Transcript

Good evening everybody and welcome to this evening's Planning Applications Committee. I'm Councillor Joanne Simpson and I'm Chair of the meeting. In line with legislation, committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Officers, visiting ward members and members of the public have joined us either virtually or physically. This meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live. The recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for quality and training purposes. Whilst we hope everything runs smoothly, please be patient if we hit some challenges in this virtual environment. In the event that technical issues require the meeting to be adjourned and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes, further updates will be posted on the Council's Democracy Twitter account which is at LBL Democracy. Some housekeeping, the fire exits are you exit the either door and up the stairs to street level. There's an accessible toilet just on the right hand side out of that side and out of that door there. And there'll be a comfort break at around 9pm if the meeting is still going. We've received apologies from Councillor Martin Bailey. I'll now introduce the members of the committee starting with Councillor Jaffa. Councillor Saliha Jaffa, I'm from St Martins Ward. Councillor MNI, Councillor from Knights Hill Ward. Councillor Malcolm Clarke, Councillor in Scretton Wells and Vice Chair of the committee. Councillor Dio Costal, Oval Ward. Councillor Scott Ainslie And I'm Councillor Joanne Simpson. I represent Stockwell West Stirlport Ward and I am Chair. I'll now turn to introducing the senior offices of this evening's meeting, starting with our presiding officer. I'm an assistant director in the planning service and I'll be a presiding officer this evening. Thank you. And our backup presiding officer and all the other capacities that you're here today. Good evening. My name is Jennifer Walsh. I'm backup and also I'm the area team manager for Brixton in Clapham. Thank you. And our democratic services officer. Hi, I'm Venetia Mishri. I am the democratic services officer. Our legal officer. Good evening, Christopher Ellingham, legal officer. Our transport officer. Good evening, Kieran Cochrane, passport policy. Thank you. And the presenting officer for Crescom Gardens. Good evening, George Hutchinson by the Brixton and Clapham central team. Thanks. OK, so the order of business, there are four items on the agenda and they'll be considered in the order they appear. All the paperwork is available on the council's website. We're not having an officer presentation for the item this evening because I think the report officer report is sufficient. However, for members benefit officers do have slides and information available should we have any questions. There are two members of the public who have registered to speak for items on today's agenda. Members of the committee may ask questions of the officers and will then debate the application. Members would have read the officer report and may wish to amend the recommended conditions or place informatics on this decision subject to officer advice. The application will be decided this evening and formal notification of the committee's decision will be sent to the applicants and any interested parties who made written representations. The minutes from tonight's meeting will be published after the meeting. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, two clear working days before the meeting. Item one is declarations of pecuniary interest. Do any members have any declarations of pecuniary interest they wish to share? Thank you. And now item two, which is declarations of other interest. Do any members have any other declarations of interest they wish to share? Yes, Councillor Ainslet. I, for as long as I've been a councillor, have backed the Crescent Gardens People's Plan and been kind of advocates on their behalf in terms of getting the voices heard. So I'd like to declare that, but it's not going to affect me looking at this application. I can, I'd be, you know, purely on its own merits from a planning point of view. Thank you. Item three is the minutes. Are the minutes of the meetings held on Tuesday, the 14th of January and 4th of February, 2025 agreed? Very funny. OK, so our main item, item four, which is the Crescent Gardens application. So I'm going to start by opening up. No, we've got two speakers registered. Apologies. First of all, we're going to hear from Chris. Yes, yes. Good point. Thank you. I'm going to invite the officer before we come to the speakers to just verbally give us an update on the objection that we received. Thank you. So there was an objection received from the. The Crescent Gardens Resident Management Community Interest Group, also known as the Tenant Management Organisation. This was received last Thursday on the 19th of February, and they raised kind of key four points within this objection. The first one was the unsuitability of the site to be used as a reception office or the office cabins for use as a reception office. This was kind of comprised into three main issues. Number one, which was the lack of accessible access. Number two, the risk of the front door obstruction due to parked vehicles adjacent to the site of the office cabins. And thirdly, the fire safety and escape route concerns from the office cabins. And the second main issue was the unsuitability of the site and the proposed site office cabins for use as a depot. Thirdly, the loss of parking spaces and the impact on local traffic and road safety. And finally, the risk of antisocial behaviour. So officers have fully considered all the points raised in the correspondence and have not identified any conflicts with local plan policies or other material considerations