Transcript

We will see you next week.

Thank you. Welcome, everyone. I'm Councillor Cressette, chair of the planning committee. Limited public seating has been made available. However, this meeting is also being webcast to allow the public seating area is not in view of the camera used to webcast this meeting. If the continuous fire alarm sounds, please evacuate the room and public gallery by the stairwells. Do not attempt to use the lifts. And please assemble by Queen Victoria's statue in Guildhall Square. In order to comply with the Guildhall trust fire marshal regulations, anyone who signed in at the Guildhall reception desk should sign out when leaving the building at the end of today's meeting. So may I draw everyone's attention to the fact that this meeting will be live streamed. Everyone speaking via a microphone will be on camera, including those making a deputation. Members of the press and public are also permitted to record the meeting on the understanding that it neither disrupts the meeting nor records those stating explicitly. They do not wish to be recorded. Please can everyone use the microphones and remember to switch them off when you are finished otherwise the camera will remain on you. If there is any voting, please keep the hands raised clearly until the number of votes has been stated. OK, let's make some introductions if we start with the committee. Good morning, Chair. John Smith, Eastern Crainesville, toward. Good morning, John. Welcome. Good morning, Chair. Mary Vallele, Kopner and Wimmering. Good morning, Mary. Welcome. Rhyme and Dan, Kopner, Ward. Good morning, Raymond. Good morning, Chair, and everyone. Assar Shah, Council for Culture and Wimmering. Good morning, Shah. Peter Candlish, Eastern Crainesville. Good morning, Peter. Cheryl Van Chatsen, Milton. Good morning, Gerald. And if I could ask officers to introduce themselves. Good morning, my name's Kieran Laven, I'm one of the Council's planks listers. Thank you, Kieran. Good morning, Chair Maguire, Assistant Director for Planning and Economic Growth. Good morning, Chair. Anna Martin, Democratic Services. And good morning, Anna. And if I could ask people who are intending to give a deputation this morning to introduce themselves, if I can start with you. Councillor Benedict Swan, Kopner on Anchorage, Park Ward. Thank you, good morning. Councillor Russell Simpson, Hillsie Ward. Thank you. And John State St. Chats Avenue. Thank you, Mr. State. Sorry. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good morning, I'm Councillor Lee Hunt. I represent Nelson Ward, which covers Stanshaw, Chippner, North End and Buckland, German. And I'm here speaking on items number eight. And nine. And I am objecting to those HMOs. Okay. Thank you. Richard Adair, I'm here to object to the items Gladys Avenue and Oil Road. Thank you. Carriane Wells, Agent for Alcohol, representing six of the items on today's agenda. Thank you. Thank you, welcome. Apologies for absence. Councillor smiled. It's not here. Any other apologies from anyone? No. Okay. Minutes of the previous meeting, which are pages five to 12 of the pack. So page five, page six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, 12 is blank anyway. Okay. I shall sign those later to today's substantive business. Oh, yes. Very good question. After a year, I'll go with your hands. Members, any declarations of interest for today's meeting? No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Today's substantive business. Just before we do, I just want to remind members of the committee and deputies that we're here to determine planning applications today. And they must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. So could everyone please ensure that your comments are related to the planning application itself. And we are in the pre-election period, so please avoid making political statements today. Okay. Let's get to today's business. We've changed the order around, which won't surprise regular attendees of the meeting. This is straightforward swap. We're starting with St. Chad's, then moving on to San Jacob Road, and then as published in. Thank you, Joan. 61 St. Chad's Avenue. This is an application for the change of use of a current C3 dwelling house to a dual use of C3 or C4. They have illustrated six bedrooms to come up to that full occupancy of a C4 dwelling house. I'll take it to the plans quickly. So that's the property. Members, I'm sure may recognize it. There it is. No other HMOs in the facility of the search, meaning this is a one point, which is under 2% mix of HMOs into the area. That is the existing floor plan. They have undertaken or are in process on taking a three meter rear extension under permitted development. And alterations to the roof to provide some additional floor space there. You can see six bedrooms labeled and one lounge labeled as well as a combined kitchen diner. All of those rooms. So you can see that's the works when last visited and there is the rear extension and dorm window. All of those rooms, and I'll leave you with that, are in excess of our adopted standard guidance. 10 metres, enabling a 23.2 metre kitchen diner to exceed the 22.5 metre minimum requirement and obviously the lounge being an additional immunity with the current layout. I referenced with the current layout as members may recall that they previously looked back in August. I think that says August 2024 on there. I think August 23. That a seven bed used with that lounge was a bedroom. And that was refused due to concerns about drainage capacity in the area and also because at that time they hadn't been adequate resolution to resolve. The need to mitigate impacts on the SBA which is members know we usually manage through legal obligation and conditions post consent. This kind we have made sure we've got some further up and additional comments from southern water which we summarised in paragraph 3.4 and we've in fact attached their entire response to the SMAT for your reference to confirm that there are no concerns with the drainage capacity associated with this C4 use of the dwelling. So there is a slight difference six beds shown here compared to seven beds previously for the one that was refused by this committee. And with those comments in there and in line with the officers report, the recommendation plan permission be granted with appropriate conditions for clarity. And the advice of that seven bed refusal is currently under appeal but we don't have a decision for that yet just so that members are aware of the administrative position of amount. Of course, happy to take any questions. We have a number of public speakers as you've noted, Jim. Thank you. Mr. Mallory. Over to you. Oh, do you want to go? Okay, six minutes. Thank you very much. Firstly, can I make these pictures available to the land? Firstly, good morning chair and members of the planning committee. Sadly, here we go again, despite there being over a hundred objections being received against this in the previous application for either six or seven bed HMO at number 61. This included objections from Cliffdale's school, which is a school of special educational needs, which I'll recall rent to two pages in length. The two NHS centres, a child development centre and a family development centre on concerns of increased parking and traffic and therefore access. I do have some sympathy with the council's position of having to provide suitable boats within the city as well as looking after the needs of the populace. I'm definitely a difficult balancing act. I can understand that you must hear a lot of this and the risk of starting to convey to you my bingo. Portsmouth is United Kingdom's only island city and is the second most densely populated city in the UK after London. According to the Office of National Statistics of 2021, it is also the 13th most densely populated place in Europe and yet there are just 39.5 GPs per 100,000 patients in the NHS Portsmouth's CCG area, the lowest rate in England coupled with the seventh worst provision of dentists in the UK according to the Association of Dental Groups. You can't help but think increasing the number of HMOs in the area would only exacerbate this. This development itself all done under the ages of permitted planning rules has resulted in the loss of another three-bed family home in the construction, a totally out-of-character large HMO, a small three-bed home becoming a guaranteed six, seven-person occupancy. Why not limit this to four? All we can see is replacing a long-term residence with a transient population. This was a family home which apparently the city also needs. Although apparently not as much as HMOs, the families in B&B accommodation may disagree with this line of thinking. According to the Council's own supplementary planning document SPD on HMOs and I quote, The geographic constraints of Portsmouth streets consisting of densely built Victorian terraced houses means that the conversion of these terraces to HMOs can create problems for the community cohesion and sustainability. Furthermore, the increase in the HMOs in the city is let a lower availability of much needed family housing in the city, your statement not mine. If this application for this development is not allowed to go ahead, I fail to see how any family home is safe from conversion. In fact, using the HMO data count, four more would most likely follow if this were passed as the properties become available, increasing the population density even further. This application should not be taken in isolation. A constant theme with HMO development is the displacement parking caused is apparently no concern. The allocation of a six, seven-bed HMO, an allocation of just an extra 0.5 of a car is frankly visible. Over time, the parking in the area has become more and more challenging, broadly in line with the increase of HMOs west of London, road in Shadwell, no for road, etc. One wonders at what level of population density the planning committee will begin to consider this to be an issue. The Southern Water Report, which I believe Ben will be covering later. Last time suggested a risk of flooding. The latest version apparently does not. I find this interesting that fails to mention the recent event on the Junction St. Chads and Randolph Road, of which I believe there will be some graphics later. I would therefore like to challenge that report's accuracy, especially a desktop study does not quite reflect the lived experience. I will be interested in what, if any capacity planning is undertaken, especially as the number of HMOs in the area will increase if this is passed. What is the capacity limit of the current infrastructure? Do the wishes of the residents carry any weight as that what happens within their community? At present, everything feels slanted in favour of some very confident developers. I would press head with building works, sounding the knowledge that the chance of refusal is thin. Approval where priorities appear to be maximised in the revenue over the living standards of their occupants and the effect on the local community. This does not sit well with me and other residents. Hopefully, you've got sight of the photograph I've pushed around some of you have actually seen this before. This is actually the result of that particular piece of development. It can be right that this can be done to a family and not least because of the effect upon the residents, many of them elderly. Where is the fairness and balance to all of this? Will the weight of constituents' objections ever be