Transcript

to which the public loan presents but it is not a public painting so we have people who will be speaking but this is not open for everybody to speak that. May I also remind members that this meeting has been recorded and will be live streamed so please switch up your mobile phones or turn them to silence and please use your microphones to speak so that everyone can hear and remember to turn them off when you're finished. We're delighted to have so many speakers here today as ever we wish to run a timely debate and I'll be keeping everyone to time two minutes with public speakers and five minutes in total of councillors. We're not expecting a fire drill so should you hear the alarm please make your way to the fire exits which are decoded here and here and make your way outside to the assembly point which is by the bandstand. Before we start the official part of the meeting could the officers please introduce themselves. Good evening Jason Hawkes principal planning officer. Good evening Emma Hawkes the head of development. Good evening Claire Brown principal planning system. Good evening Bradley David, a demographic services officer. Thank you. Any apologies? Yep we have apologies from councillor Elizabeth Brown, councillor Benjamin, councillor Beige and councillor van der Waal. Thank you, the minutes. Sorry. Oh sorry. Oh we'll pick one. I can go there. Thank you. Yes. It seems to be a phone going up. We'll turn our phones off please. Thank you. We need to approve the minutes as correct of the meeting held on the 90th of March. Is that correct? Pardon? I'll propose on second. I'll propose on second the meetings. Who'd like to propose the minutes? Who'd like to propose the minutes? Well in that case, thank you Roger. Councillor Nall and a seconder. Great. Thank you Councillor. Declaration of Interest members interest. Do we have any declarations of interest? Councillor MURTEN. Thank you Chairman. Item 9 on the agenda. I sent an internal memo that was unfortunately shared with the developer so I feel compromised on that particular item so I will speak on it but then I will recuse myself outside of the room. Okay. Can I take advice on how long Councillor MANTON will have to speak on that? Fantastic. That would be five minutes Councillor MANTON. Thank you. Great. Announcements. There aren't any announcements that are anywhere off. The appeals we have, these are for noting only and then we have the planning applications. I'd like to give the invite the audiences to give their presentation please. On the first item today, which is DC-21-2007. Thank you. So before I start the presentation, members should note that additional 16 objections have been received for this application. The grounds of objections cover issues including impact on traffic and parking, flooding, ecology, COVID development and the inappropriateness of the site for development, loss of immunity, conflict with spatial strategy, concerns regarding the borehole and water neutrality, settlement coalescence, landscape impact, design, lack of services and the inaccessibility of the site, prematurity for the neighbourhood plan and look plan review and inconsistency with previous appeals appeals. Consider these objections do not raise any new material considerations which have not already been addressed in the committee report. I'd also like to point out a minor error in the report on page 29 paragraph 3.2, 3.1, 6.31, sorry yeah, bullet point five, which refers to appropriate, I say, appropriate green, chain link, ordered fencing. This should state appropriate green, chain link fencing. So here we see the location plan. The site relates to fees, two fields located to the northeast of West Chiltington Common fronting Smart County. The site is adjacent to the built-up area boundary. The two fields are divided by a central hedge row and the site slopes up from Smokkely to the high ground to the west. The area shown blue here is woodland, which is within the ownership of the applicant. This area is covered by a tree preservation order and it's not part of the proposal. You see that they've highlighted a nearby great two listed building on this on the slide located to the northwest of site, which is called Old Haglands. So here we have some photos. This photo is taken from the eastern side adjacent to Smokkely from South showing the southern field. You can see lavender cottage, the southern boundary there, which overlooks the site from side windows. This slide shows the northern field has taken from the top of the field looking down and this slide shows the borehole on site located adjacent to Smokkely. Turning to proposal, this shows the proposed layouts. The application is for fourteen delta dwellings with garages between the two fields. Postal includes four bungalows which will be all located to the higher west side of the site. The scheme includes fiberboard units located at the southern field within a row of three houses and a pair of semi-detached absences. The scheme includes a new access from Smokkely shown here. The proposal also includes an attenuation panel part to the southeast corner of the site adjacent to a proposed water treatment bands. On this plan you can see I've highlighted the location of the borehole adjacent to Smokkely. So there's a variety of houses proposed which I'll go through. So these houses here are plots one to two for two houses for adjacent to Smokkely. These are two story houses with four bedrooms. This is designed for three houses to the plots of the northern field and these are three bedroom dwellings. So here we see the bungalows to plots six and seven which are to the northern field and these are three bedroom units. And this is the two bungalows of the southern field which are two bedroom units. So this shows a pair of semi-detached dwellings proposed the southern field which would be for two bedroom units for affordable housing. And finally for the housing this shows the three houses to the southern field which also be affordable housing would be two bedroom units sorry two times one bedroom units and one times one two bedroom units. The two was proposed are a mix of brick for all of the houses, tile home, plain tile roofing and white wash. Overall traditional design of the houses is considered appropriate for this location. So I said that the proposal includes garages, double and single story garage to the pitch roof, proposed for a number of dwellings and this shows the design of the garages. And he researched the layout of the elevations of the proposed water treatment plant to the southern boundary which would be a single story structure of the pitch roof for the total height of 4.1 meters. So this slide shows a proposed layout and landscape proposed to the northern section. You can see the scheme includes buffer zones around the perimeter of the site, set the houses away from the boundary. This slide shows a retained edge to the center of the site and a new access onto Smokali and the site also shows a chain like fencing around the site and hedging to the boundaries of the dwellings. So we see the landscape into the southern section. This slide shows more substantial boundaries but both are in place and also shows in detail the location of the pond or water treatment plant set back from the southern boundary. You can see the scheme has been decided to locate the proposed housing well away from the southern boundary to void any meaningful impacts. I stated in the reports there have been two dismissed appeals for housing to the site in 2015 and 2016. These were both for housing to the southern field and for 21 and 19 dwellings. Both these appeal decisions have been taken as found in the committee report. This slide shows a proposed layout for schemes submitted in 2015 under DC 151389 for 19 dwellings. This layout was very similar to the fat proposed under the 2014 scheme for 21 dwellings. You see that with the appeal scheme limited to the southern field the layout was much more constrained and dense with smaller plots when compared to the current proposal which utilizes both fields. So here we see a proposed street elevations for the current proposal. Top street elevation shows the three houses proposed to the northern part of the site. This slide shows the slope of the site with a bungalow located to the top of the field and the bottom elevation is looking onto the front of the site facing Smokali and shows three dwellings proposed divided by the retained hedgerow. And here we see an artist's impression of the proposed dwellings to plots 1 and 2 which has been designed with the eyebrow traumas. So as highlighted in the report the site is allocated to be developed in both the draft neighborhood plan and the local plan review. These plans cannot be given any significant weight at this time for the determination of this application but do show a direction of travel for the site. Notwithstanding the drought plans the site is currently contrary to the current spatial strategy for development outside the built away a boundary in a countryside location. However as the council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply the council does not have an up-to-date local plan and in this situation paragraph 11 of the MPPF requires development to be determined in favor of sustainable development unless adverts and facts would outweigh the benefits while harm is identified to protected areas. For this proposal the proposal goes through the relevant planning issues includes that the scheme would not result in any significant impacts which would outweigh the benefits of the proposal and therefore requires the development to be proved in favor of sustainable development. This includes assessing ecology impacts, transport, heritage impacts and immunity. The two appeal decisions for the site have also been taken into consideration. In addition with the borehole provided on skied the scheme is considered water neutral and as such would not affect the integrity of the iron valley site. As such while this is recognised that there is significant local opposition to the site it is your officer's recommendation that this scheme should be granted in accordance with the condition set out the reports and the completion of legal agreements. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd like to invite Sharon Davis as our first member of the public to speak. Sharon we've got two minutes. They've got so many speak wrong. The case officer's report states that the third is not coming up. Sorry I've got the feedback. Yes I can hear it as well. This is what that speaker out here. Is that better? Sorry. The case officer's report states that this third smock alley application should be considered under paragraph 11D of the MPPF whilst considering a tilted balance due to a lack of land housing supply. For reference the first application in 2015 also had no upstate plan on land housing supply and was almost unanimously dismissed by this committee. This report is also inconsistent with the two previous planning refusals. The only change this time is density which was not an issue for either refusals previously. Local appeal decisions for Sandy Lane Hynfield and Longland's Paul Rastress that even despite a tilted balance being applied both appeals were dismissed as this was not automatically, sorry this does not automatically grant permission. This principle was also repeated last week at an appeal at Wielden. Water neutrality must successfully demonstrate with certainty not probable or likely. Are you sure this is the case here and that the maintenance and management can be secured in perpetuity? There is no legal constraint to ensure the residents must use the borehole and not connect to the mains water supply. The treatment plant and borehole are located very close to neighbours homes and it has not been established whether the noise and disturbance generated from daily traffic movements for water testing, chemical deliveries, machinery and maintenance will have a detrimental impact. This affects our mean the t-value privacy and human rights. Ecological impacts include relocating badger sets, light pollution, noise, cutting down 100 metres of hydroentries, all whilst supposedly mitigating the adverse harm on this wildlife-rich site and touched for over 50 years. Private vehicles are the only viable form of transport leading to an increased traffic movement on a single track roads