that would alter recommendation that the application be approved. OK, thank you for that clarification. OK, so we're going to move on to hear from our registered speakers. I'm going to take them in order that I have them here on my list. So starting with Chris Tabby, who is here in person, I believe. Hi there. So just want to make your way to the table. So I'll ask you to introduce yourself and your relationship to the application. Excuse me, can you communicate to me by chair? Chair. Sorry, can you go back? Sorry. Can you just speak it verbally so we know what you're trying to do? This is the objection that the officer summarised. OK. It has all the illegal references which he hasn't raised. So just thought for the benefit of the committee, it might be useful to have the illegal references in the lab of policies that it affects. I can't be accepting things from the committee at this stage. No. But Venetia had received it and she said she was going to forward it. I don't accept handouts at the committee, I'm afraid. Venetia did not forward this to everyone because I have an email saying that she forwarded it to the officer and she was going to forward it all to the committee members as well. OK, well, first of all, can you sit down and then I'll address your point? Thank you. Can we have a response about clarification about this objection? Yes, we can, chair. So all representations that are received on a planning application are received by the local planning authority. So by the case officer in this instance, the case officer will summarise the objections received and present them to the planning committee. A number of the objections received and an officer response are in the published second addendum. What the officer has done this evening is further amplified and provided members with an overview by way of a verbal addendum, just to give an overview of the key points. In response to legislation, you know, our assessment has been done under the Town and Country Planning Act and other planning legislation. Matters around health and safety and the building regulations are not matters that are the consideration for the planning committee. So anything to do with building regulations would be a matter for the Bill and Control Department. Health and safety would be a health and safety matter that would have to be addressed. But the members are here to assess an application on its planning merits under planning legislation and any other material planning consideration. So, you know, the six page correspondence you have received has been fully considered by the officer team, as Mr. Hodgkinson has explained. And we don't feel any points raised would alter our recommendation to members to approve the officer recommendation to grant. I think what members can do and the process for the planning committee is once the two objectors have spoken, it then moves to member questions. So if members have any questions around any of the points that were raised, such as fire safety, access, loss of parking spaces, impact on local traffic. It is within their gift to ask questions and the officer team are here to respond on that. So that would be the logical flow or sequence for the committee this evening. OK, thank you. I'm satisfied that due process has been followed. We can put a formal complaint in later about the misrepresentation because we've mentioned traffic policy. We've mentioned the national planning framework and the officer here said that none of those are relevant to the planning committee, which seems to be an absolute contradiction to what he's just said. Yes, no, I did not say that the national planning policy framework is not a consideration. That is a consideration. So all all planning policy from the from the MPPF, which is a national planning policy framework, our development plan documents, which is the London plan and the local plan that is addressed in the officer report. So just to clarify, I have not said that national planning policy is not a consideration. What I have said is and this is detailed in in in government guidance. If there is policy, if there is legislative provisions elsewhere, such as building control or building regulations, a matter can be addressed through that legislative provision. So it's not for the planning system to assess building regulations matters. Yeah, no, but like I said, I think there's a misrepresentation because ours, we've tried to focus on the planning things and there's more planning frameworks and traffic policies and local policies and everything else outlined in that documentation. So I would not like the office, the committee members to think that we had only submitted building regulations. What we have submitted is a planning written objection on the planning grounds today. OK, well, I'm satisfied that due process has been followed and the planning matters raise have been reported to us. So I'm going to continue the meeting. And at this point, I just want to remind everybody that this isn't a public meeting. It's a meeting held in public. OK, so I have Chris Tabby in front of me. So how this works is you introduce yourself. Let me let us know your relationship to the application. And Vinicius will then press the timer. It's two minutes when it's when you have 20 seconds left and it will beep to give you warning. And then it will beep a second time when your two minutes is over and I'll ask you to finish your sentence. So whenever you're ready with your introduction and then the timer will start. OK, good evening. My name is Chris Tabby. You speak on behalf of the Criscicum Garden Community Interest Company. I'm the director of estate services engaged to set up and run the resident management organization on their behalf. I have over 25 years of experience. I was a non-graduate in 1997 