enough to prevent this type of development? Thank you very much. Mr. State, Mr. Murray. Good morning Chair and members of Planning Committee. I would like to start my objection with a little background proposed to the proposed change of use from 61 St Chads Avenue Portsmouth. I bought my house which backs on to 61 St Chads following my discharge from the Royal Navy in 1991. We bought our house because of its location and previously both from behind the property to the left and to the right it was very quiet area. The house in question 61 St Chads was previously owned by a lovely couple who have both sadly passed away. Everything was fine and dandy in our house until last year when our lives were shattered by the commencement of the development which is now taking place in 61 St Chads. My main concern is that the lack of consideration by the developer or the builder regards to the party wall act which we have had no formal interaction with the developer or the builder regarding the rear wall which divides our properties following the demolition of the rear of the old store that used to be at the bottom, the roof. I am also concerned about the privacy that we have lost in our rear garden due to the size of the development. I should also point out that the proposed bathrooms in this new building do not have obscure glass and windows. Neither me nor my family want to watch other people doing their ablutions whenever they please. It is also worthy of note that the rear extension now obscures light into the adjoining property at number 59 St Chads Avenue and it is again worthy of note that the rear extension drawing include a side door to the east of the extension. This is a non-existent door as only a window is in place at the moment. The drawing also indicates that the extension will have a sloped roof from the main rear wall to about a third of the way down the extension. This again is not being followed. The rear main wall building itself is of shoddy workmanship. The drawing indicates that the cycle schedule will be placed against the rear wall which by my calculation will be very close to the patio doors leading out to the rear of the property. The issue has still not been resolved regarding how tenants will get their cycles from the front of the house to the cycle shed. It means that they will all have to come bring them through the property. There are other issues that have occurred during this building process with the following cases linked to the property. There was a planning enforcement case opened in July 23 regarding the unsafe gable wall. There was also a building control case opened in August 23. There was a health and safety complaint made in 2023. There was also an environmental health and noise complaint raised in September 2023. And there was a community protection notice S43 issued to the free holder in October 2023 regarding an unsecured site slant waste. I have a couple of pictures which show what the property looks like from the back of our house if anyone would like to have a look at them. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Mallory. Okay, so we have some Councillors who want to talk. Who wants to go first when going to go and cancel this one? Six minutes. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm just going to pass out a photo if I may. I'm speaking in opposition of the application for the now six bed potentially 12 person HMO at 61. The application has already been rejected by this committee. The application hasn't changed and the concern raised with the last application have not been satisfactorily resolved. There are still essentially seven bedrooms, seven toilets exactly as per the last application. We're just expected to accept that somehow by reducing the number of residents of the property by one that it magically erases all the issues previously raised. This really highlights a feeling in the transparency of the policy. I don't think there's one person in the Chamber right now that actually thinks that if this application is granted, we won't be back here in a few weeks to have the same conversation about the application and application to increase the property to seven beds. But the issue I want to highlight today is regarding the Southern Water Report on the flooding in the area of St. Chad's Avenue. In short, the Southern Water Information is incorrect and can't be used as a deciding factor on this application. On the 23rd of February 2024, a serious sewage flood occurred at the junction of St. Chad's Avenue and Randolph Road. For long direct neighbour complaints with Southern Water, particularly from number 59, which is the property directly next to the flood. Southern Water attended to resolve the issues and clean the site. A complaint was also lodged with environmental health as vehicles had driven through the human excrement, as can be seen in the photo. You'll also notice in the picture the children on the way to school as this is on a very busy school run route, not just for Mayfield College Park and King's Academy, but also as we've seen from the submission Clifdale Primary Academy, which is a school for children with complex learning disabilities. The information provided by Southern Water states that there have been no incidents since 2019 within 200 metres, but as you can see, this just isn't the case. This most recent incident occurring approximately 50 metres from the application property. I'm not sure why this flood has not been mentioned in the information provided by Southern Water, but it's clear that the committee's decision on the original application was correct. It should also be mentioned that the attending engineer commented to residents that the issue is due to the Victorian trap system at this point, and that St Chads is not on the list to be updated, meaning with the potential increase of usage due to developments at 61 and others. This incident is going to become more and more of an issue. The property has not changed in any significant way from the original application. The exact same issues that led you to turn down this application before still exist, and with the recent sewerage flooding issues, the previous committee decision on this application has proved wise and correct, and this application should be rejected for the same reasons. Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to present this deportation to the committee. Thank you, Councillor Swan. Thank you, Chair. I won't say too much more on this other than the fact that I think I've mentioned many times about when we get six bedroom HMOs coming in with lounges, they end up coming back a few months later, and it's just really disingenuous when they come in, especially after it's been refused the first time. It's pretty clear that the drainage issue in the area has not been resolved, and the fact that it was refused the first time on that specifically. I think it'd be very irresponsible for the Planning Committee today to allow a permission when that really needs to be fixed. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. As you're all aware, this has been previously refused by this committee for seven persons for generous use. This is currently lodged with the inspector at a weight in the outcome of appeal. As you're all aware, it was refused due to sewage capacity. For this application, southern water have confirmed there is sufficient capacity for the proposal, and further comment that the change of use is very minor at 0.04 liters per second. Therefore, I do not believe this is considered a reason to refuse the application this time round. It's all very well Councillor Swann, stating that he believes there could be 12 persons. If the Councillor Swann was more familiar with licensing, maybe he wouldn't realise that this isn't going to happen because the license would never be allowed for 12 people in this property. All bedrooms meet or exceed 10 square metres. The bedrooms range from 10 square metres up to 14.23. This required to be a layer of six persons when all bedrooms meet the 10 square metres is 22.5, and this has got 23.02 at floor area, plus the additional lounge. An additional WC is also provided at ground floor level for the comfort of the residents, which is, again, in excess of requirement. I've seen photos of the house being, and you've all passed round of it being empty, no roof on it, no windows in it. It's remained empty and mid-bell due to the previously refused fully compliant application, and the owner is keen to finish this development, but he can't do so until he's got planning permission in place. He's keen to provide much needed homes within the city. The application fully complies with Policy PCS-17, PCS-20 and PCS-23 of the local plan. As the officer stated, there are no other HMOs in the raid to be asked, therefore approving this application could be argued to contribute towards providing mixed and balanced community. By providing an alternative housing type within the local area. I've heard mention of bathrooms not having up to your glass. That would never happen. We wouldn't design bathrooms with clear glass windows. Cycles as well, made mention of them going through the house. This property doesn't have rear access, but neither do 90% of properties in Portsmouth. Many people take their cycles through the house, and it's just a way of life of living in a terrorist property. The plan officers fully recommended this compliant application for approval today and asked you to support this recommendation, saving the time and cost involved for taking this to a subsequent appeal. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members? Questions? Ian, are you able to pick up on some of the points raised in the interpretations of my help? Probably a little to say, obviously, in terms of the sewerage issues, we can only go on that, which is recorded. We've got two surface water sewerage issues, which we raised with members last time. I think it was only 9, 1 in 16 for blocked gullies, and obviously this latest southern water report of the 3, 17, 2019, isn't it? When the event has been described more recently, with that falls below a definition for them, it can be a block rather than a capacity issue. They've done their capacity study. That's what a desktop study is, and has satisfied themselves that there is adequate capacity. Obviously, as always, that's subject to it working functionally. We all know sewers can get blocked and cause issues. I'm not qualified to tell you what that photo shows. What caused what he's shown in that photo. The statutory undertaker is satisfied that they can accommodate the foul water from this site, and consequently, we have no better evidence than that to give you. Thank you. Any comments? Members? Councilor Van Jackson? Thank you, Chair. I have to say it's a slightly depressing way to start the day, because I think people have brought up some very good points. As I went through them, it just made me understand how little power we have, and actually, is there any point in having a planning committee when the government has taken all our power away? The number of GPs, they could be none in the city, and that would not be a reason for us not to give planning permission, because the government won't let us look at that. They could be not a single dentist in this city, and the government won't let us say no because of that. The density, all the government is interested in these more density, not lower density, all they want. It's not just both the current government. Councilor Van Jackson, I'm