very expensive to live in. And part of the reason for that is because we've not built any houses there over the last 20 years. And if you look at Rainford, we have built 75 houses in Rainford since, not to say we've not, the market has built 75 houses in Rainford since 2002, which is about an average three a year. In Fatah East, it's 100 a year. In the Willows, it's nearly 150 a year. And the reason that we're building your houses, because it creates a supply on it in the market. And so your choice of either expanding your own house or upsizing to a new build, or upsizing to a new build that somebody's freed up or somebody you moving out and somebody moving up your chain, is entirely stifled because there has been no houses built in those areas. That forces prices up and it means that you can't grow, which means you either have the choice of leaving the place that you want to live in and live. Or expanding on the property you've got, which is the only choice that's left to you. And I'm disappointed that counts the cases left the rooms. I didn't really understand what Declaration of Interest he was suggesting. And it would have been good to hear his view on that perspective for residents. But I think going through the parts that you've made, the design was quite a good quality. I don't think the way we even allowed flat extensions anymore, because they were so unappealing to look at. So I don't think they tend to happen very much anymore. We flat roofs. And like you said, some of them in the street have already done that. Parking is the same issue anywhere. All those houses have a two car drive, but nobody ever wants to block the front car in. So they'll always put one on the drive and one on the front. And that happens where I live. So the fact that you can use your garden if you need to. And I think residents need to be careful what they wish for. And as you drop curb that whole front, they can't pack outside your house anymore, but you get a good three car drive. So I don't encourage that as a sensible solution. And the fact is, we want to encourage people to create homes in the borough. Now, I'm no telepath, but it doesn't sound like a local accent. You chose to make all worry your home and you chose to invest in it and live here as well. I've not heard a single valid reason why I should be stopped for doing that tonight. So based on that and the fact that you've come across, I can only, I'm not going to apologize. It's not our problem. But the way that planning gets petty is sometimes embarrassing, and it's a shame that you've had to suffer from that. So based on everything that I've said and the parks in the report and there being no material reason to object to it, I have no issue in recommending approval to.
• Thank you. Councillor McCauley, you're seconding it.
• Yeah, but that's probably seconding it. I don't know if it sometimes is not easy to work with our planners that sometimes and to make everything fit in the budget you've got, but you've done it because I like the design actually. I think it meets all the designs, it was that we've set out and when I looked at it, yeah, it's quite ironic, really, and I've got to mention there's no other extensions in the street, we just have all the Google maps and look. They might not be as deep as you said, but you can still see there's definitely extensions. And the comments I've made, I totally agree with. So I'm happy to second it, like I say, and quite a lot.
• Thank you, thank you. Any other comments from colleagues? Oh, Councillor Bowden, sorry.
• Yeah, thank you, thank you, Chair. We do find on occasion that the planning process is used for multitude of reasons beyond just planning. Everyone is entitled to take their view on an application, be it forward to against it and it's absolutely right to make their views known and for us to decide on whether it meets the criterion, whether those are objections that are valid or relevant. To me, this application is a relatively straightforward one, it's before us because people have chosen to make those objections, which they're entitled to, as I've said. However, it meets all the planning guidance and 99 estates, 99 applications out of 100 wouldn't even be in front of us today as a slightly wider point. I generally don't know what people are supposed to do anymore when it comes to planning and creating homes and houses. Don't build houses, don't extend houses, don't do this, don't do that, don't make a home, don't make a home big enough for your family to live in. Don't live here because you can't afford it because nobody's built any homes here or extended any homes. It's an absolute battle for the younger generation, an absolute battle in the disgrace in this country that so many obstacles are but in the face of creating homes these days. And I think it's terribly sad that we get to situations like this. To extend my point, don't build anything near me, don't extend anything near me, unless of course you're somebody I know or a neighbor that I get on with. So I won't object to yours. That's what we're down to here. So I'm happy to have bought this application and we'll just make this final point. It's this planning committee making the decision. So let us be the baddies there, yeah. Don't be taking it out on each other as neighbors.
• Thank you, that counts about any other comments from the floor. Councillor since then.
• Yeah, it's just to basically echo what's already been said because the points that Keiran raised and Richard raised, I noticed on Google Street View is that there's four houses all with side extensions, all of a different design and structure. There's three houses that's at the front page to make it accessible for cars. And I just found it quite strange that people object to be accustomed to what's to make a home to just living. It's interesting that on Street View there's actually a recycling box in the middle of the road. I'm surprised if you haven't said an objection about that coming in as well. Unfortunately, as has been echoed by other more notable members with me on this committee, it is an unnecessary part of it. There are people object to a certain level that it becomes before this committee, but this application really should just go straight through. There is nothing wrong with it at all. And I wouldn't be surprised to see other applications in the same street come forward for other people saying, Well, actually, that'll be good for us if we can do that to our us, because we'll have more room to move about him, because we do live in an era now of extended families where people live with the purants for longer and families moving to the homes and stay there longer. Yeah, I'm quite happy to support it as well too. Thank you.