from real estate in Southbound University. I represent these residents because they have tasked me to voice that they strongly object the proposal to install parking on two parking spaces. I pathwalks and urge the council to reconsider its approach. The first issue, as mentioned earlier on, was the consultation process. This is where the consultation was not formally carried out by the planning of, by, was not formally carried out in line with regulation. A proposal of this nature has a direct impact on resident estate operation and require meaningful consultation, not unilateral decision. The only issue was that the council under the law and the management agreement is expected to work with the resident management organization to provide a reception office and the maintenance. Therefore, in terms of functionality, the port cabins are wholly unsuitable for either of those. The proposal is unclear to us, to the resident, and what is being intended for. If it's intended as the reception office, the accessibility is now met on the Equality and Disability Act. If it's, they were an alternative, the rotunda, which was considered, and the council unilaterally halted the decision to progress with that aspect. Then the, if it's intended for maintenance, maintenance of that nature, which applies to, uh, you would be using port cabins, uh, to carry out maintenance, uh, plumbing. And that is not acceptable neither. Because. For two minutes, I'm afraid if you could just finish your sentence for us. Okay. There are also risks. And what I, I would say is, to finish my sentence, is that the application is not in line with. Real estate or public safety and planning policy. When you look at it properly, I urge the committee to reject this proposal and require Lambeth Council to engage with residents in a constructive dialogue to implement solutions that are genuinely in support of residents and your local operations. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So if you'd like to just return to the audience, um, I now have Erica Sardonate. I think that's how you pronounce it then, but do correct me if I was wrong. Hello there. So again, if you just introduce yourself and your relationship with the application, then your two minutes will begin. I'm here today to strongly object to the proposal installation of water-carbons on our state. estate. Firstly, there has been no proper consultation in our company. As residents, we have a right to be informed and involved in decisions that impact our homes, yet no planning notices were displayed. The report says that only 11 households were sent notifications, I received nothing and I lived right next door. Which households actually received these consultation notices. Were they actually sent? How can this application be considered fair or valid when those who will be most affected were never given a voice? Beyond the lack of transparency, these portacarbons pose serious risks of antisocial behaviour. Their design makes them an easy target for vandalism, rough sleeping and even dangerous activities like climbing and jumping from their roofs. The location right next to an elevated walkway makes access to the roofs effortless, a clear safety hazard for both residents and young people who may be tempted to climb on them. There is no CCTV in the area. Lambert's own policies emphasize the need for safe and secure environments, but this proposal ignores even basic crime prevention principles. Cressing and Gardens deserves better. Since I arrived on Cressing and Gardens, I have been welcomed by the community. The Council must listen to residents and reject this flawed application before it creates unnecessary problems for our state. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, so that's all our registered speakers. So I'm going to open the floor to questions from members. Who would like to ask a question? Councillor Ainslie. Yes, I'd like to just address the... Excuse me, there should have been three speakers. Oh, sorry. Three people registered. Only two people registered. Okay, I'm told there's only two people registered. We have... From the committee clerk. Sandra actually... Did you send an email to India? You didn't send the email? Oh, okay. No, I did. Oh, you did? I sent one in her name. Yeah, it was sent by Andy Plant on behalf of Sandra. Can you confirm the email address for Venetia and you can check that? Yeah, andyplant at lineone.net. It would have been sent on Thursday. I haven't received any emails. Have you checked your junk folder? I haven't got any emails in my junk folder. Sorry, but if I'm hearing from the clerk that you haven't registered, then there's nothing I can do at this moment in time. You'll have to take it with the committee clerk after the meeting. But for the purposes, I haven't got a registered speaker, I'm afraid. Okay, Councillor Ainslie. I emailed... Total transparency, I emailed the chair when I realised that I had been sent the objection letter, planning objections, and I wondered if every other councillor in the committee had got it. As I'm led to believe, the process has been that it was sent to Democratic Services to give to the officer. It doesn't seem as though it's made its way through to everyone. I understand that without... I don't think when they wrote they knew who the actual officer was, so there was no way... Or they knew the name, but they didn't have the email address. So my question is around process and have we gone about... I think it's quite difficult to navigate bureaucratic systems, and I think that just seems to have... Something seems to have gone wrong here. We had the update from the officer, so that's... We've had the verbal update. It's been addressed. Absolutely, yes. In terms of... But what... So my question would be, is where the... Where