just mindful we're in the pre-election period, so we can keep it material to the particular application. I absolutely appreciate your setting as seen as such. I absolutely can, and if you hadn't interrupted me, if you hadn't interrupted me, I would have given you balance. As I was about to say - I know that we're in at that weird time of the year, but we've dressed through the chair. So, Chair, both the current and future governments are both keen for increased density, not lower density. And I look at this picture of what's being built next door to somebody's house, and it's disgusting. It's disgusting, but it's allowed. With no permission needed from anybody, because the government says that's what they want. And the next government will say exactly the same. So, it really fills me with concern that we have so little power. And lots of people have objected to this, and will be upset, because we are constrained by what we can do, by what planning law says we have to do. And that really upsets me, but it seems to me, last time I think I proposed the refusal because of the sewage issue, because we had an example of something that was material that had gone wrong, and it's come back to us today. And it seems to me that we therefore have no option but to be consistent with our previous refusal because of the demonstrable harm that has been shown by the sewage problems in that area. Now, southern water, as we well know, have a significant interest in their own profits and nothing else, sorry, very, very little else. I think the other material consideration here is the objection from the Battenberg Clinic, from Child Development Clinic on Battenberg, to say that they have significant problems already, and this will make it worse. Therefore, I think on this occasion, and it's unusual, because normally we can't find a reason to say no to something even though we don't like it, on this occasion it seems to me we have two reasons for refusal, which I would put in. One is for the problem of sewage, which is clear and demonstrable and has been evidenced, and the second is the problem of parking, which is going to have effect on the NHS at the Child Development Centre. So for those two reasons, I'm going to propose refusal of this application. Thank you, Joe. Just to provide you some guidance, members, obviously, as we advised you last time this came to a committee, especially now we have a very clear statement. We had non-conclusive statements from southern water that they believe that is a capacity that they can accommodate. There is that risk that that would not be supported on appeal. It is your judgement as it was before, but to update and reconfirm our professional advice to have the further advice in regard to parking that was added there. So your high authority and individual parking standards are clear that there is no policy basis to object to this matter on parking, and I am noted that this was not refused on parking for seven beds. The consistency of now attempting to refuse it for parking for six beds is therefore quite questionable. I think that's useful advice. If we didn't say no about parking with it, it was bigger than saying no to parking now makes our case weaker on being consistent and just doing it on the sewage, I think it lets take your advice. Even though all of us know there are problems with parking, planning inspectors who live in big houses without with drives don't tend to think there's a problem. Okay, Councillor Smith. I'm not sure they can add any more to this from what he said about the sewage capacity already, but they talk about the sewage capacities on the water. But from the pictures and that they've had this blockage issue and there's this thing about the engineer mentioned about the Victorian trap not being up to capacity. I lost a little bit on the timings and dates, but given the fact that this leak happened, they made no reference to it in their report. It seems a bit strange to me that they talk about capacity and I understand that, and I see it on that point, but the pictures show that that happened in a time when this report was being put together and yet there's no mention of it, I find that a bit strange. I know you can't really say that there is nothing say all I can do the only use like invited I'll give you a comment, which was from the last application from our own internal drainage team, who does had to it. They don't have access to southern water flooding reports, so this is where I know about blocked surface water gullies. What he says, as for sewage flooding, I know 61 St Chads is the head of the local foul line, so it would be the place a foul water surcharge would happen if there are no other manholes on this line. They probably use one of the properties, putting something down. They shouldn't be there like wet wipes, fats, oils, grease, etc. So that was a suggestion from the drainage engineer that we have within our PCC infrastructure team. It may well be that that sort of blockage and surcharge isn't defined as a system of flooding. That could be an explanation why it's not on the list. So beyond that, I am purely entering to conjecture. Just to pick up on that as well, members, the point that I think is a bit of an element of the room in terms of evidence is that correlation will not equal causation necessarily in this case. And when they're talking about the imposition of surcharges and things like that, could you actually demonstrate that it's coming from a particular house or that this one house would make it that much worse? I'm just a little bit concerned with that as a reason for refusal. I suppose coming back on that, it would be if it is at the end of the fail line, then that would be the point at which it would be that house would be the one that would get hit first. I mean, I'm a layman, but that might be a point to take in. Yeah, I mean, I think that kind of just underscores the fact that we're speculating a little bit here. Okay, well, we've got a motion that's been proposed for a seconder. Councillor SRI, I think your hands was up first, you're seconding the motion to refuse. Okay. Mr Chairman, if we get to vote, can I just check with Councillor and Jackson, that motion is effectively identical to 1.121 of the report. So, in respect of drainage, rather than anything else, obviously, I think you've walked away from your parking issue. I would also say that 1.1 to 2, the issue where an SPA falls away on this one, because it is a C4 scale they're looking at that is considered to be comparable to a C3, and consequently, we don't require an additional mitigation. So, that additional reason for refusal 1.1 to 2 is not professionally necessary. So, would you just be that paragraph so we know specifically what wording you are voting upon? Chair, I just had a brief comment. I would have picked up some of the points that Councillor Vener Jackson had raised around densification and permitted development rights. And as a cyclist, I fully understand the day-to-day practicalities of carrying your bike from a home without easy access to a road to a place to actually use it, but unfortunately, we can't use those. I absolutely agree, this can only turn on the sewage question, which was the ground on which we rejected it last time. And since that is still going through its appeal, I don't think the difference between 7 and 6 makes a difference to what we should do. And I think the question around southern waters report on capacity, although it does address the issue, capacity is simply the size of the pipe. The real capacity of a site depends on other things, and we've spoken about some of the reasons which might cause this to be a less good one. So, on that basis, although I fear that the result may go against us, resulting in charges being brought against the Council ultimately, I support the recommendation to reject this application. Thank you. Well, we've got a motion in front of us that's been proposed and seconded. Is there anything else, members? No? Okay, we shall move to the vote. Members, those in favor of refusing planning permission, please indicate. Okay, against, propose or abstentions. Thank you. So, planning permission is refused for the reason giving with six votes in favor, none against and one abstention. Thank you, Karen. Okay, Sandringham Road. Thank you, Chair, for Sandringham Road. This is one of four applications on today's agenda, where officers are satisfied plan permission is not required as the change of use of it is not material. This is a change of use from five beds to seven beds. So, under the current MO of the committee, members may wish to consider that fact before discussing any matters of merit. Turning to merit, members will note that this is an area that is already substantively covered in HMO, so that's the property so they can see there. A large number of HMOs in the area already 26.8%, so the merit would be not whether we should have an HMO, it's whether the increase of two occupants from the five bed as well as to the seven bed as is proposed would be materially detrimental to aminacy. Officers are satisfied that that wouldn't be detrimental to aminity in this case. Members may also, if planned business required, wish to consider the layout and size of the rooms that's laid out in the table at paragraph 5.5 in terms of size and the plans can show you the layout. We believe these are all well-sized rooms and, obviously, well in excess of your minimum standards, consequently, it would be a policy compliant application should plan permission to be required, but as noted, we believe it is not, so members may wish to consider that. We did have one object to a Mr White who I don't believe is here, so we only have the agent speaking. Thank you, Carrie-Ann, over to you. As I said, this property is an existing Class C4 HMO, so there's no additional HMOs to add to the HMO density that's already exists within this area. Six persons can lawfully live in the property under the currency for you, so today in reality you're only really considering the addition of one person. All bedrooms range from 10.12 to 14.94, which is, again, in excess of requirement, and the community area is 23.71, again, in excess of requirement. This application fully complies the policy PCS17, PCS20, and PCS23 of the local plan, and also complies with your housing, multiple occupations, supplementary planning document 2019. The planning officer has recommended this fully compliant application for approval today, and I actually support his recommendation. Thank you. Do we think this might need planning permission? Councillor VAN E. Jackson? Chair, can I propose that this needs planning permission? As in this location suffers from significant problems from left parking, anti-social behaviour, and rubbish, and the increased intensity is clearly development, and therefore planning permission is clearly and obviously required. Do I have a seconder, Councillor CANDALISH, and going in first, those in favour of the motion that this requires planning permission? Please indicate. Okay, thank you. That was the unanimous resolution that planned permissions required. Thank you. Members, Councillor VAN E. Jackson? Chair, if this was granted permission to be an HMO last year, if they applied for planning permission, they would have been refused. But it came in under the bar, saying we wanted a certificate of lawful development, i.e., it had been used as an HMO illegally for 10 years or more. Could we know a bit more about what happened there, because I'm concerned that