about in the site. Smokhely was flooded over this winter causing dangerous icy conditions. Climate change will only increase this. We are also concerned about the poddened adjacent to our homes that could flood. Isolated development into the rural countryside and settlement separation zone would cause significant landscape harm. As demonstrated in both portion district council reports district council refusals and previous appeal decisions this is not community-led application. Counselors in conclusion the application would not accord with either development plans with or without a tilted balance by having a serious harmful effect on the character of the area, environment, local community and must be refused by you. Thank you, Sean. Okay and our second speaker is Patrick Griffin. Please don't be have smokhely action group. Thank you. I'm speaking on behalf of Smokhely residents who strongly object to this application and I ask that council members consider the following key points. As acknowledged in the office's report the proposed development site is outside of any built-up area boundary in the countryside and not allocated within any adopted plans. On all local planning policy terms it's not acceptable and incomplete with the development strategy that was adopted. Despite this there have been two speculative separate applications for housing on this site. There were unsurprisingly both refused and both dismissed by separate independent planning inspectors at two separate appeals. The most recent appeal even considered a reduction of dwellings on the site to 14 as is the number proposed now and it was still dismissed. This is the starting point for the proposal that sits before you today and it has to date attracted over 186 local objections. All indicators therefore point to this site not being suitable for development and because of this the proposal has ended up being an exercising mitigation across the board. It can only rely on the weight given to the council's current lack of housing land supply and a raft of mitigation measures to try and get over the large negative impacts and harm it will have on. Ecology landscape water supply and settlement characteristics. The inspector in the latest appeal dismissed or stated that any development on the site would be harmful to the individual characteristics of West Chiltington as a whole. Whether that be for 19 or 14 units as it would be isolated and not well integrated with the adjacent built-up area. He concluded that it is contrary to the heart of policy 25. This was a strong appeal decision and not much has changed in this scheme so I urge councilors to follow and refuse this wholly unsuitable development. Thank you very much Alex Madden please to speak. Thank you I appear on behalf of the Swarth Valley residents also who strongly oppose this application. We've read the officer's report but there are five reasons why I think this application should be refused. Number one the location of the site. It's not allocated for housing it's also sits in the site buffer zone between the village and common and also it's in conflict with policy 15 the draft plan which is set on goal lessons. Number two prematurity. So this application jumps the gun in terms of the plan no process. It's akin to celebrating the goal at Wembley elected salt involved. It's also a continual consideration that tends against a grant kind of permission. Number three impact on the character landscape character of the area. Previous appeals on this site have been refused for similar reasons. The officer also identifies that the site that the scheme sorry will cause harm local harm and the question is whether or not mitigation can ameliorate that harm. The condition as it stands in the office report we say is uncertain and doesn't guarantee that harm can be addressed. Number four impact on the amenity of local neighbors and residents of virtual noise and overlooking. The scheme is incredibly close to nearby lavender cottage which needs its own further mention and the noise from the treatment plant is also attempted to be addressed by way of a condition in the officer's report. But again the way the condition is worded is arguably fails the policy tests that are of 50 set to the MPF and doesn't provide any certainty any noise that flows and the treatment plan can be addressed or mitigated. Any condition attains any such condition which is unlawful contained any permission. Five local highway impact and the site is not well served locally and also we say that impact that would then conflict with a national policy in terms of impact on highway safety and also the site would promote the use of the private car by way of its by virtue of its location. So in summary whether or not the tilted bandwidth applies we say there are adverse impacts that significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits that the scheme can reduce and therefore for that reason the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply we would urge you committee to refuse the application. Thank you very much. Michael Seaman's cosoprop is on the applicant. Several years ago the Paris Council approached cosoprop is regarding the land at Smok Alley indicating that it may be a suitable location for future development. We subsequently put the land forward as an option in the neighbourhood plan. The neighbourhood plan has now been the subject of several public consultations and we shortly be submitted for examination. It identifies the site at Smok Alley for 14 dwellings of no more than two stories. We're a local company looking to provide much needed housing for local people. This is a bespoke scheme of individual houses setting spacious grounds affecting the character of the local area from responding to the landscape. This is fundamentally different from the previous schemes in terms of density but significantly fewer properties spread over twice the area. The proposed scheme would enhance existing biodiversity delivering a 30% biodiversity net gain in terms of habitat units. It will conserve and protect the existing ecology and 39 native and non-native trees will be planted to replace the seven mainly low or poor quality trees that would be removed. When new homes are proposed it seems like everybody objects. However, a sign of majority of people are overlooked in the planning system. In every part of the UK the majority of people are in favour of building more homes but local planning officers and councillors rarely hear from them. A whole generation who can't even afford to rent let alone buy because of the lack of supply and never represented here where the decisions are made. Many are firmly of the view that the area does not need any more housing. The people saying that the people saying this are generally well housed so it is true that they don't need housing but others urgently do and we have spoken to young people who are desperate to get onto the housing ladder in the area. New housing will help support the public, the public, the school, the post office and local shops. Sorry can I just stop you for a second there? I'm afraid you do have to remain silent throughout this meeting. If anyone has a problem with that they can let us know but I would rather that you left the room if that's not been possible for you. Thank you. New housing will help support the pub, the school, the post office and local shops and provide affordable homes for local workers which is vital to rural economies. This is a modest scheme of 14 houses at a very low density to affect the character of the area who have I much need housing I hope you will support scheme. Thank you very much and finally Dr Chris Lyons please. Good evening Councillors my name is Dr Chris Lyons I'm a director at S&R consulting. As you're aware the application before you are seeking planning permission for 14 dwellings. Repulsors include five much-needed affordable homes and arrange your policies to provide suitable housing for people to downsize and move into family housing. This site has been talked about for many years and as you know it's a draft allocation of with the neighbourhood plan and local plan. It also meets the criteria in the conscious fire document for assessing sites. Some people have commented the application as premature as you wait for the local plan to be adopted but given the chronic shortage of housing and hoism waiting is not a luxury that can be afforded. The console needs every site that can be delivered as soon as possible to meet the housing need. This site has an on-site Warhol already in place and mortality has been fully addressed. The text in the MPPF is to make decisions in presumption of sustainable development unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. We do not believe there's any technical evidence to demonstrate significant harm. The scheme has been significantly reduced from the appeal schemes that you've heard about for 21 and 19 dwellings. There's no conflict with the southern water pumping station and we've provided detailed technical reports to confirm this. This has been independently reviewed and accepted. The Boerhul is not moving and has already in place to the north of the site and we've seen that in the photographs. The wildlife has been fully considered in the plans with expert ecologists and ball through art up to date the porch providers and their advice fully followed. There's no objection for natural England or the ecologist. In mind of parking is suitable or West Sussex highways have not raised any concerns with the scheme. In summary the benefits proposed include 14 new dwellings, a mixture of family homes, smaller semi-detached properties and a terroristic of a range of housing options, four bungalows which you know are in great demand, five affordable dwellings and the design is highly attractive set in a green environment with open space and significant biodiversity in that game. I trust you'll support your officer's recommendation and agree this scheme. Thank you. Thank you very much. Officer, do you want to come back from any of the comments? Just briefly with the water treatment plant it is set away from the boundary beyond the timmy's of buffer and but we have had comments from the environmental team that it would be a low-level noise impact so but we take into account that this is a countryside location hence the reason for the condition to assure that the noise impact is acceptable from the water treatment plant and you wouldn't expect that the maintenance management of that plant to be too too excessive to result in in the disturbance for neighbors. Also let's say that we have we've taken to account all the all the objections and local concerns for this site but we we have to look at this from a balanced view and there's no objection to this scheme from the landscape officer, ecology, our firefighters or highways for example and also we've had a consultant hydrologist look at this who's find finds the pydings of the water neutrality proposal acceptable. So yes and so on those grounds it's recommended for a few or taken to account the current approval taken account of current situation regarding five year land supply. Thank you. Thank you very much and now I'd like to invite the members for this war to speak. Councils circus would you like to fix up? Thank you Chairman. I'd like to start by just making a brief statement which may be of help to the residents that are here. Just to point out that I'm not a member of West Chiltington parish council. I was a member of West Chiltington parish council for a brief period but I did not stand again in May 2023. I thought that might be helpful because one of the things I'm going to refer to is the comments that have been made by the parish council. And in that respect I have I'm slightly surprised actually that the parish council made the comment they did but I broadly agree that it would be a good idea to wait and see what happens with the referendum. Now normally when I'm speaking or planning applications I make an assumption that the local referendum will almost certainly endorse the emerging neighbourhood plan. In this case I'm by no means certain that the eventual referendum will endorse the - I don't frankly know - but I think it's by no means certain that when the referendum on the neighbourhood plan in West Chiltington is put to the test is by no means certain the public will support it. Therefore