this residents group that want to take over the management of the scheme consulted? Because I don't see them as part of the consultees on this list. Okay, and can I tag on to that the point that was raised by the second objective about consultation in general? So the tenant management organisation themselves, they're not a required consultee. This one. Consultation, all necessary neighbour consultations, or all necessary neighbours were consulted in line with the statement of committee involved. In terms of what the objective said in terms of the site notice being displayed at the site, and given that the... Given the size of the development, and also the fact that the site does not fall within a conservation area, it was not considered necessary to add a site notice for this one. Just standard neighbour letters were the correct way. So can you confirm that the statutory duty has been followed? So regardless of whether we think it's enough or not, that is the statutory duty. Councillor Ainslie. So there was also another question from the second objector around, if someone lives directly opposite and they didn't receive a letter, which 11 addresses did receive the letter? Or the notification? Well, I think I think the question is, I don't think we need to know the numbers of the houses that we were notified, but can you confirm that the necessary addresses in terms of the council's statutory duty have been consulted in terms of proximity to the development? So it's the two properties directly to the east on Chandler's Way, the foot number 1 and 2. The properties directly east on Scallum and Manor Walk number 2 and number 4, by the looks of this. The properties to the north of that, the road is not actually specified here, numbers 1, 3, 5 and 7. And then properties further north on Longford Walk number 18 and number 16. And then a property to the left on Path View A, which does not state on the map specifically. We're just reading off a map where we've mapped the addresses that have been consulted. We're not reading off the precise addresses, we're reading off from the location. Yeah, I don't think we need to know precise addresses, it's whether the statutory duty has been followed in terms of properties in proximity. Okay. Just have a reminder of what the statutory duty is. Sure. Sure. When I've had applications in my ward, I'm pretty sure that the reach and letters are one, comprehensive and two, slightly wider. It seems as though the numbers seem to be a little bit random. Chair, I can come in. So, Councillor Ainslie, you're probably aware we've discussed this before. The Council has a statement of community involvement. And when it comes to the plan making on planning matters or decision making on planning applications, it sets out the minimum requirements for the local planning authority. So, that is something that takes the statutory duty and applies it to Lambeth. So, for major applications, we will publish a site notice, we will send letters to neighbouring properties and often we will publish a press advert as well. For non-major applications, we will take a proportionate approach. So, for an application of this nature, which is a minor application, the duty is to consult all neighbouring properties sharing a boundary with the application site. So, we are fully satisfied that all immediate properties sharing a boundary wall with these two car spaces were consultants. So, we have met both the statutory requirement and the Lambeth requirement in the statement of community involvement. As you said, you know, you may have some experience with any award where there's a wider reach of neighbouring letters sent. It is very much on a case-by-case basis and it is proportionate to the nature and scale of the application. So, as an officer team, the advice to members is we have met minimum requirements both from a Lambeth perspective and from a statutory perspective. So, I don't take questions from the floor, I'm afraid. No, I'm sorry. This is not a public meeting. I don't take invasions from the floor. Thank you. Any other questions from members? Councillor Clarke. What assessment was made by officers of the amenity use for, you know, I guess, inside the cabins or for its desired use? So, in terms of what the application has actually applied for, they've applied for it to fall under use class EGI, which under the use class order classes as officers to carry out any operational or administrative function. As a part of the application, they have also potentially included the idea of using it for minor storage. We believe this could be done and similar to the office use if on a very, very kind of small scale. But that is something that the African kind of hasn't necessarily specified in terms of whether it is just that one uses office use or also if they wish to have storage in order to produce on there, which would fall under class B8. That's it. Kosti, did I see your hand? No, I did. Sorry, Councillor Ainslie. Yes, so the council's made the application and they are aware of the TMO being set up and they seem to be trying to help that process continue. Whilst I hear that there's no statutory requirement to consult, what about the common sense idea to consult? If there's a genuine desire there for the council to facilitate and meet the needs of the TMO, forgive me, but I just wonder why it seems to be common sense that you would kind of work things out together, including a whole range of issues that will probably come on to accessibility, suitability and the use of existing buildings, which it's quite an accessible building, the Rotunda. So how much has the council investigated those possibilities? Sorry, I don't understand your question, what possibilities are. Draw a line under the consultation because we've had the response of that