this is somebody getting an HMO approval for a property in an area that's already significantly over capacity with HMOs, and that we would have turned it down automatically if it had come in as a proper planning application? Sorry, I can have a look back through the details, but I think that's in general here, an entirely incorrect characterization of the circumstance of a certificate of lawfulness. If I asked you to prove that your house was a house, you would apply for a certificate of lawfulness, you'd provide me 10 years of evidence that you'd been using it as a house, and I'd grant you a certificate of lawfulness. That's what's happened in this case. This isn't that someone has been unlawfully using a property as an HMO. This could have been an HMO since 1920, for all we know we only have to assess the last 10 years. That's what the law says, so that's what the evidence is provided. So what it was 11 years ago, 12 years ago, it may well have been a lawful 12 years ago, 15 years ago, as I say, 100 years ago. This isn't someone playing the system. This is a historic HMO in your city. They just wanted to certify that they are, in fact, a lawful HMO, and they do that in accordance with the national law, which requires them to have a continuous period of 10 years, and no more, and certainly no less than that. So to characterize this is somehow an unlawful HMO that's found a different way through is just profoundly incorrect. It is an HMO, same as your house as a house, and this guilt tool is a civic building. They'd have to do exactly the same piece. That isn't to suggest that 11 years ago it was an unlawful use of the land. Members, any comments, any other compliance application I can see? Thank you. I'm going to propose that we refuse this on the basis that it shouldn't have been an HMO in the first place, and that, it should have applied to plan of commission, which we would have refused. Therefore, it is not right that it is here. It should come forward as an HMO application to be judged in the normal way. Okay. You'll have to wait to find if somebody wants to second that. I'm going to move the officer's report to grant unconditional permission. It's a fully compliant application, as far as I can see. I think Councillor Smith's seconded that motion. Members, is there anything else? Okay. I think you said that you move unconditional permission. You would normally impose conditions in these circumstances as a committee. And to assist you, having determined that the application requires planning permission, obviously the standard suite of conditions, which we've described within the report, time limit, approved plans, and necessary mitigation for the SBA would all be applied, I'm insane, in the normal way. Thank you for the gentle note. Okay. Yes. So, with the usual conditions in these circumstances, is there anything else? Councillor Shaw. Just actually, I was thinking this is 19 out of 71 properties are HMOs already. And if you add two on each and every HMO that will about 38 more residents will be added to the same area within 50 metres, I know that is for planning is okay. But my point is, if we do add them, why can't we have HMOs more rather than in the same house, is you are making BNB rather than HMO? Well, again, the material planning consideration to the business we're in. And as far as I can see, there's no reason to do anything other than move the officer's report with the conditions that we usually apply. So, unfortunately, I think we all hear you. But I think that's where we're at with this particular application. Councillor CANDIDY. Chair, you've rather stolen my thunder because I was going to say very much the same thing, which is that although this area is clearly saturated with HMOs, and way in excess of the limits which the Council's policy has now set, those rights are grandfathered, and the law is fairly clear, I think, on this, and that we are very likely to lose an appeal if we try and stop it. So whilst I understand the reasons for concern by the local residents about even more, I will be supporting the officer's recommendation. Okay, unless there is anything else, let's move to the vote. Those in favour of granting conditional permission, please indicate. Against. Okay, thank you. So that was four votes in favour of planning permission to three and conditional planning permission is granted. Thank you. Karen, let's move on to 51 Chantwell Road. Thank you, Chair, 51 Chantwell Road. This is a change of use of a C3 dwelling to a seven bed property. It already has planned permission to change from a C3 to a C3 or C4, but they haven't yet implemented it. So it's last for a C3, so it needs to plan permission to change into the proposed seven bed dwelling. There it is, that's the property. As you can see, it's an area, there's a couple of HMOs, so it's just under 6%. That is the existing floor plan. That is the existing elevation, that is the proposed floor plan, that is the proposed and updated elevations. There is the property that members will recognise, for some members undertook a site visit, this side on the 18th of April, following deferral from this committee, for members of the committee attended and has a look at it. Part of the need of that site visit was because the original plans are submitted incorrectly showed the form of that rear extension. As you can see from the photograph, now the matching elevation, it is a flat roof extension. Previously, a picture roof was shown on the extension. It should say the extension doesn't form part of the application you're seeking to be approved, but certainly cause understandable confusion with members. So that has now been corrected within the drawings and obviously the reports. The application therefore comes back for your determination, having that corrected, and members having the opportunity to have visited the site. As you can see, the application room sizes detailed on page 36, which is in the part of the agenda before we repeat the previous report. All room sizes are over or meeting the 10 metre standard with a 25.8 metre communal kitchen diner, which meets your minimum space standards and the layout overall is deemed to be acceptable. I would just add, I know members, when they were looking at this prior to deferral last time, were discussing the windows into bedrooms. Bedroom 2, so that's the middle bedroom on the left-hand image in front of you. There's one that I know was discussed, obviously that is the current living room, and it has a consent to be a living room in the six bed version of the HMO, which is already consented, and consequently being the main habitable room for daytime activity. It has a greater need for daylight and sunlight than a bedroom, arguably does. So that's already been deemed acceptable by this council, both you, the planning committee and the licensing team to that extent. So consequently, while the nature of Portsmouth Terrace Houses and the long-light dwells we see between those rear projections, does mean that there is limited daylight and sunlight on those ground forerooms, and say it is a pretty norm for many hundreds, if not thousands of properties across the city, and is certainly not something that I would recommend justifies a reason for refusal, nor did this committee believe so when that was a lounge providing the main habitable space for residents to enjoy in that sense. So the excuse is considered to be entirely compliant with your policies and recommended for planned permission subject to conditions, as laid out in the early sheets. So apologies for any confusion with the layout. We've given you an addendum report to that which was deferred. So the conditions are provided in the covering report, which is on page 36 and 37 of my bundle at least. We have a written late deputation from Mr Henry Thorpe, which because I was quite sure we just put into the smat, so I draw that to your attention. As a late letter, as you know, we usually summarise those, but as it was sufficiently sought, we've just pasted it straight in for you to read, should you wish. Thank you, Chair. Six minutes to use as you would. Yes, thank you. I'm going to actually read out the – with permission, I'm going to read out Henry Thorpe's what he's written. It's very to the point, mainly because two weeks ago I actually read a deputation on this. I'm very impressed that it's coming so quickly, but Henry – I'll read what Henry Thorpe's written. Can I question the development? Having now that you have visited it, you should be able to appreciate that is over-development of the site. I know actually only one member actually visited it, but that's done. Well, I was only told one. As you are aware, I have campaigned against Soup HMO for a number of years, and this is one – and this is one – is within a couple of meters of my property overlooking my garden. I have had no notification because I'm in the neighbouring road, and it isn't even displayed. You need to control the size of these properties, even given the limitation that is given to you because of permitted development. The report states, 3.3, the applicant has stated that works to extend the property will be undertaken under permitted development without the need to apply for planning permission. These works include a rear dormer and roof lights to the front roof slope. These works are not included in the application. They should not be considered as part of the application. I would count this argument by saying that this is part of the report probably isn't true, and I would also ask if I were a committee member what this means. Are you approving the plans are submitted, or are the plans not approved even if passed by the committee because of the statement? Why is it not assessed by the planning officers as part of the application? The rear part of the building is, I would guess, a post-war extension dropped in the roof ridge height of the rear projection different construction if it is rendered. It is similar to the neighbouring property. Property on one side doesn't have it, for example. If this is the case, the permitted development rights for the property have been used up as exceeded. You are then in your rights as a committee to reject the loft conversion into the rear projection and the ground floor further extension. The building, up to the recent building, incomplete building work, certainly been in place for ten years, so it would get retrospect to planning approval. But it would also invalidate the claims made in the application and give you the ability to control it further. I have nothing more to add. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I am happy to let Mr. Thorpe know that there were four of us there. I don't know why you thought any one. It was definitely four. Yes, my maths is... Maybe we could also slim. With five, actually. Five, sorry. Yeah, I did come. It was just for clarity. It was from nine to ten. It was the open window, wasn't it? I arrived at twenty to ten. So I did get to look at the front of the building and through. To the back, so I could see the point that I had raised. I could see it made it clear to me, but I didn't get to go in, just for clarity. The other four of you had gone at that point, but I did attend the sign. Five of us had the opportunity to see what's happening. OK, thank you. Members? Questions? I think that we looked for a deferral. I was concerned about whether on the first floor there would be an extension which looked like that from the plans we had last time, but that's not the case. So the first floor window is existing. So whatever concern I have, it's the concern that's lasted a hundred and ten years there. And therefore it doesn't fly in terms of a reason to say no to planning permission on that one. So thanks colleagues for bearing with me and coming for the site visit. I have to say I think the lack of light on the ground floor bedroom is difficult. It's a room that clearly used to be a kitchen and will now become a bedroom, but not just a bedroom, but because of our policy, it's big enough that the person's meant to live in there most of the time, except when they're cooking. But I don't know, and I'd be interested to see what other people think, whether that is a strong enough reason for refusal. It is a very different space, having a kitchen than a room that you're meant to be in all the time. And this developer has asked for permission to have a lower standard of communal space, because people who live in these rooms will live in them all the time, except when they're sitting. So I'll be interested to see what other people's feelings are. But it was really very dark in that back bedroom on the ground floor. Yeah. It was a useful visit, wasn't it? Light in terms of materiality. Sorry, that we're meant to make sure that in places where people live that they've got good quality, including access to light. And the discussion we had at the site visit was that this is a change in the use of that room. And from being a kitchen that you're in occasionally, being the room that you're meant to be in all the time, except when you're cooking, because the communal space is reduced because of the bedroom sizes that are provided, and the bedrooms are therefore meant to be for people to spend all their time in, except when they're cooking. Thank you. Councillor Vallever. I think the assumption that people will be living in a room is wrong. Most people are right to work. They're right, but they're socialized with their friends. I've seen darker rooms. There are areas in the room to sit in, you know, apart from their bedroom as well. I think it should be passed. Are you proposing that you're proposing? And I think I am now there for proposing refusal. Okay. Any other comments, thoughts? John. Yeah, Chair, thank you. I would second area's point on proposing it, actually. My question from the last meeting was that there was the photographs and the plans didn't line up, didn't tally, and that's been cleared up now by the new plans. I mean, there was a conservatory on the back, and was that an addition again onto the back or not, and now that's been cleared up. On that basis, I would be seconding moving it forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Smith. Councillor CANDLISH. So I had been minded to approve this based on the learnings from the site visit, because it had cleared up the problems that we had with the original application. However, this issue of the new query as to whether the light is adequate I think is quite material, and although it is true that there are lots of bedrooms like this across the city that people already live in, we actually have the opportunity to control this one. And if we look at the size of the room that is provided, it is pretty small. So it is not one of those properties where there is a major size of room and/or a major size of somewhere else to go. So we are setting up for the future for this to be a small and from the site visit somewhat dark room. So it is a very marginal call, and it is a qualitative call, and unfortunately I couldn't go to the site visit to see for myself a form of view. But I know Councillor Vernon Jackson did, and I am therefore minded to support him on this instance. So I would be seconding his motion. I mean it is interesting, I mean, can I say prison cells do have more natural light. It is difficult, isn't it? I agree, having worked and locked people up for a living, their cells had significantly more light than the room that, and I was particularly grateful for Councillor SMY for really pointing this out and making sure that we noticed it. Okay, all right, is there anything else? Members? Just, Chair, we just spoke for one because it has come for me to advise. Obviously, as I've said many times to this Committee, paragraph 129C of the National Plan Policy Framework does advise you to apply standards for daylight and sunlight, flexibly when looking at housing delivery to ensure we are making efficient use of life, combined with the professional advice at the level of light is acceptable, name normal for Portsmouth and Portsmouth HMOs. I would strongly advise you that an attempt to refuse this application, which is extraordinarily similar as far as you can get to the world of identical for probably dozens of schemes this Committee has approved over its last year, I would say your chance of assessment appeal are very low. Again, it's not a prison cell, people won't be locked up, they have options to go out. I think, you know, I've lived in smaller rooms with less light, it's not the end of the world, and if you have a budget that says that you can afford that room, you'll be glad to have that room. It's a fair comment, Councillor Valle. All right, well, the first motion we took was to move the officers' recommendations, which is Councillor Vallely and Councillor Smith's motion. Is it in favour, please, indicate against and abstentions? Okay, so the motion to grant planning permission in accordance with the officers' recommendation has failed. It had two votes in favour, four against and one abstention, so there is one other motion on the table, you may wish to go back to debate before passing that motion. So, the motion to refuse, is there anything further anybody would like to add? Chair, the only point I hope we include is that I'll be honest, I'm right on the cusp about what I should do here, because I recognise the reality that we have probably passed similar properties with similar issues, and I too have lived in smaller, darker rooms and survived. However, in this instance, we actually did have a group of Councillors who went out and inspected and came away with a view, so that would be the strengthening of the reason for refusal. Okay, just for the Administration, we obviously did have any specific wording from the motion, but it is relatively evident, but just at the world on that same point, it is the degree of light to bedroom two that is the concern, so it is the quality of the living environment in bedroom two that is the concern, and obviously it would be contrary to PCS23 of the local plan, just confirming that is correct, and obviously having refused the application consequently the additional work that may be needed to fully mitigate the impact on the SPA, then we would probably need to have an additional technical reason for unmitigated impact on the SPA, though I would ask that that be delegated to officers just to check exactly what legal submissions we've already had, sometimes they put in the 111 in advance that I haven't had a chance to check that, so it would be unacceptable living environment in bedroom two for future occupants, PCS23 and delegating to officers for an additional reason for refusal session with the SPA if necessary. Okay, I'll propose it in a second, just happy with that, Councillor Smith? I'm going to say it could be for another day, isn't it, but it could be overcome by then increasing the size of the door into a patio door or something or a wider window, could it, so if that's the point for the, I'm talking for the, all right, well look, I was only going to commend Councillor Smith's comment, okay, right, well, members, if I may, say you have no hope of winning this on appeal, as I've said, if there is and has been mentioned by two members, we feel that a opportunity that if something like a patio door would overcome this reason for refusal, you are able to defer the matter or even granted with the condition that that window be redesigned, because it is just one aperture to change and move forward, I think, rather than a complex, lengthy and expensive to the public person appeal, if that is all you would be looking forward to overcome your concerns, a grant with a condition would resolve that or indeed a deferral to allow for a design to be brought back to committee as a more burdensome but equal outcome are available to you as a decision. Share with that advice, I will keep, of course, an open mind if it does come back, but I would be happy with a deferral to allow them to look at a redesign. So what Ian was suggesting there was A, a deferral, B, a condition that would see the permission granted today and then obviously we have got the current motion on the table which is to refuse it, so we would be looking to have that, because that motion would need to be withdrawn effectively or you could take the vote and turn it down, it seems a bit clumsy, I would probably just withdraw it. If we are just going for a straight deferral to ask them to look at that again and come back with a better design to make sure there is more light in that bedroom, then I am happy to withdraw my motion to refuse, but not with a presumption that we are going to say yes in the future, we have to come to this with an open mind when it comes back to us. As we always do. Yep, in which case I am happy to remove my proposal of saying no and substitute it with a deferral to come back to committee if the applicant can address the concern. The new motion before us is to defer. Okay, and we have got wording, you are happy with wording, for the deferral. Okay, members, those in favour of deferring, the application, please indicate. That is a unanimous vote and in favour of deferral. Thank you everybody. Let's move on to Hewitt Road. 22 Hewitt Road. This is an application for changing this from a C3, dwelling to a 7 bed dwelling, so planned permission is required in this case. There is the property. As you can see an area that is not, I think there is one HMO, a couple of lines over, so a low percentage, 3.33%, existing floor plans, proposed floor plans as you can see there, a large permitted development, one of the larger ones has been approved to be undertaken on the site, enabling the bedroom to be in the back of the property as well as an adequate living space in the middle of the property with the patio doors. Those room sizes which are all above 10 metres are listed in the table at Paragraph 8.12 and the green living space is 22.8, above your 22.5 standard, elevations should you wish them. As you can see the works are largely complete on site, there you can see the large extension to in brick. The application is therefore fully compliant with planning policy and recommended for conditional plan permission. We have some deputations. Thank you, Chair. As you know, I will also be reading Keith Augsborough's deputation due to him having to go to hospital treatment, as you're fully aware. He's written, "Fervour to my objection to this property being turned into an HMO, I would ask that the following be taken into account one, I would like to draw your attention to Paragraph 8.8 in the application. Change of use from a dwelling house C3 to 7 bed, 7 person house in multiple application. The following properties are within the area on the map within the 50 metre radius numbers 3, 5 and 11. These are two, three and four bedroom houses that have been converted to flats. I would suggest that at least one of these is in use as an HMO. I also suggest that the property at number 10 St Chad's Avenue, which is in use as an HMO force