it seems logical as indeed the parish council point out it would be sensible to wait until there has been a referendum and we know whether this is going to feature in the neighbourhood plan for West Chiltington and have the support of the local community. Now when I started reading this report I assumed I was going to read a well argued case for approving the application. What I found is that the report makes actually a very good case for refusing the planning application. We start with 1.6 which is the pointing out that there is a bat sustenance zone which clearly means there are ecological issues here. We then move on to 3.6. Now I know what I don't want to blame Emma for for what is written here because she will tell me that civil servants have drafted this and they're just copying the wording that civil servants have produced but it is not a model of clarity but perhaps she can tell us what this wording actually means and particularly what the last sentence means. I think what he is saying to me is that there is harm. You can argue about whether it's a little harm, substantial harm but clearly it seems to me there is harm to the list of building. So we have another issue and then as we go through the report we find we then have 6.30 where we read that the landscape architect has stated that there is landscape harm and then we go on to 6.20 all the way through 6.35 with the introduction of the northern field it is accepted that the proposal would result in reducing the separation between West Chiltington and West Chiltington Common. So what we're talking about here, Chairman, is coalescence. So as you read through this report, Chairman, you find that the report itself makes a number of points that could, equally it seems to me, have led the officers to come to the conclusion that the application should be turned down. Now I've, I'm going to say I've lived with this these applications because I've been, I think I was at the, well I know I was at the two previous applications both of which were turned down by this committee our decisions were endorsed and supported by the planning inspector. So as was pointed out by one of the speakers, you have a situation here where there is a history of this committee turning down applications and those applications and our view being supported by the inspector and now that's being swept I'm nearly finished being swept away and one of those, at the time of one of those applications we were told at that time there was a problem with a five-year land supply. So that was raised on one of the previous applications and we turned down, we rejected the application. So when I look at all this and all the considerations it seems to me, Chairman, it would make sense to turn this application down and support the views that we, as a committee, have previously had in relation to this development. Thank you very much for your service Officer, would you like to come back now or at the end of the session? So, so it is within the bat system and so in that second knowledge in the report, but that has been taken into account with appropriate mitigation measures and we have such a duty to consult natural England with appropriate assessments outlining those measures and they've they've found it acceptable so and also our ecologist has found those mitigation measures acceptable so we've gone through the correct procedures to make sure there's no significant impact on the bats and the appropriate surveys and mitigations all being submitted. So with 3.6 the conservation officer refers to less than substantial harm so yet that is that kind of like conservation wording but it means to the lower end of the scale so there is acknowledgement that is within the setting of the list and building but it also takes account that it is quite a distance from this site separated by another dwelling and lots of trees and bushes so the harm is very minor there and then the what we have to look at in terms of the NPBF is whether that harm in this case very minor harm is outweighed by the benefits of the proposal taking into account that this scheme would be water neutral under our current state with our five-year house and land supply so those benefits definitely outweigh that in our view outweigh that very less than substantial harm and I think it would be very difficult to establish that harm in an appeal. So with the separation zone it is in the said in the report there is a reference to that in the draft neighbourhood plan but it also is contrary to the fact that it recommends this site as a draft allocation so but there is an acknowledgement in the neighbourhood plan that the separation zone may be may be amended to take into account any allocation but then you also have to take into account that this is also a draft allocation in our current local plan review so it's not just in the neighbourhood plan it's also within our local plan review which is currently just going out to consultation. So with the core lessons arguments you have to with that our current policy isn't specific about what areas to take into account but I know that the local plan review is a bit more specific but as I said you can't take the local plan review policies into account we have to go over the current local plan and there is an argument there but then you have to weigh it against the the benefits again of the proposal and the fact that we've got such a low housing land supply and the presumption in favour of state development also comes in there and it's also down to the harm so with core lessons you can look at the landscape harm and use that as a justification for core lessons but in this case as I like to report the landscape harm has been mitigated and a lot in the landscape officer she has said that there is some harm but that's the fact that this is a field where there's going to be development so that's the starting point where she's coming from but then she looks at the the development as a whole and the fact that it's set back is retaining the boundaries around the site it's enhancing the boundaries it has buttoners so overall she has no objections to the proposal. If I can just come back with one further quick chair in terms of your comment councillor circus about waiting um unfortunately members will be aware we you know we're delaying a decision is is is not a reasonable decision to make um members do need to make a decision based on that the information before you and the policy context that we have at this moment in time and as my colleague said that the critical point really is parabar 14 of the MPPF um which is is weighing the benefits and and considering whether there is um likely to be significantly to want to want to actually to want to really outweigh the benefits um in terms of the level of harm and so really that is the consideration before you today councillor thank you thank you officers can i call councillor Dennis uh good evening yeah so so what i'm hearing them from the officers i don't want to go as much detail as everyone else has on them philip certainly put a strong point in along with a number of the individuals here but what you're basically saying is there's a draft plan so everyone mezzles submit their planning and they'll get through on the face this draft plan not a final plan that doesn't seem a very clever idea and so therefore i really do agree with philip that we should wait until we see what the neighbourhood plan says and the final plan says before we even think about um this particular planning application especially in you know notwithstanding the fact that in 2015 and 16 there was some very strong objections and appeals that were rejected um on this particular piece of land so it's fairly contentious and on that premise i would not be supporting this particular application i i think that everything's been said yes thank you councillor Dennis just to reiterate my quick councillors waiting is not a reasonable decision-making process in fact it is unreasonable and in inspector would find so against the council so i think we have to determine applications based on the information before us at this moment in time based of all the facts that are identified within the report having considered the back presentations both in writing and here today and indeed the comments i said regarding the mppf and and the policy context thank you thank you very much can i ask councilman if you'd like to speak uh thank you chairman my two colleagues really have covered most of the ground i find myself that we are told i understand that the important thing is the community and a lot of these decisions should be bottom up rather than top down um and on the basis that there is a draft um neighborhood plan that has not gone to referendum but has not been voted on to my mind causes considerable harm to the community um the thing that we should value most in this decision i also note that the significant ecological value of the site i also understand the roads are narrow adjacent to the site and there are limited passing places with no verges or for ways um and i am also concerned about the coalescence with um west joltington common so i apologize uh Emma but i do consider that there is substantial harm um and that we should consider um what the parishioners want who have not yet had a chance to vote on their neighborhood plan thank you thank you very much uh i would like to see if what other members would like to speak on this does anyone put anything we'd like to add Casanel thank you chairman um i've just got a couple of objections uh oh no objections i do sorry i've got a couple of questions i would like to ask i do apologize myself i mean that was totally unintentional um what worries me is the biodiversity of this area um bng as you know is a very important part of planning now and i had the chance to speak to the principal planning officer who is looking after this case and questioned the bng numbers um his reply and quite understand that is that this submission was made before the mandatory figure of ten percent was endorsed by the environment act and this council itself has now decided on a minimum of twelve percent by diversity net gain in any planning application now my question is that if this application was submitted after february of this year when the environment act mandated that we have to consider by diversity net gain would this application have been accepted to be put forward to committee and on the basis of that question i'd like to ask a basis of that answer i'd like to ask a few more questions please so would you like to respond um this is correct that we can only mandatory require applications submitted after february this year to meet the current the bng requirements of ten percent and there is a requirement in our local planning review but as the state is we can't take that into consideration we'll give that any weight uh but not withstanding this they have submitted uh bng grip i diverse in net gain for this site which is in 6.64 of the report that's awarded by our colleges and there's um says a 29.71 increase in habitat units and 21.8 percent increase in hedgerow units and that's set out in their biodiversity net gain assessment so that's welcomed even though it's not a requirement of this application so there is a there is a bng element to this application even though it doesn't need to be okay so there is a bng assessment but does it overall for the whole site meets requirements that we are now setting of 12 percent i know we heard from one of the witnesses who are supporting the application a claim of 30 percent bng i can't see anything here that supports that i know you have just quoted 6.64 but that's in habitat units and hedgerow units not across the whole site but our view is an ecologist view is that it does meet the requirements but i said we're not looking at it in terms of um the government requirements came in February because they're not applicable to this application so this is a benefit to this proposal that's that's including these bng improvements it's it's just to clarify it's open above what the requirements are for this application as detailed detailed in 0.6.64 i do understand where you're coming from council and all but but in a way it's irrelevant to determination of this application because it is not a mandatory legal requirement but not withstanding that it does provide a substantial bng net gain as identified in