and we may have our own views about whether it would have been common sense to consult the TMO, but it's not a statutory requirement. So we're going to have to part that, but we can have our opinions about it, but we're not going to get any other answer. We've had our answer. But what was your question about what's been investigated? Sorry. I don't know. I wondered if the officers wanted to answer my question. That was all. Sure, I can come in on that. So part of the correspondence, Councillor Ainslie, that the TMO have sent on does talk about potential use of the Rotunda on the Crescent Gardens as a site office or as a location for operations. That isn't a matter for consideration by the committee tonight. You are being asked to consider the installation of two office cabins and when you're looking at the planning issues that that raises, alternate office provision isn't one of those. So you're not being asked to consider the use of the Rotunda. Thanks for the closure. Thank you, Geoff. This is a temporary arrangement to remove those existing car parking. So what happens after three years? Would they go back as car parking places or people will forget about it? Yes. So on that one, the permission lasts for three years. So as soon as the permission has lapsed, this we have added a condition on the on the Second Amendment that basically the ground needs to be put back to the condition it was in and all the office cabins removed. If they wished for permission to be extended beyond that three years, we would have to have an application forthcoming to support that. OK, so Councillor Costa and then Councillor Clarke. Yeah, just clarification from what Councillor just said in the condition that was in. So does that mean that after the cabins have gone, does it have to be repainted parking spaces? Or do we assess how, what is the markings like before the cabins go in? I think as far as I'm aware, it would be just returned to the state that it is in before the cabins were installed. Councillor Clarke. Just clarifying because we've got in the first addendum condition four, which talks about a period of three years from the date of installation of any cabin. So and this application has X number of years to be, is it three years? I forget how long. So are we saying by approving this that theoretically it could be a period of six years in total, up to a maximum of six years? Because it could be that it could take two to three years for this to come. I'm not saying that is, but I just wanted to get that clarification that this is giving that length of permission. So the standard kind of the first condition which has been applied to the application means that the permission, the development must be began no later than three years from the date of the decision notice. But then the addendum in condition four means that once the cabins have been installed from that date, they have to be removed within, or can only be there for a matter of three years from that date and then must be removed following that. So I guess my question then is why have we got this period of three years? Why is it three years versus any other, any other time? Because I'm assuming there is a reason behind the applicant wanting it for a particular timescale. So I was just trying to understand why the wording in condition four is about three years from the date of installation. Well, I assume that there is a particular purpose in mind. I just asked for the slide for a temporary permission. I still acknowledge, I think that there are some discussions that need to go on. They don't know how they can get the cabins in place and therefore don't want to strip themselves too much. They would like a temporary permission but don't know when they can start start start on site as such as yet. Councillor Ainslie. In the planning objection, residents have said that the use of the water cabins isn't quite correct in the officer report because it talks about rent collecting etc. Why is there a discrepancy in that? They say that the officer report is incorrect to say rent will be collected and rent arrears will be claimed in and out of those port-a-cabins. I think it's section 4.2.3 of the... Are you saying that the use class is incorrect because of that description? Well, I'll come to that but I'm just wondering why there's a why there's a discrepancy between and this is gets back to the point of why talking to each other might have helped. I'll come to the use part but just in terms of the way that the description is listed it seems as though there's different expectations around what that building will be used for even if it is as the use class is or the space. Okay, you could explain what's the planning matter within that. Yeah, I think that maybe the issue here is we can basically only go on the information that's been provided to us by the applicant which is Lambeth in this case. I believe there is one or two of the roles that the tenant management organisation performed that they informed us that they perform that potentially they don't perform which is the collection of rent. But as I say we can only go in the information which has been provided to us by the applicant and that is the information that they provided to us. What's your question about the use class? So the use class is office but not machinery, not maintenance. Am I right? I think I am, yeah. So this is purely a building that will or temporary structure that will be there just to deal with. I suppose what I'm getting at is that if it is office space and it's got a lot of details and information, how secure is it? How secure would a cabin like this be? I guess that's my question. I know it's not a material planning consideration but I'm just trying to bring some common sense here if I may. Security of design is a planning