just inside the 50 metre limit. Two, I would also like to draw your attention to Paragraph 6.2 of the above document under consultation, highways engineer. Gladys Avenue has been quoted. I would ask, has he looked at the right road when he made his report? I suggest and ask the clarification be sought on this issue. That's the end of his statement. I just want to add, even though our planned department is driven by generalised data instead of the reality of the area, that HMOs within the area will have a detrimental impact, not only on parking, but is greatly out of character this neighbourhood. This is a family road with family houses. We should protect our stock of three bedroom homes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I hear time and time again about the negative impact that HMOs are going to have on this city. I mean, reports with news themselves have printed three stories this week, stirring up negative public emotion that results in worse than public perception and drives further dislike of HMOs in search of a good story. This only serves to strengthen negative public perception amongst residents who then have preconceived ideas about the tenants who will then move into the property and ultimately strengthen that divide between the taped tenants and the community that they want to be a part of. I don't think this is particularly helpful and I still feel like, you know, you come here demonstrating all the negative things that you hear from, but all the people that live within these HMOs are all your constituents and deserve a good home within the city. I'm sure many of you in this room have actually lived in HMOs and I doubt that there are the standards that some of the ones that are in Portsmouth currently much higher than some of the ones I see all over the south coast. With regards to 22 Hewitt, I've heard you have this discussion about the window. This one was a particularly large window at the side. There's no restriction of light. We generally leave their smaller side alleys to those properties. We usually spec a full length window, which I'm more than happy to show you some photos of as you had some conversations about putting large windows in there. So when you see one of ours, they generally do have the full length windows if we feel that additional light is needed into that room. To provide some further information from Councillor Jackson on the certificate of lawfulness, there was a confusion over Sandringham Avenue. All of the applications that I've dealt with for our clients for certificate of lawfulness have been HMOs prior to the Article 4 direction. So they are not illegal HMOs. They were perfectly within their rights to use it as a HMO prior to the Article 4 being implemented and was a perfectly lawful use at that time and they've used it consistently throughout. So no illegal use of HMO. Just wanting to lawfulise that use as they can or cannot, don't have to if they don't want to. With regards to 22 Hewitt specifically, all bedrooms meet or exceed the 10 square metres. They range from 10 to 17 square metres. So spacious bedrooms and it provides 23 square metres of floor area. All the bedrooms also benefit from non-tweet. This particular property benefits from rear access so it does allow easy access for cycles. Whilst I appreciate most of the houses don't, you know, tenants that are making that choice if they are key in cyclists, this would be the type of property that they would probably opt to live in. The application is fully compliant with policy, PCS 17, PCS 20 and PCS 23 are the local plan and the plan officers recommended it fully compliant for approval today. I ask you to support this recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Karen. Members? Anything? Chairman, before we go to members just to pick up one of the things covered in deputations, Aquira was raised around the highway engineers' comments at Paragraph 6.2 with apologies that he's a typo. I've just checked the highway engineers' comments in full and what he's actually written, exactly the same but Hewitt Avenue is a residential road with amenities and public transport in close proximity along London Road. The property is situated outside of any control parking zone, however, appears there are a range of parking options available on street within the surrounding area. So apologies that is a typo because obviously officers, I want no big reveal, do overwrite other reports, so they didn't connect that but the wording is identical from the Hoea engineer with the training of taking out Gladys and peeling in Hewitt and taking out Andy it and putting in, however, so the recommendation remains unaltered by that with my apologies. Members? Councillor BAN, Jack? Well, just to say, I'm having some redundant zigzags removed on Hewitt Road but that's probably not a planning reason. My question is around Paragraph 8.4 and it's, I think, a standard paragraph here about the land supply saying we got 3.31 years of land supply and that puts pressure on us to look at development that we wouldn't normally like. My understanding is that the government have moved the goalposts over that and we used to have a five-year land supply but the government changed how it had to be done at which point we suddenly didn't have a five-year land supply. Is that right or has their numbering and way they look at it remain consistent for the last 10 years or so? Not for 10 years, so the time system changes far more frequently than that but certainly for the last four or five years, the process has, you must demonstrate a five-year land supply. There has been recent changes to enable you to demonstrate a four-year land supply and other circumstances these do not apply to Portsmouth at this time. Okay. Well, thanks for watching, indeed, and could we go back to your pictures in? Because I thought it was an incredibly good next week, the photograph, yes, I thought that was a particularly good example of absolutely appalling development that we have no ability to stop, the way in which that incredibly intrusive and far too large rear extension on the second floor. I just think he's horrible, overpowering, changes the street and yet we have no power to stop it which is absolutely terrible but I suppose we've got House of Commons filled with supine MPs. Okay. Councillor Dent. Yeah, my concern is, and it's a favourite one on mine as usual, the Surrey system. Hewitt Road is next door, is the next road to St Chads, we've just turned down one because of the Surrey problems and I'd imagine this is going to be exactly the same problems if we keep adding more and more and more wafer into the system. Thank you. Members, comments? Much as I don't like this, I'm going to propose the office recommendation because I don't think we stand on to say no to this, with our colleagues in St Chads they came up with specific evidence about what was the problem there and that gives us something specific to hold on to, not that one would wish to hold on to but a specific reason to say no and I think if we're going to turn things down, we've got to have specific things because otherwise we're on a hiding to nothing. So, in this case, I can't see a reason that I could think of that's defendable in an appeal therefore I'm happy to propose officers, well, they're not happy. I will propose officers' recommendations but with reluctance. Members, Councillor Bally, seconding. Thank you. Okay, anything else, those in favour please, indicate? Against and I think that's it. As so, the motion passes in accordance with the officer's recommendation, that's six votes to one. Thanks, Karen. Okay, Gladys, haven't you? Thank you, German. This is the last on your agenda today which definitely needs planning permission to manage expectations. One, two, nine, Gladys, haven't you changed your views from a C3 dwelling to a seven-bed HMO. There is the property, as you can see, a few HMOs in the area but still below 5% existing floor plans, proposed floor plans are three metres, rear extension alterations to the roof, as we often see, creating a new seven-bed HMO. I would just draw though, Councillor, it's not here, she frequently comments on them, they've combined their downstairs WC with a laundry room to provide a change in opportunity for that amenity which I know has been positively commented upon by members in the past. There is the elevations and the existing buildings, as you can see, work still to be done to it. Back with that, the room sizes are detailed at Paragraph 8.12, we've got some very large bedrooms for about half of them and the other half are still over 10 square metres and 24.7 square metre communal dining room, kitchen diner, in addition to that additional amenity provided by placing laundry facilities in a large downstairs WC area. The application is entirely compliant with policy and is recommended for conditional planning permission. We have an object to the agent and Councillor Hunt on public speaking. Thank you. Mr Adair? Thank you, Chair. Having knocked on hundreds of doors and spoken to an equal number of residents, a full range of issues arranged on the doorstep but in areas with larger houses, HMOs are raised. As a major concern, residents tell me that they wait with trepidation every time a large property comes onto the market, fearing that an application would be made to convert it into an HMO. Residents tell me that they feel powerless to halt what they perceive as a relentless march of HMOs. Householders are very aware that not enough affordable houses are being built and HMOs are a symptom of this. However, they do not feel that HMOs with upwards of eight people in a single house is the answer. Residents fear that the character of their area is being adversely impacted by such development as it puts additional strain on already stretched local services, including GPs and sewers. In areas which do not have a residence parking scheme, there is a genuine concern that the possibility of eight or more additional cars on roads where residents already struggle to park, particularly after night, are a special request that you reject this application. Thank you, Councillor HAND. Hello everybody, thank you for your work today, as has been recognised today, a bit of context. Since the last war, no government has provided nearly enough housing for this country. So we have seen this proliferation of HMOs or Schell accommodation to meet the lack of housing need. This committee should be proud of pushing up the standards and the developers too. Even so, as Richard has explained, many residents are not reassured, and like all of us here, residents want to see infrastructure, and that has been well debated already this morning before conversion. Residents want to see more GPs, not fewer. They want more access to dentists, not less. Residents want sewage and water systems to work, not spilling to the sea. This application, along with us today, will only add to that. As has been recognised today, indeed, the planning officer makes it very clear that national planning and policy framework, there is a presumption in favour of development. It is 8.3 in your report, page 70. And as more HMOs are created, so available on-street parking, which is already over-subscribed, is added to at every rotation of the committee. As the government do regulates more and more, as Councillor Vernon Jackson mentioned earlier on, your powers to refuse things are constantly or support, are constantly eroded. I completely agree with Councillor Vernon Jackson that the government has