paragraph 6.64 thank you so in summary what you're asking this committee to do is to go back in time and consider it as if it was presented to us before February of this year just to clarify the legislation is only for new applications submitted after that date in February if if any application had been submitted before that date it does not have a mandatory requirement for 10% bng so any and you will there will be obviously a period of time where all those applications that were submitted before February are still being determined by this committee and will not have a mandatory requirement for 10% by a diversity net gain so we're not asking you to go back in time that is the legislation before us and as identified within the environment act thank you okay thank you can i just also address the badger problem that we have here i do know that it has been that there has been a no there isn't a condition actually there was a suggestion that there was there was going to be a relocation um of the badger set um i have checked with some ecologists on this um and they say that there is no certainty that badgers who are relocated would accept an artificial new set and moreover they will probably go back to their original hunting grounds which is these fields and cause a problem because they will be roaming around at night upsetting what is going on there be a development or not so i would suggest that moving a badger set is not really a valid consideration that we should be taking into account there are active badgers there are very many ecological assets to this area and i don't see that um the evidence that's been given to us has been enough to offset those concerns thank you and if i may just come back on that point um obviously we have engaged a qualified ecologist throughout this process um and they've got no objections in terms of the impact but most notably um members should look at condition 12 um which are pre-commencement condition which means that no works can take place until those details have been submitted and secured and that includes the requirement for a license for natural england so i think it our view is that it's sufficient protection to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place and approved by natural england before development can commence on the side thank you yes thank you i accept that thank you thank you for it oops thank you very much counsel no uh how's the program is that working yeah okay um thank you jenn um i think it's fair to say that any development in the countryside will cause ecological harm that's unless you've got a countryside car park going to build over so i have a few questions though which perhaps the officers could clarify things um the first one is um we see at the top of this site uh the use of somewhat lower dwellings in the form of bungalows but presumably once built there'll be no constraint effective constraint on those being enlarged so that's my first question i don't know whether we'll have taken one at a time or officers would you like to take these points on time or do you want me to come up wait some uh that's a pretty strange that's a million dollars there are pd regulation pd brights so that they can extend the properties by understanding that doesn't so and there is pd regulations where you can do additional stories to properties but my understanding of that doesn't uh there's criteria and you can't do that to newly built houses there's a there's a date requirement so these wouldn't lead that criteria so they would require planning permission for any additional storm okay thank you for that um my second point is around the uh foul water drainage scheme um as discussed with the officer earlier um i understand that southern water have said that the developers preferred connection point has not got the capacity but again as i understand from the discussion um southern water will be required to provide that capacity i find this somewhat alarming um but i guess it's condition 11 that applies on that i'll take that as an agreement there um third point i do find the water neutrality argument challenging um to put it mildly um but i guess we have to take that as what experts say but has the certainty question i think i find very difficult uh the next point is with regard to the visibility display for the access um looking at the uh i think it's the design and access statement um the to get the required visibility display you have to cut back some of the hedging or indeed some of the tree lower growth almost to the trunk level and that doesn't seem very feasible to me uh if you know either you're going to get a lot of regrowth and lose that visibility display or more trees will actually come out so i'd appreciate a comment on that please you correct the wilt there will be some loss of vegetation there for the visibility display but are nicely raised by a landscape officer as a concern hence there's a condition there requiring further details of landscaping to mitigate that impact okay i think i'll leave it there thank you thank you very much councilor crookka council is it safe yeah thank you very much chair um unlike uh council circus i didn't have the benefit of being on the planning committee when previous applications came before this committee um but from what i can gather having read these papers the only real material difference between the previous applications that were rejected and then rejection being upheld as appeal was the density level of the housing is that correct or whether other other material differences in this application that we should be thinking about that is the main difference yes the the appeal decisions were to the southern field and for more housing 19 and 21 units which i showed in the previous um a certain presentation made in much more dense and constrained which was this is spreading out lesser housing within the two fields so it makes it much more spread out so it's much more of a an urban development you could say and much more less constrained when compared to the previous appeal decisions thank you very much councilwoman but thank you can i just ask a question i would like to ask what the baseline is for the biodiversity net gain is it taken from the luscious green fields full of nature that we see now or is it taken from after the decimated thank you generally speaking baseline surveys are based on existing site circumstances that's where you would carry out your baseline based on the surveys from so you're saying then that based on the field as it is now after most of the um wildlife has been taken away we were still bit of biodiversity net gain as in 6.35 that's correct yes thank you very much councilman but are there any further questions cast a shot okay good sorry i have the noise because my ears very badly um um a little bit disappointed that nobody has yet brought up the point um but i'll bring it up of uh being able to get to to the school or to this the the village center of by any means other than a vehicle uh i mean it seems like you can walk but with i think the measure i would use would you allow a young teenager to walk it by themselves and i look at 6.51 and and it says basically no yeah but unfortunately it says that this is uh the inspector considered a reason for refusal untenable on these grounds and and i simply don't understand may better understand planning law enough but i don't understand why this would be considered untenable grounds to refuse this application to allow this application thank you councilor officers would you like to comment on that it is acknowledged that this is not a great site in terms of accessibility and i have addressed that reports it takes into account previous appeal decisions where the inspector also acknowledged it was a not an accessible site but didn't raise any objections on those grounds and then we've also got the current uh west county highways uh i've not raised an objection to the scheme in turn of accessibility um and also but yeah i mean it is a dis-benefit of the proposal but then you have to weigh that against the benefits of the proposal like again taking into account the benefits of the additional housing and i i like to like provide you and that's fine but it is acknowledged that that is something which is not to the benefit of the proposal but then that's strongly outweighed by all the benefits and uh is there a new way that something could be conditioned into to to to this i mean are there plans in the future to do anything is there a public right away at least existing that would happen or is this site forever going to only be accessible to vulnerable people by teenagers children uh elderly people by a car i i i don't understand how we can be looking at new settlements in this age and using the way the means of getting there by a car to be acceptable thank you councilor officers do you have any further comments but sometimes we would in some applications require like a a footway to be uh to be provided but that's based on whether the the highways make that recommendation and whether there is uh feasibility for for it to be provided so i'm not sure there is feasibility here to provide footways on the on the lanes here and also it's not being recommended by our highways team as being required to make the application acceptable in highway and highway terms thank you very much and i understand from the previous applications that were turned down that a lack of transporting was specifically mentioned in both cases and then in 6.55 where Sussex acknowledged that there is no reasonable access by public right of ways or walkways to the rest of the village yes i said is acknowledged this is not a great site in terms of accessibility but then we have to take into account previous field decisions and the current comments from our uh the highways team where it's that's not recommended for a reason of refusal it's taken to count the benefits of the proposal and all and all other considerations yeah but my point was that in the two previous decisions that was specifically mentioned and nothing seems to have changed but the period decisions didn't raise that as an as being as an issue to uh there were dismissed but the period decisions didn't raise that as an issue as a reason to dismiss the abuse and appear for recipients it's acknowledged but it wasn't a substantive reason in which the appeal was dismissed so i was talking about the reason for the original application being dismissed not the um not the reason for the appeal being dismissed right yeah but the appeal obviously then considers our the council's decision and whether that's upheld or not thank you councilor Campbell so any further comments or queries councilor phateman fisher thank you um sitting on the planning committee is quite a challenging thing to do and i just want to want to express that that we are um we're asked to make decisions which materially impact communities um and and use a law that's not really fit for purpose to make those decisions so i i'd really do struggle with this and i and i i do i i do feel that it's almost like it's a difficult it's impossible for us to make the right decision on this um and i just need to express that there are a lot of um there are a lot of concerns where in 3.6 there's a harm uh around uh from the heritage officer problems with coalescence as well and and and then we've also got all the issues with transport and so on and so forth biodiversity and and and a community that hasn't had a chance to vote on a neighborhood planners and i think that all those are all really important factors in the decisions we need to make thank you i've got a question just to make you statement thank you I appreciate its difficult decision members um from from what is a difficult decision for anybody's difficult recommendation for officers um but but really it it you do have to consider what the benefits of the scheme are what any any any concerns you have over that the the um development and consider it in the context of the MPPF around the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with a the plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits so members need to consider whether the harm identified it's your view whether that's significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits and obviously one of the benefits for us as a local planning authority right now is not we don't just have no five year