• Thank you. Councillor Hoddkinson. No other comments? I'll move to the vote. All those in favour of the Office of Recommendation, please show. Any against, any abstentions, that's passed. Thank you very much. You're welcome to leave at this stage. You're welcome to stay as well. As we move on to item four, C, Kelly. I mean, it begins with K as well as I go. Kelly, can you rescue Councillor... Councillor KAIS from Purgatory. (people chattering) (people chattering) (people chattering) (people chattering)
• We used to have one in those, but we didn't always press it as a second. OK, moving on to item four, C, page 93. Who's up for this joke?
• Thank you, Chair. Yeah, it's for a single story side extension at 12 Queens Drive, Newtonly Willows. The application is before members as it has been submitted by a ward councillor. So this is a two-story semi-detached dwelling in an established residential area and boundaries on either side are shared with similar dwellings, and there is a cricket pitch to the rear, which can be seen on the aerial photograph here. The floor plans exist in proposed show a modest side extension to property, which is projecting 1.7 metres from the side and measuring 4.3 metres in length. The elevation plans, again, show the proposed extension. It complies with the household development SPD in terms of its projection from the main side wall of the dwelling house. The design and materials will be compatible with the host dwelling house. The extension is set back significantly from the main front wall of the dwelling, and so would not have a significant impact on the street scene. The extension matches the rear projection of the existing rear extension is set off the boundary with the neighboring dwelling to ensure that we know a harmful impact on the residential amissive neighboring properties. Parking provision at the property would not be affected by the proposal, and it accords with the household development SPD and policy LPD for 04 of the local plan, and therefore is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you. OK. Councillor CUMMERS' last problem, and Councillor CUMMING. Just as your issue, there's nobody else here to speak, is there so we can just-- No, no, no. We get to a point with all these, and whilst it is interesting to see that Councillor Maguire spending his allowance on his every expanding property empire, they only come in because they're elected members, and there's no reason it would be here otherwise, and there is no objection in policy. So based on that, and based on the fact that we've dealt with these before, I'd be more than happy to recommend approval. OK, thank you, Councillor CUMMERS, and Councillor. Seconded, we'll call it, yes. We'll seconded as anybody want to come in to contribute to this. I think it's by the numbers, so all those in favor of the, please show. Great. No doubt, so unanimous, thank you very much. Can we move on then to the next item, which is item 5? OK, if you go on. Yeah, Councillor Colle, he's not coming back. It's fine as well, sir. It's in 5 current planning appeals, calling inquiries. I note the typo, as I just spotted at this time. I would particularly draw your attention to, well, page 107, application 204003, which we won the hearing on. Congratulations to the officers for their contribution to that, and it was interesting we had it in-house there in as well. Pins came, so, so. Anything else you want to say about current planning appeals? Yeah, so, sir, thank you, Chair, for that as well. There's obviously the top one that Peel was dismissed, which is the Ace of Hearts Garage and Morriton. That was a retrospective application in the Greenbelt. We'll be moving to enforce on that one, and as the Chair has alluded to, the second item on there was a hearing for 64 units at the former Peelc site on what was the plain pitch there. We appealed, sorry, the applicants appealed that decision. There was three or four reasons for refusal. After the decision was made to refuse it, they submitted additional information in terms of drainage and trees, such that those reasons were able to withdraw those reasons. The final reason for refusal, which we defended successfully, was based on heritage and the impact on the headquarters building and the parking garden. So, we were really careful in terms of how we dealt with that application, and we were successful at Peel. Thank you, Chair. Councilor. Councilor Zasra, coming off to that, and Councilor Pollack. Yeah, it's just a quick one. There's no one there as complicated as that one, but I was just reading on page three of three, it's opened it as a man, but it's essentially listed building consent to display one number of illuminated faces out at the beach and building. So, obviously, as a building, it's got a significant prominence since telling its town centre. I have no doubt that we wouldn't want to be seen as being obstructive. Is that a matter of design, or is it something that just is against policy, or what, where are we up to with that? Yeah, so that one, office's assessment of it, was that the proposed sign would have a detrimental impact on the character of the listed building. It's not to say that some form of signage would be acceptable, it's just that what was proposed was too large so that it had a significant impact on the character of that building. We're calling. The previous one, one's talking about, yeah. I just thought it was great work by officers doing that, and ward members as well who spoke at the Pealealing, and it was great when it all came together with the result, as we all that early needs master planning, really, to get the best out of that site, and hopefully that's what I'll come forward in the future. I would hope, I would endorse this, great when a plan comes together, as I believe somebody used to say in the 70s. Just an observation in terms of the Wilkington's former HQ site, the architect for that building is a link between Le Corbusier, who's one of the key post-war modernist architects, and Walter Gropius, who was the organizer of the runner of Bauhaus and pre-war. So we've got, we talk about St. Helens history, and we often think it goes back a long way, but that 20th century, two key architectural figures link together in that building, so it was good that we were able to do something. But as you say, clearly master planning has got to be the way forward for all of that. Okay, so can we accept item five? Move on to item six, which is planning up the question determined. Any comments? Move on to item seven, which is our favourite enforcement, any comments please? Not in favour then, it's in the report chair, but any questions, I'm happy to say. Okay, any points, comments? Okay, that's noted as well. That point can I thank you to your tenants?