rendered planning authority—I don't know your shout-on shaking your hateful accounts—a rubber stamp has created the—turned the committee into a rubber stamp for its policies. We see large houses gutted and with permitted development becoming mini-cathedrals inside as space is maximised to create more rooms than ever envisaged. The symmetry, rhythm and character of residential areas are under attack by a government drive to pass the buck to local authorities, to meet its failure to provide housing. Let's be clear, the scale of change is enormous—it's 1 in 10. But the City Council has responded with this rule—10% rule—and anyone that undermines this is risking a free-for-all in Portsmouth. In this small area that we're discussing at Gladys Avenue, we see new applications at Wadham Road, Oil Road, Gladys Avenue, Shadwell and so on. An enormous number of cars will come on these ones that we're talking about today, probably 28 or so, and cramming these cars onto already over-subscribed local streets. Members, I respectfully ask you to reject this application on the grounds of firstly the sewage. Southern waters should be brought here to explain how it can keep on adding more and more capacity to the sewage system, which we know is crumbling. And it should explain how this can possibly happen. The over-development of the land—we've seen that on the screen—the cumulative impact, not just of this application but the others, on on-street parking. There is no room to park, there's none. And this type of development, the extensions of the back are out of character and ruining the symmetry of this residential area. And lastly, of course, which we all keep on talking about, and we are worried about, but the government has tied our hands. We know that. The lack of GPs, the access, the lack of access to dentists, and other vital infrastructure. For those reasons, I would ask you to turn these down and send them to the government planning inspector if you wanted to overrule them. That's his or her matter, not ours. Thank you, Councillor HUTT. Of course, our task is to consider each application on its own merits, and that's what we do. Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Oh, LORD MAYOR, yes, God, it's gone too. It's a little previous. Maybe in a few years, you never know. Thank you, Chair. Over 50% of today's HMOs are on the north of the city. I mentioned this as I was told only a month ago to be careful what you wish for with the change to 5% within a 50-metre radius from the city's administration. For those who know Gladys Avenue, you will know it has a large amount of WLL lines for traffic to pass and bus stops. The irresponsible decisions to allow parking permits near Gladys Avenue, without correct and thorough review, has led to displacement of many cars that saturate not only Gladys Avenue but the surrounding roads, over, shadow, aerial and warden. And they take on this burden. I genuinely believe, and so do many residents, that national parties are out of touch with the needs of local residents when it comes to HMO policies. What are we going to do when the city's stock of three bedroom family homes have been consumed by HMOs, like we have seen today in the south of the city, Sandring Road? Where is the reassurance that the current 10% rule won't change to a higher number because we couldn't get to grip on the actual HMO numbers due to illegal HMOs operating in the area? Parking is a material change. In multiple applications with C-free to C-46 bedroom, it's normally quoted that one additional car would not make a difference. Then when the application comes back in six months, later becomes too generic of seven or even eight bedrooms, the report again says one additional car would not make an impact to parking. The numbers do not add up. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Members? Comments? Questions? Oh, sorry, Karen. So I was just lost in the kind of idea that might be Lord Mayor. Thank you. I just wanted to pick up something on this gentleman's set about talking to neighbours and not being happy with HMOs. We do manage a portfolio of HMOs now and I can confidently say that they manage the way a HMO property should be managed and I would like to invite any one of you to visit and talk to neighbours. I can say with confidence that they will also live in next door to HMO is not the negative experience that they expected. The tenants that live in them are happiness around us and we deal with any maintenance issues or any other issues promptly. On the sewage, I just wanted to make a point that as children live at home longer, it's perfectly usual now to see normal practises, six or seven persons living in the C-3 family home. I work with somebody who is in that same situation, who lives at home with his brothers and their girlfriends have moved in. I never hear sewage concerns when C-3 properties are considered at this committee. With a HMO, it is strictly regulated as the maximum number of residents that you can have within the property and with a C-3 home, this is limitless so I don't believe this argument is justified when it specifically applied to HMOs time and time again and not actually C-3 family homes. With this property, all C-3 bedrooms meet or exceed 10 square metres and have the additional ensuite. It also has the additional laundry room which we try and encourage our clients to provide. It has a downstairs WC as well which is useful for the tenants. The application is fully compliant with policy PCS-17, PCS-20 and PCS-23 as a local plan and also complies with the housing, multiplication and supplementary planning document. I ask that you fully support the officer's recommendation for approval today. Thank you. Thank you. Members? Questions? Comments? Gerald? I had to say, I went down Gladys Avenue in working hours and I was amazed at how difficult it was to get around. It was just jam packed so I think we need to be realistic. There are 17,000 more cars in this city over ten years than there were before and the proportion of increase in vans is even higher. So we're in a situation where people are choosing to buy more and more private vehicles and there isn't any extra parking. Our roads were all built 100 years ago and that's going to give everybody a problem. The issue we have here is that each one house that we look at has to be looked at individually. When we get to the local plan, I think we will need to spend quite a bit of time thinking about what our parking policy is in terms of the overall planning thing because that's the right place to put the overall policy and I think that is where we will need to look at tightening up our parking policy. But we'll probably do it in a way that will upset government of whichever color it is because we will want more car parking because we're realistic and ministers think if you don't provide car parking people won't have cars which is, they've tried, John Prescott tried and it was a total disaster. So I think I have huge sympathy for the people who come and have spoken here today. The experience I have at Gladys Avenue is absolutely that there is a major problem. But I don't see a justifiable way of turning this down under the current planning regulations that we have and we have to work to. So I don't think I want to support this, I'm sorry because I don't think this is right to the city in that location, I think Hewitt wrote us a different kettle of onions. But Gladys Avenue is a real problem already and so I'm sorry I won't be supporting this application even though the government won't give me a good reason that I can justify to an inspector. You're not proposing a refusal. Well, to build on that it's a fully compliant application before us and we've heard, we've gone through the conversations previously this morning so I shall move the officer's recommendation and I'm looking for somebody to second, Councillor Smith, thank you. Okay, is there anything else? All right, okay, let's move to the vote. Opposed in favour, please indicate, against, thank you. So planning permission is granted in accordance with the officer's recommendation at five votes to two. Thank you, current, aural road, 49 aural road, this is a application for the change of an existing HMO or six-bell HMO to a seven-bell HMO and consequently an officer's opinion that there is not a material change of use on its merits so members will have to give any necessary consideration to that. There is the property, as you can see there are a couple of HMOs in the area already. This doesn't add any HMOs, of course, so we are at and would remain at less than six per cent mix of HMOs within the area so the question is whether the additional occupation has any impact on a mean fee if a decision had been made the planned permission was required. There is the layout, you can see a fairly standard layout, if you will, for the HMOs we expect to see as the existing floor plans, that's the proposed floor plans. The eagle-eyed monk, you will see that obviously the lounge, so that's middle room, left image and the adjacent bathroom accessible from the kitchen becomes bedroom seven and that bathroom moved to being ensuite so that gives you your seventh bedroom. The living, all the bedrooms are over 10 square metres and the living space is about 33 square metres so a very generous combined living space compared to others that we would normally see in obviously above our minimum requirements accordingly with a low percentage of HMOs, no adverse impact to on a mean fee and an acceptable internal living environment. I've got some photo shoot members wish to see those, don't really tell us much though, so I'll leave you back there, the recommendation is the planned permission to be granted unconditionally as it doesn't need the planned permission but members may want to come to a judgement and of course I would just remind you if the planned permission is deemed to be needed then the necessary standing conditions would end up needing to be imposed. Thank you, Ian, Mr Adair, six minutes. Thank you Chair, I was down for two deputations on properties almost throwing distance to each other, so what applies on the first one that I've just already said, applies to this one, all I really want to do is sort of quick summary, not going to take up six minutes, but I just want to say that I've spoken to many, many people and in areas which have the larger houses such as Gladys Avenue, North End Avenue, these sort of surrounding roads, people are not just a little bit concerned, they are very, very worried that they see the relentless march of the HMO, bliting in their words, bliting their areas, they look for trepidation every time a house comes up for sale and they wonder is that going to become another HMO and it's a genuine concern and the worst thing is that in many, many cases people say they feel powerless to stop the HMOs, they see in their perception they've got greedy property developers who have no interest in the areas who just want to maximize the number of houses or number of people they can get into these houses, shoehorn as many people as they possibly can into these houses with little regard to the people who actually live there, have their families there, live there and everything and also they feel there's a tremendous impact on the local services, GPs as we've heard, Porseth has you know not an insufficient number of GPs, dentists, we've also heard about sewage so there are really, really big concerns and of course the other major concern in Portsmouth no matter where you