matter so yeah we could have an answer. In terms of the security of the site we have kind of assessed the application in line with Q3 which is the main policy in terms of security on site and we basically believe that the application does comply with policy Q3 in this instance. We haven't thought it necessary to consult with here by design on this one just given the size of the development itself. That's kind of something we would do for more major applications in this instance. But we have assessed against policy Q3 although it doesn't necessarily mention this within the officers report and see that there will be no issues in terms of crime and safety. Thank you. One more questions then I want to move us on to a debate. Councillor Ainslie. So with the question of accessibility we've just had some equalities impact training. They seem to be suggesting that there's a step up, a steeper ramp is required. What consideration has been given to accessibility and escape from fire which is something that regularly comes up in this committee? Can we just have some reassurance around those topics or some answers to those concerns please? Yeah of course and so I'll start with in terms of accessibility. The African has confirmed that the cabins will be installed with appropriate accessibility measures including a ramp and handrails. I think the plans don't necessarily demonstrate this but this is something that we could request and add to the plans if necessary. In terms of fire safety and emergency escapes and things like that and the kind of the size the maximum permissible occupancy of the cabins and the travel distance from the cabins to the exit door means that a single the the office cabins are only installed with a single exit door but this is considered adequate for safe evacuation. And then in terms of compliance with approved document B, fire safety. This will be met for different use of fire resistant materials, clear signage and fire prevention measures. Okay thank you. Final question. Can I just have some clarity on that because I mean we see a lot of applications coming to the committee where buildings that were signed off some years ago have had to be adapted to have two escape routes from each structure. Does that not apply to all of? Just a certain height. Just what? Just a certain height. Okay so if there was a fire outside the door and there was no other escape routes that what what mitigation is that? I think what Councillor Simpson has said there in answer to your question around second staircase or stair course that is for higher risk buildings over 18 meters in height. So you often see those kind of schemes come before this committee and we've briefed you on fire risk and the fire risk mitigation measures put in. This isn't that type of building. I have spoken with building control colleagues. It wouldn't require building regulations application. I think what we're looking at is are we satisfied that the proposal presented to us would address what we feel as reasonable measures to address fire and officers are satisfied with that. I suppose you could hypothetically say what if someone was to you know was to start a fire outside an entrance door that could happen throughout the borough in multitude of doors. You know I'm sure you know the buildings would be fitted with fire extinguishers and measures like this to address it but we don't see it as as a matter that would would cause any kind of any policy conflict. Final question Chair if I may. I can't remember there being any mention of the fabric of the building. Is it a wooden thing? Is it a metal thing? Is it a combination of materials? What? Unless I've misread the papers I don't think I've seen any detail on that. It will be formed in steel and the plans do say that they are fire rated. So are they like shipping container sort of things? They're kind of just a standard water cabin makeup. They're kind of grey galvanized steel grey slash green appearance. Is there any wood in that wood? No, no wood. What's the roof made of? The same. It's all the same material throughout the container. OK, thank you everybody. I'm going to open up to the application. If needed. Would anybody like to go first with their thoughts on the scheme if they have any and perhaps indicate how they will be voting? Councillor Clarke. Thank you. I've been reassured by the officer comments around some of the matters that raised us late objections and at today's meeting. And so from a planning perspective, I can see no issue that would cause me to not support this. I do think that it's unfortunate that the applicant isn't here today, hasn't presented. And I think that that goes to some of the other the other non planning matters that have been presented around. A consultation that is, I say, not planning matters and said from a purely a planning perspective. Thank you. Any other contributions? Councillor Ainslie. Yes, I appreciate the verbal addendum, the update of the planning objection and for outlining that. However, I agree with Councillor Clarke. It is disappointing that the applicant isn't here to speak to their application. So I think it's a bit of a concern around the council consulting that need working out with residents is a concern, but I note it's not a material planning consideration. But it is, I just think in these times of austerity and we've got to be careful with public finances that my instinct is to go back to the drawing board on this, consult with the KIC and come up with an alternative plan for meeting the needs. Of this tenant management association. Yeah, that's so I'm likely to go against officer recommendations and just ask for it to be reconsidered. OK, so we have to assess the planning application in front of us, so on what grounds, what planning grounds and policies do you