housing land supply we have a very very low five year housing land supply so obviously that carries substantial weight and decision making so members do need to weigh that against that and obviously if members do have concerns which you feel meet that test they have to be substantiated and defended and i think that's where from an officer point of view we find that difficult to to to meet that bar in order to recommend refusal which is why we recommended approval um to you today thank you members thank you very much thank you yes castle marks sorry just from the previous hours i'm led to understand that the principle benefit of this development is that it brings us it brings the council's and institution better into relying with the demands of the NPPS is that correct it is one of the benefits clearly there's a delivery of affordable housing which again is a critical need we've got a biodiversity net gain and they've used the national metric so obviously that's a benefit of the scheme it's not just the delivery of housing that's a benefit of the scheme there are a number of benefits to the schemes and members need to weigh that in the balance in terms of any any harm that you identify um but obviously from an officer's point of view it's considered to be a sustainable site whilst the the new local plan has has limited weight it does show a direction of travel and the council's policy going forward and obviously we are looking to allocate that subject to the the formal process they will recognize that has more limited weight though growing weight now that we're under the at the end of the consultation process so members need to put all that into a pot and and come to a balance for you thank you thank you very much cancer clock oh sorry sorry cancer trial just a quick statement it does seem to me that yeah it might be a housing demand but only if you have a car and only probably if you have two cars you know one car for each each adult or adult driver and i just i don't know i just see clogged roads anyway that's all thank you cancer trial and are there any further comments or questions in that case everybody madam chairman um point of order please um could i request a recorded vote i'll come back to you on that one council manta yeah yes yes we can yeah so we need okay council manta we have we've required some second person to support that request just there anyone that would be cancer circus thank you very much and can i invite the local members so they have any further comments that they wish to make at this point thank you very much so the recommendation is to approve full planning permission subject to appropriate conditions and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement in the event that the legal agreement is not completed within four months of the decision of this committee the direct replace we all thrice to refuse permission on the grounds of failure to secure the obligations necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms can we go to a vote on that please yes we're just writing out a name list so that we can record please folks (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) Okay, we're ready to go again now, and the recommendations I said before is to approve full planning on application DC-2-1-2-0-0-0-7. I'm going to read up the name list, and you could reply with a four against all of the state. So, Councillor Baneham? Against. Councillor Campbell? Against. Councillor Serkis? Against. Councillor Clark? Against. Councillor Criker? Against. Councillor Dennis? Against. Councillor Finnegan? Against. Councillor Fisher? Against. Councillor Grec? Against. Councillor Noles? Against. Sorry, Councillor Noles. That was... Sorry. (laughter) That's okay. Okay. (laughter) Councillor Lambert? Okay. Councillor Manton? Okay. Councillor Marx? Against. Councillor Milne? Against. Okay. Councillor MARX? Against. Councillor Milne? Against. Councillor Noles? Against. Councillor Noles. (laughter) Against. Councillor Trolot? Against. Sorry, Councillor Perri. Against. Okay, thank you very much, members of the public, today. You're welcome to support. We need another moment. Apologies. Apologies, everyone. The motion has failed, so we needed a second motion. Yes. I can't do it. Is there anyone who would like to put forward no transformation? No questions? Yes. Councillor Trott, my main objection, I mean, there were a few others. I probably worked with some of the others. But my main objection was transport, the lack of being able to even walk safely. Is there any way we can put in some sort of a condition, as I suggested earlier, that they would do something substantial and meaningful that might would allow me to look at this a bit more favorably? So, Councillor, if I could just clarify your options, obviously, the officer's motion has failed, so we do need an alternative motion. The options obviously open to members are to defer. If you feel that there is additional information which may bring you to a position of approval, then there is an option to defer that. I would just caution Councillor Trott in terms of, obviously, if you are seeking substantial changes, then that's a different—you know, it's not the one before you. But deferral is an option open to you, or obviously, members can put forward an alternative motion to refuse. Obviously, if there is an alternative motion to refuse, that needs to be substantiated. And members need to be confident that it meets that paragraph 14 of the MPPF relating to the harm outweighing the benefits. Thank you. So, is there a Councillor's office? Well, I think as I alluded to earlier, we can use the report, because the report gives enough reasons of its own for rejecting this application, such as harm to a list of building old Haglands, the issue of the bats—I'm not sure how that's expressed—the fact that the report acknowledges there's a problem with coalescence. The report acknowledges there is landscape harm. And the batches are right. Although I'm not very keen on batches, they're ruining my gardener's name. But it's really a question of putting those together. I don't know whether Emma has any objections to any of those. They are all in the report. Yes, but I think you have to consider whether they're substantiated reason for refusal, or whether they can be addressed by conditions such as badges and condition 12, which we discussed earlier, if a concern can be addressed by condition, then it should not be a reason for refusal. In terms of the list of building, I would caution against that, because as my colleague has said, it's some distance away. It's less than substantial harm, and it's very likely the benefit of housing would outweigh that. But obviously coalescence has been discussed in the debate along with landscaping and sustainability. They are more matters of judgement. But as I said, members would need to consider whether that harm outweighs the benefit. Thank you. Well, we could always, Chairman, we could always go back to, since our committee decisions were twice upheld by the inspector, we could always go back to the reasons for refusal used on that occasion, and suitably adapted if necessary. Thank you. What does this mean? Accessibility. Perhaps I had brought you neutrality in public measure. (inaudible) So, Councillor SEX, I can refer you to paragraph 6.3 of the officer's report, which details the reason for refusal of the previous applications. (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) Yeah, I think we can use the previous one. (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) If I may, Chairman, certainly taking up what Councillor Trob said, certainly think in the objection, or the motion basically to refuse, is that one of the grounds of transport accessibility to schools and shops. In this day, I hate to say of active travel quote unquote, things have changed. So, whereas this wasn't a factor or not considered a factor in previous application, in previous appeals, I think the world has moved on since then, and that certainly should be one that should be included. Second point is coalescence of the different parts of the village has already been made. I think that's just as valid now. Third point is harm to wildlife and nature. I hear what is said about neutralizing about biodiversity in that game, but in the whole thing of building the houses and building the roads and preparing the site, you are in fact destroying the nature and everything. And I intellectually find it very difficult to match up in my mind that on the one hand, you have a site that's really quite good in terms of biodiversity and rest of it. And then you're going to end up with a site with houses on it that's going to be better. I have a problem intellectually coping with that. And I read what is said in the report, but I'm not convinced. And I think that should be reflected somewhere in the motion to turn it down, because I think an inspector needs to look at it properly. Thank you very much for that support. Just to come back from the biodiversity bit, obviously there is a national metric around how you manage biodiversity net gain. And I appreciate, you know, from just a general observation, you might think, well it's worse off after you build the houses. The difficulty is what's the evidence. And obviously we have got significant evidence submitted as part of the application which demonstrates in accordance with the national metric, which is now become kind of the statutory process going forward that there is a net gain. So I think whilst I understand there is a general concern there, the difficulty is that's not backed up by the evidence. And we've got no substantive evidence the other way round. I think that's why it would be difficult to substantiate that. Notwithstanding that, obviously if it goes to an appeal, whatever the decision of the authority is, an inspector will consider everything as part of their decision-making process, if obviously indeed it does go to appeal. So I would caution against having a reason for a few years at a round biodiversity net gain. But ultimately that's a decision for members. Surely, there's no reason why we shouldn't, as Councillor Clarke said, add in the point about coalescence, because it's made in the report, and the threat to wildlife and nature, not mentioned BNG specifically. Because we know there's a problem specifically with bats and badges. Yes, can I suggest that then? But we add that to what is in paragraph 106.3. Yes? [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] Well, it's been dropped, I think. Yes. [INTERPOSING VOICES] Thank you very much. So we seem to have come together with a motion. Are you able to read that out so that members can vote on it? [CHUCKLES] Well, something like the site by reason of its location, limited accessibility to sustainable modes of transport. Distance to local services and reliance on the private car is considered to be unsustainable, and does not therefore accord with the presumption in favour of sustainable development now. And then we just add in coalescence, we just say. In addition, the development undermines or undermines the principle of avoiding coalescence and presents a threat to wildlife and nature. [INTERPOSING VOICES] One. [INTERPOSING VOICES] Do you want to reference them BPA about them? [INTERPOSING VOICES] Maybe. [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] Thank you very much. May I ask you'll be second in the amendment? Councillor MURPHY. [INTERPOSING VOICES] [LAUGHTER] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] So, all those in favour of the alternative motion? [INTERPOSING VOICES] One. [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] All those against? [INTERPOSING VOICES] And any abstentions? [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] I'm not patting. You're abstaining. [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] Thank you very much. Motion is carried. [INTERPOSING VOICES] [INTERPOSING VOICES] A few minutes to clear the motion. Yes, so, ladies and gentlemen. [INTERPOSING VOICES] Back to where we were, remember to go. Thank you very much for coming in. And if you want to leave now, you're able to. We will have it. We do have a second motion that we'll be dealing with in a moment. [INTERPOSING VOICES] INTERPOSING VOICES (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) Thank you very much. (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) (crowd