find the application unacceptable? It would be around the planning process. It would be around the planning process. I don't think I've seen that many small sites come to planning committee. This is the first small site that has come to committee since I've been in on it. It does seem as though it's been an open goal to communicate with with with the residents about what working together with the council to come up with what is required. That's your specific question. I haven't got a list of what policies I'm looking at to turn it down on. So that would be that would be my main consideration, along with the the fire risk one. So yeah, that's that's that's that's what I've done it down on. I know I know I know I look up I could pull up the planning policies here and give you a list. Perhaps if you want to come back to me, but that's that's my findings. OK, so the planning policies that which it's been assessed against when appendix to. Um, I mean. I think perhaps with my summary, we need to be careful when we're going to refuse planning applications that they're refused on solid policy grounds. Um, not issues regarding process where process has been duly followed. So it would need to you need to come up with what is it against the fire policy that it doesn't comply with. And the opposite of advice is that it does. Um, we've been told it complies in transport policies, design policies, amenity policies. So you would need to come up with an actual policy that the application doesn't comply with, which would stand up at appeal. Um, so you know, we can't be indulgent on this committee. Doesn't all decisions need to be sound and based on planning, um, um, policies and matters. Um, so we need to Q2 it's not, it's not, it's not meeting what it's it's set out to meet. So it's not really tying in with what the community wants. So I would say sticking to the straight jacket of appendix to what panel planning policies I can cite. It would be Q2 amenity. It's, it seems as though. Uh, that is the, the planning policy consideration. They bring amenities. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Right. So my summing up is, um, I think the application does comply with the development plan and all relevant planning policies. Um, I don't see, um, any grounds for, um, refusal for this application. Um, I do think it's disappointing that the applicant, um, um, hasn't perhaps better liaised with the TMO. Um, and I think that's been noted by committee. Um, and whilst it's not a statutory duty for the, um, TMO to have been consulted. I think that probably that they should, they should have been, but I, I do take officers, um, advice that it's not statutory. Um, so I'd be interested in, um, what the officer meant when, um, you advise about the ramps and handrails, um, not being shown on the drawings, but that they could be added. Would that, how would that, how would that be? Would that be like amending? That is a condition and request additional words with those details. Okay. Yeah. I think let's do that. Okay. Could I just come in on one point, um, just beforehand? Um, well, two things actually, just one on consultation. Um, I can't speak for colleagues, uh, who made the application, who are in our housing team, but it's my understanding that they were in liaison with the TMO. That is another part of the council, naturally. It's not a local planning authority, but I, I'm, it's, I've been led to believe there had been a dialogue. So I, I think just to get out on the record that I, I, I, you know, there has been some discussion that has took place, uh, in terms of the TMO not being consulted, and just to put this out to, to members of the TMO who are in attendance. If you wish to get in touch with the local planning authority and make it known that you would want to be consulted on all future planning applications, we're happy to put you on a list of consultees and any future applications. You will be consulted. So just in terms of process, more than happy for that. Thank you for clarifying that because we've been in existence for five years and no one ever consults us. So we didn't realize we had to make the request given that we are officially occupying some of the buildings already. We've had yellow lines erected in the driveway, no consultation whatsoever. And now with these, um, the port cabins, you know, wanting to have been installed, that reduces the parking spaces for the residents who pay. We're just talking about the consultation. I understand, but we can't be consulted. This is what I'm saying. But yeah. So if you follow Mr. Sullivan's advice and contact him, um, or officers and specifically have to be put on that list, then that won't happen again in the future. But in terms of committee, what we're considering, there's been no breach of statutory duty. So I can't consider this, um, it's outside of our remote, I'm afraid. So, um, subject to the amended condition for as set out in the, um, addenda and the additional condition six, um, that was reported by, um, um, verbally from the officer and an additional condition, which requires the details of ramps and handrail on the, um, approved plans. I'm going to propose that we follow officer advice and, um, approved planning permission. Do I see a seconder? Yes. Councillor Jaffa. Thank you. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Um, okay. So that's one, two, three, four, five. Um, all those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Ainslie. Okay. For the benefit of those at home, those that voted in favour were councillors Costa, Clark, Simpson, Nye and Jaffa. And those that voted against were councillor Ainslie. Okay. That concludes the planning committee this evening. Thank you ever so much, everyone, for your time. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.