chattering) Okay, thank you very much. So, as you should all be aware, the second to items, the next two items, seven and eight have been withdrawn from the agenda. And the final item is S106230017. (crowd chattering) Officers, would you like to see? Okay, thank you. So, this application plays phase three of Apple with Meadows & Bacon, as shown on this plan. Phase three is the final phase of Apple with Meadows located to the south side. Phase three was a rigid part of the Apple with Meadows site, and in 2021, permission was granted under a separate application for an increase in dwellings to this phase three to 75 dwellings. The phase three includes allotments, workshops, and eight dwellings for over 55s. So, this slide shows the layout of phase three as approved. The current proposal relates to the delivery of the commercial units and the over 55 units. So, I've highlighted their location here in the approved layouts with the commercial units to the east and the over 55 units there. Phase three is currently being built with works well and away. 24 houses are currently so far being occupied on the site. So, the current proposal is fitted to two parts. The first part relates to the delivery of the commercial units. I've shown the elevations of the commercial units here, which have been approved. So, under the legal agreements, the commercial units are required to be delivered by the occupation of the 38th dwelling units. The applicant has stated that they are having difficulty in marketing the units and finding potential occupiers. As such, they are seeking an amendment to the legal agreement to allow the units to be delivered later in the development of the site. The applicant originally proposed the delivery of the units prior to occupation of the 70th unit. This was considered too late in the process, and as such, has been agreed to amend this to the 60th unit. The ethnic applicant has stated this would mean the delivery of the units and approximately the end of this year. This is considered acceptable, considering the difficulty as the applicant is having finding occupiers, and also the current proposal would still mean the units are delivered just later on and are originally proposed. The second aspect of this application is related to the over 55 units, and the highlight is the location of the units here on this plan in blue. So, this shows the elevations of the units of the food, which are all two bedroom relics. So, under the legal agreement phase three, there's requirement of these units to be delivered for people over 55 age. This requirement was put in place, so lined with a taken naval plan policy for this site, which requires accommodation for older households. However, the applicant is seeking to remove this requirement on the basis that have not been able to find potential buyers for the units. They've submitted a robust marketing report statement, which shows there's been little interest in these units. Despite marketing, they have only been able to secure one occupier. The applicant has stated that there has been interest from other buyers, but unfortunately they don't meet the requirements of the over 55 criteria. However, regard to the marketing submitted, and the attempts of the applicant to find occupiers of the over 55 units, the removal of this obligation is also considered appropriate. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'd now like to invite Councillor Keith Abbott to speak. Keith, you've got five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chairman and committee members, for allowing me to speak on behalf of the Compose Council regarding this S106 agreement variation application. Whilst there's a need locally for housing specifically designed for those in later years, unfortunately, the eight houses built with this designation in phase three of the Abingworth Development have not been built with the needs of the elderly or disabled in mind. Homes for over 55s was just a label given to one of Bellway's standard small house designs. They have stairs, but not built to a lifetime homes or category two accessible and adaptable dwellings standard. TPC believes the design of the properties is a bigger factor in the lack of demand than the financial reasons cited by Bellway. Despite this, TPC does not object the removal of the over 55s sales restrictions. However, we're disappointed that in their recommendation, the officers do not consider it's necessary, as requested by the Aiken Parish Council, to apply a limited time restriction on the marketing of these eight properties to first-time buyers living in Faken and adjacent parishes. There is clearly a need for starter homes a young people can afford. When you look at local average earnings, the Aiken Parish Council feels it's necessary to give some form of discount on standard Bellway prices to locals. We were therefore willing to support the removal of the over 55s covenant if there were benefits for our community. Although we do not have a written confirmation, our discussions with Bellway led us to believe they were not averse to offering a local first-time buyer discount as long as it was for a period not exceeding six months. We would therefore ask the committee to consider such an obligation when making your decision. Moving on to the workshops, the Aiken Parish Council wishes them to be built and marketed for the original application and the 2019 S106 legal agreement. As you will see in the 2019 consultation document, this document I have seen, I have got some photocopies if you would like them. When seeking to amend the Phase III specification, Bellway agreed with the original principle of these being community workshops targeted at small startup businesses. What Bellway has presented in terms of their marketing demonstrates they haven't stuck to the terms of the S106 agreement. Instead, they've looked to sell the plot, struck buildings to a totally different customer base. We share the concerns expressed by the Horsham District Council economic development team regarding what would be done differently to comply with the S106 obligations. Anecdotally, we've been told by small businesses who have inquired about workshops that they've been quoted eye-wateringly astronomical prices that no startup or small business could ever hope to afford. Also, in your papers, you'll note there's a reference, but no details provided, of discussions that Bellway have had with Aiken Parish Council. Bellway have made it very clear that they are house builders and have no desire to build the workshops. They have made two proposals. Firstly, an offer to provide part of the workshop plot free of charge to enable expansion of the preschool play area. I have a photograph of that if those are not familiar. This offer was a tide to a requirement for Aiken Parish Council to support an amendment to the S106 agreement to remove the need for workshops and to have five additional houses instead. The second offer that was made was for Aiken Parish Council to purchase the plot for an outright sum of £200,000 plus relieving Bellway of any construction obligations. Aiken Parish Council has rejected both proposals and our position is that we wish to see the workshops constructed as per the S106 agreement. We cannot see any justification to amend the trigger to construct the workshops on the occupation of the 38th property and therefore we ask the committee to totally reject that part of Bellway's application variation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Officers, do you want to come back and ask? I think it's just to remind members, obviously, the proposal is not to remove the obligation or build houses on it. It's to move the trigger back for the delivery of the workshops. If an alternative proposal was proposed, that would have to come before us as this one would. So we're just considering the proposals before us today in terms of the over 55s and moving the trigger for the delivery of the workshops. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd like to invite the members for this board, but I wonder if we should have Councillor Mandon speak first, as he's speaking, and then leaving the room. That is the best order. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Councillor Mandon, can I just check, a public or a board member? In which case you have two minutes to speak, and I'd like to make the presentation now. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I did raise some issues on this on behalf of the parish council. I am minded that conditions like section 106 are set to take note of the desires of the parish council and the residents to shape their community. It's important that once again we take due notice of the desires of the community as a primary concern. The developer, I hesitate to use the word windfall, but allowing planning permission on land such as that does then endow the land with a greater value, and it should be possible for the developer to use some of that greater value that is attributed to it to meet the requirements of the parish council. I believe they have a moral duty to support and enhance the community. I do recognise that the developer is in the business of building and selling dwellings, but I'm unclear at this time why Belway PLC cannot meet the trigger point previously agreed. I will leave that there. I would like to feel that the balance should be tilted towards the desires of the community and the parish council. I would strongly urge that we follow the route that my friend here has outlined. Thank you. Thank you very much. I understand you will be leaving the room now. Thank you. Can I invite the other two board members to speak on this now? Thank you, Chairman. Can I ask whether we can split this recommendation? Because I find myself being prepared to accept the first variation proposal, but not the second one. That indeed is the view of the parish council. On the delivery of the workshops, I have to say I was present when Belway made a presentation to vacant parish council. It was a very unimpressive presentation. I hope they are better at building houses than they are at presenting because it wasn't very impressive. One got the, they had no answers basically, no convincing answers to a whole range of questions that were put to them by members of the parish council and what came across. This has already been touched on is I think they had no particular desire to build the workshops and they were trying to sneak out of their obligation to do this. And this is the first stage in them so doing. I do think it's one of the things that's worried me over the years when we're told that a developer has advertised a certain facility because, and perhaps the offices can help on this, how do we check that they have really made an effort to do that? Do we just accept their assertion that they've marketed the facility, if they make an assertion, we just accept it? Or do we inquire into it? Do we test the veracity of their claim? Because on a number of occasions in the past I felt somewhat doubtful about what we have been told. So as I say, the impression on that particular meeting was that I don't think they have a desire to build these workshops, and I think we should resist seeking an amendment to the second. No, it's not second, it's the first one, isn't it? I'd like to see the first proposed amendment rejected, but I'm happy to agree. I'd like to see the first proposed amendment rejected, but I'm happy to agree to the second proposed amendment. I don't know, Chairman, how do you want me to make a proposal and see whether it has committee support? Yes, that's. I'd take advice that the officers can put forward an alternative motion in Councilor Circus. I would just clarify for everyone's understanding what you mean by first or second. You mean in paragraph 7.1 of the report? Is that what you're referring to? It would just be useful if you could clarify which one of those two bullet points you, you could accept it. It's made a wing of a trigger for the delivery of the workshops, which I think we should resist, but here over 55. The second proposed amendment, I'm prepared to accept. Maybe before I formally move a proposal, joy as my fellow board Councillor, I should, I should offer a view. Slightly different. So my first one is about the trip for the workshops and I concur with my fellow Councillor, Phillip, on that particular item. However, on the removing the requirements for the egg dwellings, I actually would suggest that not only those eight that have been built supposedly for the over 55, so it's making me feel very old actually. And I suppose many of us around this room. However, I would actually suggest that those eight that they've already built for the 55s go for affordable housing, but actually they build eight proper ones for the over 55s with disability issues. That's what I would actually suggest. Because they should have built them appropriately in the first place. Thank you, Councillor Dennis. Officer, would you like to respond to that? If you can't retrospectively add requirements for how they rebuild the units, I think, yeah. And I think we have to recognise this whilst there was a mechanism in the section when it's over 55s, it's not affordable housing. And affordable housing is a completely different category where you need a registered provider to take it on, potentially, and it has a different impact in terms of reliability of the scheme. So I think I'm not convinced that's a reasonable alternative, but it is open to members in terms of the remover of that or whether you think it should be first-time buyers or a local connection or something like that, those are the kind of things that are probably more commensurate to what the requirement was for over 55s. So I think that's what members can consider. In terms of the occupation to the 60th residential unit, members should note that they're nearly at the 38th trigger and that will advise my colleague that they'll likely be at the 60th around the end of the year. So I think members need to be mindful. Is the delivery of the units by the end of the year? And obviously that's the best available information we have. Is that reasonable in terms of the delivery of those units? I think that's what we have to be mindful of. Thank you. Yeah, I am concerned about these units because it's interesting. I had someone knock on my door asking if any units were available anywhere locally. And I've heard quite a number of people asking about units. And so I suppose the question here is that there's one thing building them, but actually are they going through the motions? Are they actually charging the going rate? I mean, that is another question that supposedly we can't have anything to do with. But that does frustrate me too. Because I think I know what the end of the game is there. Thank you. Would you like to respond? Just there is a requirement to submit some suitable marketing. So they did submit some marketing, which wasn't up to standard. But it is a section one of six. It's also a legal requirement, an obligation for them to submit the marketing. So they will have to submit that. They're obliged to submit that to be approved. So that will have to go through the process. And in terms of councilor services and comments, we do have an economic development team and that they're very knowledgeable about what's required of marketing. So they'll go through the checking and check that to make sure that that's appropriate. Thank you. Councillor Potts. To make a proposal to the committee, Madam Chairman, that basically we split this application into distinct parts. The first part being to consider, and I quote what it says here, amend the trigger for the delivery of the workshops, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Take the paragraph as it is written. And then once that is determined, we then decide the second one, which is remove the requirement to provide the eight dwellings as over 55 only housing. And basically take two bytes of the cherry to allow the committee to debate this properly. That is my proposal, Madam Chairman. Are you happy? Yes. Oh, how is there a seconder for that motion? So can we set an amended motion? They want to just take two separate votes. Two separate votes. Yeah. Two separate votes to clarify. No. So I put it back together in the end. Sorry. Two months. Thank you. Sorry. I'm just going to second that, Lynn. Thank you very much. Then Lambert to Councillor, and then Madam second that. John, Councillor, I'm going to move on. Yes. Yeah. I'm not sure, because we would also give you a chance to debate this fully. With regard to the trigger question, I'm very interested by the idea of the, that that man could potentially go to a nursery instead of the units. Because I think there is a question over whether these commercial units are viable on this location or not. There is a question about it. I think that the plan might better be better used as a nursery. And I feel like that's precluded by what we're doing here. I do think that they'll be able to give it nothing, not 200,000, but that's a separate question. So, for that reason, I would be supporting extending the trigger in order for that conversation to take place. So, I would support the parent copy for a different reason, because my objective would be to make it possible for a nursery. I'm not sure. Sorry, Madam Chair. I'm totally confused now whether Councillor Milne supports it or doesn't support it. I'm supporting the text or delaying the trigger, but not because I think that commercial units will be the outcome, because I think to explore other outcomes, which I should answer as suggested, such as more land for the nursery, because I am not convinced that the commercial units will ever come forward. So, I have a different reason. So, I disagree with your attempt to remove it, but not that there is another reason which would affect how people would like this by saying it. Sorry, Madam Chairman, I'm not sure that was I not clear enough. All I was saying basically was to take the first bullet point, debate it, decide, and take the second bullet point, debate, and decide. I didn't mean to change anything else. You're requiring this? Great. So, that is my proposal. It has a second up. Thank you very much, Councillor Clarke. Shall we vote on that proposal? Thank you. We're going to vote on whether to separate them. Two stages. And then we'll discuss them in two stages, yes. Councillor, this is the vote to split. Two stages, broadly. So, just to be clear, this is a vote to split these two amendments, and then we would debate them separately. It's great. So, we have a proposal, we have a seconder, so the voting, all in favour. Thank you, and those against. Any abstentions? I think that's what I want to say. It's a vote to proceed. Motion carried. Thank you very much. On a point of order, Chairman. What was your vote? Thank you. Okay. So, shall we start the conversation around the first of these discussion points, which is to mend the trigger for the delivery of the workshops. To the occupation of the 60th residential unit. Who would like. Thank you very much, Councillor Vayner. I actually find myself in disagreement with my colleague to my right on this one. They've asked for an extension to the later one, the 65th. But the reasons they gave was they were having trouble in selling the things, but that's not a reason, because this doesn't put any time limit on it. I mean, if they sell that much, it doesn't matter if it takes them six months a year or 18 months. And I also think there's a principle here about when developers sign up to 106 agreements, we should make them stick to it, unless there's really good reasons not to. And I don't think that's a good reason at all. And we're going to find ourselves with other developments from other developers and this one. And if they just think they can change them at their own behest with a bit of a procedure through a committee, then I think we've got to disavow them on that. They've got to stick to what they said they're going to do. So, yeah, thank you. Yes. I won't comment on it in terms of your general view, but all I would say is more generally, you wouldn't find a commercial developer building, spectratively. Generally, commercial developers will build when they've got an end user. You know, I'm not commenting on the marketing that's, you know, but that's generally the process for commercial development that we will find. And sometimes that's why it takes much longer because they will build it when they have an end user in mind. And ultimately, you know, people don't have to build to the triggers initially identified if it's considered acceptable to move it. You know, with any planning matters, you make a decision based on the information before you at that time. That doesn't mean that it can't change if you think feel that that's a reasonable decision. And as I've said, our understanding in terms of where they are with occupation is there will be around the 60th unit by the end of the year. Obviously, that's based on the developer's aspirations around building. I hope that's helpful. Members, thank you. Thank you, Sharon. I've got two questions before I go on. First question is, can officers explain the last sentence of paragraph 6.8? I assume it's just for information. Yes or no? I mean, that's good enough for me. I just assume it's information. It's just sort the sentence in the paragraph and thought, Oh, what's that doing there? I did raise it last week. So, that's my first question. It's just that I was to explain why the workshops are within phase three, because as you could make the argument, you know, that it's unusual to have workshops in this location. But it's because it's a historic permission and it was carried out from the 2013 permission onto the current application. So, it's for information. Second one, something in all the time I've been doing, planning, it's been a while, I've never come across. Paragraph 6.12. What is the statement of truth? And who's truth, but I won't go down that road. But during the process of the application, they gave me this various information that was a bit sort of split up, so I asked them to put it all together to make it more and also to sign it, to make it more, it's not quite a legal document, but it was more of a more better evidence from them. So, they called it the statement of truth, but so it's not quite a legal document, but it was signed by them, so it gave it a bit more validity. I think, generally, you would sometimes have statutory declarations, which are signed, but they're witness by solicitor, so I think they were trying to replicate that process in some way, but obviously it's not a statutory declaration. So, I think that was their title rather than ours. Thank you. Well, thank you for that. I mean, if I look at the report, basically, Paragraph 3.2, HDC economic development, which is very close to my heart because I was a cabinet member for economic development, it's not convinced. About the case made by Balwe, unsurprisingly, that 10 inquiries to follow it up, it's not happened. Parish Council, in the second paragraph of its submission in 3.3, very strong argument against moving the triggers and what is being proposed. And raises the sentiment of suspicion as to the end of the game, but it this way, because in 6.3, it says very clearly, no works have been started on the work units. Well, really, if no work has been started on it, but the house is being built, it does raise in my mind some questions about the end of the game, and Paragraph 6.5 raises the question about the units being offered to the market properly. So, it raises the point, it's quite dangerous to move the trigger point, because you might end up at the end of it, as I think Councillor Benham said, very close to the house is being built, and then, oh, they're not built. Oh, dear, what a shame. And basically, developers always try maybe to get out of things that they don't want to do. So, is this the end game to renege on the agreement? So, I do have a problem. Now, the point you make very strongly is that the 60th unit will be finished by the end of December, let us say, and we are in April still. So, it just doesn't give them much time to build. I take that on board. The 70th unit is much further down the road. So, what this is proposing, I'm very uncomfortable with moving the trigger back to 70 units, but I understand the point you're making about offering a bit more headroom to allow them to actually start building. And I think, basically, what we want to do is to see action on the ground with them starting to build these units, actually, rather than just an empty plot and all the rest that we heard from the parish council. So, I have problems with this first phase. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor dark. Any other? Council's wanting to comment on this first section. I think, Councillor Vane and put it very well. The reason, extremely well, and the purpose of objecting to this is to say to the developers, you've got to take your community of blue. And we don't think you have been taking your community obligation seriously. And it's interesting that we got a report from the officers to say that certainly, initially, there were considerable misgivings about the advertising that had taken place. I think I'm fairly reporting on that. So, it seems to me what the purpose of this is to send a message to bellways, which is this is an important obligation, the community see it as an important obligation. And we don't expect you to find ways of sliding out of your community obligations. So that's the main reason why I think it's important that we deny them this amendment to the trigger. Thank you very much, Councillor Serkis. Any further Councillors wishing to speak on this? Shall we go to the vote then on this, that permission is sought to vary the section 106 legal agreement secured under Planning Commission has gone on 25 February 2021. Planning Commission was for the development phase three, the Abingdon Mando site for 75 dwellings allotments and workshops. Development included affordable housing and eight dwelling strictly for those of the age of 55. The proposal seeks the following amendments to trigger, which is, yes, I know we're only voting on the first one, which is to trigger the delivery of the workshops. If the agreement currently requires that there are workshops by the 38th unit, the proposal is to amend this occupation to the 60th residential unit and be submitted to the application originally sought to amend the 70th residential unit. All those in, we need a proposal and a seconder for this motion. I'm not sure, do we need a proposal? It's a recommendation, this is a recommendation, but it's just a bit splitter into two. I know, this is the first of your two motions, so I think we need a proposal in the second. I think it's a crucial thing, I think, whilst historically we've done it one way, I think the advice of the monitoring officer that even if we're voting on a recommendation is printed, we should have a proposal in a second. Perhaps that's, we can take that away as a separate point to discuss, but that's the advice we've got and I just think for the purpose of efficiency of the meeting, it will be beneficial to do so. I think the hard kind proposal is second, it's nice to speak to you. Oh, I'm happy to propose it, if there is then someone who believes, thank you very much. All right, yes. Okay, all those in favour of this application to amend for the, yes, to amend the trigger for the past workshops I've published. Okay, all those against. All those are saying. So we need an alternative motion. Yeah, so we need an alternative motion. Okay, Chairman, why do we need an alternative motion? This is a proposal that's come to the committee to amend the status quo. And we've said, no, we're not going to amend the status quo. So we need a motion to refuse then, or maintain those, an alternative trigger or retain the existing trigger. Okay. So just propose to return. So what is it that you would like to do as an alternative? Yeah, I propose that the trigger for the construction of the workshops stays as it exists currently under the section 106 agreement. That's it. Is there a seconder for that motion? Right. All those in favour of this motion? All those against? Any abstentions? Anyself? There's a lot of motions here. Okay, there's that motion is carried. Thank you very much. Can we now discuss the removal of the requirements to provide eight dwellings as over 50 housing only? Yes. Yes. Yes. Who would you like to speak on this? Councillor Nill. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'm generally supported this, but I'm wondering if we could condition it to say that the house should be marketed purely to local buildings. For a period of time, perhaps three months. Sorry, six months? Six months? Okay. Six months? Six months. I think there's a game show in here, aren't you? I think six months. Six months, so it would be exclusively to live for as six months, if we're allowed to do that. Yes. I've already heard that. Fine. I'm sorry, Councillor Fisher. I'd like to amend that suggestion to be marketed to people with local connections and/or, first-time buyers for a year. Yes. I think we need to be mindful about the delivery of homes, and obviously if there are people out there that meet the criteria you suggest them, I would hope that they would come forward in six months. I think we don't want to sterilise a site from coming forward for homes, when we have a general need for homes in the district anyway, not withstanding any local need. So I think six months is probably the maximum period that I think would be reasonable. Thank you. Ask a question, we had a development in West Chiltington, called Jay's Wood, which was inspired by and moved forward by the Paris Council in order to provide housing for people who wanted to scale down in terms of their accommodation. So it was restricted to local people in West Chiltington. I can't remember whether, I don't know whether our officers can help with this, whether it was six months or a year, but purchases for a period, and as I say, I can't remember six months or a year, were limited and restricted to people who lived in the parish. I don't know whether, I suppose that's going to be too expensive. I'm afraid Council said, I don't call the individual wording with individual planning application. I think my comment around reasonableness in six months still stands. Obviously if members consider a year as reasonable, that's entirely with you, but I think we have a general need for a shortage of housing in the district. So I think if there were generally nobody that met that criteria, we would want to open it up to others who may well still need a home. Thank you. Now, I'm sorry, you must forgive me, but being a lawyer, I asked these sort of questions, but what precisely do we mean by six months? Do we mean? My meaning will become apparent. It does take some time for the conveyancing process to go through. Does the transaction have to be completed within six months, or is it sufficient that an offer has been accepted, or that contracts have been exchanged? When we say six months, what exactly do we mean in what needs to happen within those six months? If we're restricting it to first-time purchases and local restaurants. Generally speaking, it's the marketing, so they would have to market it. And as part of the legal agreement, we can secure the details of the marketing. So they'd have to market it to that audience for a six-month period. And obviously, if then, there was subsequently property still available, that provision would then enable them to market it more widely. Right, so it's the date when the marketing changes. Thank you. I think it's just been touched on there really, with this company, isn't the best at perhaps advertising. I wondered if it could go into sort of the legal agreements with them about how those conditions are, how they do advertise to the local connections and the first-time buyers. Thank you. There will be clauses within the legal agreement that detail the marketing to be submitted to us and approved. And as my colleague said, generally speaking, obviously when it comes to the workshops, we will consult environmental health. If it comes to any local connections, we would likely engage our housing colleagues in terms of what's appropriate to meet that audience, and then approve that as an obligation as part of the legal agreement. Thank you. Yes, it's back to definition. So we've had six months. The other one is local. We've had Councilor Fisher suggested people who have local connections, so that could be family living there, or have lived there in the past. Councilor Serkis has mentioned people who live in the parish. What about people who live just outside parish? I would have thought we could widen it from purely people who live within sort of spitting distance of the pub in the centre, or whatever the measurement is. Maybe to the district as a whole. Well, I suggest that these are very detailed points here, and I think we have had this sort of obligation in legal agreements before, but it may be an option for members to delegate approval subject to consultation with local members, chairman, chairman, so we can bottom out the precise details. I think there's a general understanding of what wants to be achieved, but I think we would have to look at perhaps previous legal agreements in terms of exactly what provisions we've used to to present in confidence what that wording would be. And I just don't have that information before us today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any further comments on this one? Can I just ask that it involves consultation, not just with more members, but also with the parish council? Are you happy to turn out? I've never known an occasion where we've involved a third party, generally, within the decision-making process, because it is a decision of the council. I think it's, you know, if we wanted to inform the engagement, or members did as part of that, then that's fine, but I don't think it should be part of the formal resolution, because it's a decision of the district council. I can go through board members. Yeah. Yeah. It can be consulted, but not because of the actual formal decision-making process. Councillor Trollert. So far, this is the first time I can think of since being elected and looking at planning, that we're having this restriction of only local members. I can understand that in the context of houses on Jersey or Guernsey, or very restricted communities, you might say, yeah, you have to sell to a local first. And only then can you sell to a, I don't know, a Chinese multinational or whatever. But I just am a bit surprised that in the rest of us, we're talking about local community only. It doesn't strike me as necessary. It's normally a context of chairing. That's sort of thing. And it trickles down, you know, the armed forces in there and that sort of thing. So, and it's very normal for a housing department to be to grapple with these concepts of hierarchy. It's just where you want to draw the line, really. And that's, I think, because it's at the level of detail that you can go into. That's why really it's something we worked up outside the scope of this meeting. Well, I'm concerned to me, I'm slightly more educated. Thank you. I can't create a motion. But Councillors, just referring back to my previous suggestion, obviously, if you were, if you wish to delegate approval subject to the wording, then that would have to be a motion put forward by members and seconded before it could be voted on. Thank you. I can't do it. So, do I have a motion? Is anyone happy to put forward something on this? Thank you very much, Councilman. Great. Yes, so, so I moved that we approve this subject to a six month period where it would be marketed to people with local connections to be defined in consultation with local members. Sorry, and all first time bias still. Sorry, just to clarify, I think the purpose of Councillor Miole's motion is to delegate it subject to the final wording. So, I think we can certainly minute the details of that and reflect on that as part of that delegation process in consultation with local members. Thank you. Is there a seconder for this? Councillor Lambert. Thank you. Shall we take a vote? So, the permission to sort of vary the legal agreement to remove the requirement to provide eight dwellings as over 50s only housing. Do we have to vote on that first or do we vote? So, we're voting on the alternative motion, which is as proposed by Councilman and seconded by Councillor Lambert to provide a six month period for the properties to be marketed to people with local connections or for and/or first time bias before being opened up to the wider community. There's in favour. And wind and delegated to local members. That's good. That's passed. Thank you very much. There is no where to visit. You're reliving it. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I'm concluding the meeting at 1946. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.