go in the city, the number one issue that people raise is parking and in HMOs come along, we've got eight upwards of eight people moving into an area and that presumably could bring another eight cars and this is eight cars in addition to roads where people park in the evening and they don't dare leave their houses for fear that as soon as they pull out of their parking space somebody's pulling in behind them and they then have to go two or three miles away to find somewhere to park so that it's really a genuine concern that HMOs are having a major impact on communities, a very adverse impact and of course with that in mind I've moved through reject this application. Thank you, Councillor Hunt. Yeah, I get it, I sense the committee here feels powerless, it's quite evident today and as you say, Chair, you have to look at the application before you, under the rules and the regulations, and you're stymied by this deregulation from this government. I'll be very careful not to wander Karen into the politics of it all but the context is that that the committee has become or has become a rubber stamp for government policy around development because of its failure to build enough homes. Importancement of course, we are building homes, we know that, you've only got to look at Kingston Prison and other places around including in Nelson Ward at the moment by the old cinema. So new homes are being built but the scale of change is enormous. One in ten houses will change to HMOs and if as some people are tempted to want to go down to five per cent, that will push all of these HMOs further into Hillsea in particular and Copna. They will go up further and further much more quickly than now because the other areas will fill up more quickly. So what we're seeing around here now will soon move to other areas in the city. So I would ask the committee to look at this application in every detail I know you do and I'm enormously grateful that Councillor Vernon Jackson stuck to his guns and made sure that all of these applications come here for you to look at and sometimes you do find things that are not right because officers have missed them and that's inevitable and you can look to reject them. But I also get concerned when you told you got to think about later on what might happen at appeal and you consider the costs, you know my understanding is you shouldn't really consider that at all when you're making an objective decision about a planning application. And in this one of Oriole Road I can tell you they are enormous houses, I know that because we used to live there in a very large house they are extremely big houses with very high ceilings unusually and that's a problem because the developers are coming along and stripping everything out, gutting it which is a great shame because it's ruining the character and the symmetry of streets. So I know I've generalised a bit and I apologise but it is a big issue for people and the sewage as I say is overwhelming the systems, we see that when it spills out to the sea this one will add another despite what Khan says I understand her argument and it's very fair argument but we see enormous overdevelopment the land, we see the backs going outwards all and upwards all the time through permitted development and we see the pressures on on-street parking and this particular Oriole Road is parked most of the town every night, you cannot get in. People park on double yellow lines all of the time and they suffer tickets as a result. So it's out of character with the surrounding area there's a lack of GPs and access to dentists and the vital infrastructure is just not there, the government's putting the cart before the horse and leaving you guys to take the wrap. So I would ask you to throw it out. Thank you Lord Mayor. Very good. Thank you Chair. Just to emphasise on what I said previously, today over 50% applications are in the North City but also back to what I said previously up to 70% now of all HMA applications in the last seven months have been in the north of the city. It's already moving up here, this is why 5% would actually be better because some of the areas will already be complete of that 5%. This is absolutely an overdevelopment of this property, it also hasn't been managed overly well. Previously there was a lot of crime that's happened from this house, that's one of the concerns that a lot of the residents of Oriole and surrounding are always mentioning when it comes to HMOs. If you've actually looked at the property they can barely open the patio doors without hitting the back wall which is not very good design either. I don't know how well that all erode over time. I think you know if this is past the day which it most likely will be even though it shouldn't be, we really need to be looking at the licensing side of this and making sure it doesn't pass on licensing because it hasn't been managed well. It might have changed management since then so I do apologise for whoever's taken on now but that's the history of this of the particular property. Thank you very much. Thank you Chair. I didn't mention it because previously Councillor Simpson had covered it. We do have a SMAT submission from Mr Henry Thorpe I wasn't sure if Councillors was going to include that in his bit so I did mention it earlier but do note there is a couple of lines from Henry Thorpe in a SMAT. Okay members do we believe this application? Oh Karen that's the second time I really do it but it's because again the law now is mentioned it's gone to my head rather. I was going to address the crime that Councillor Simpson brought up so I feel it is important for this committee to know this property was known locally as the drug house. There was cannabis plants covering every inch of this property before the HMO conversion commenced. The owner whilst waiting for the C4 planning let the properties of C3 family home. During this short time the house was badly damaged with holes and ducts in three walls and ceilings. While I constantly hear the negative side of HMO's I feel it's just as important to be where problems can easily occur with C3 residential properties. In my opinion now having this as a HMO which is will be managed correctly it's far less likely to cause issues for neighbouring properties. Very unlikely they're going to be able to grow cannabis without one of the tenants knowing. With regards to I hear you know this is a family area we don't want these HMO's because they're family areas. I also wanted to point out that many tenants who live in these houses have families in Portsmouth and HMO's are possibly the only way at which they can afford to stay in these areas so it gives them an affordable all included bills option that they can live in the areas that they've grown up in. This particular property as has been stated a few times it is a very large property and could easily be an 8 bed HMO but the owner of this property is really keen to provide spacious bedrooms and as you pointed out an overly large communal area much larger than standards dictate. All of these bedrooms are over the 10 square metres and the communal area is at 32.94 which like hugely exceeds at 22.5. The application is fully compliant with policy and I ask that you support the officers recommendation for approval today. Thank you. Thank you apologies again for missing you. Okay, do we believe this requires planning permission? Councillor interjecting. My view is planning permission is required as this location suffers from significant problems with lack of parking and social behaviour and rubbish and the increase in density is clearly development and therefore planning permission is needed. Thank you. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Schar those in favour please indicate. That's the unanimous resolution that planning permission is required. Thank you Kieran. Okay members, questions? Gerald? My understanding is we looked at this a couple of years ago and we said no because and I just wanted to check that there was conservatory and utility room that divided up the communal space and we just didn't think it worked. It would seem that what they've done now addresses that but the concerns being raised to me interested to know is the drawing that we've got on page 80 of our papers. Does that show all of the space that is outside space that is available? Where do the cycle storage go? That's a floor plan, not a site plan, so obviously there is more outside space available. I can certainly put to the case officer a query about the cycle storage so I'll come back to you on that. Okay, that's very kind, thanks Ian. Anything else? I mean yes, again no, crime is not a material planning consideration by the way for anybody. What isn't planning? Crime, it's not something we can consider. But just technically a fear of crime is a legitimate planning consideration, so the fact that crime may occur from an unknown resident, clearly it's just not true as a person rather than not material. Thank you for explaining it. I just did. So the moral of the story is don't believe the Daily Mail. Okay, let's move on. It's compliant and I think you're waiting for an answer on the cycle storage but I suspect we're going to move the officer's recommendation. The officer's recommendation is unconditional permission, of course, so the recommendation. A bit of it, look, this is the last meeting. Well, I was hoping to have got that note from earlier this morning. Particularly, obviously you can enclose as well as time limit approved plans on the necessary for SBA, a cycle storage condition to pick up the point as well. Thank you, yeah, okay. So we, Gerald. No, no, I'm sorry, I think I'd want to see what that is before and that there is space for it before I'm going to vote on this. Okay. So, Chairman, if I can assist the applicant has included a site plan which I will endeavour to try and bring on to screening due course, which shows that there is adequate rear space beyond the rear extension for a bike store and there is a rear alleyway accessing to that back garden as well, so they've illustrated a cycle store in the rear property and obviously that would be secured by condition. Do you want to see the picture? You happy? All right. I'm happy to take Ian's word. Okay. I shall move the conditional granting of this application. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Smith. Thank you. Is there anything else? Okay, those in favour please indicate. Against. I think that's it. So conditional planning permission is granted in accordance with the conditions referenced earlier. Chair, I'm very sorry. I'm going to need to abandon you now. My apologies. And I'm sure you were going to say it, but I will in front of you. This inevitably will be Councillor Charles Smith's last meeting in the planning committee unless we have one next week and we should record our thanks to him. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you for your service this year, Charles. Let's move on to Margate Rose. I made that six in favour and one against. 31 Margate Rose. Again, this is an application. This is a change of use of a C4 dwelling house in fact. Its last use was a five bed dwelling house to a seven bed dwelling house. Having examined it, we're satisfied that. Isn't a material change of use requiring permission? Members will have to come to their own judgment. There is the property. It is, as you can see, an area that is prolific with HMOs. Over 50% of the properties in the area are HMOs already, of course, including this one. So there is the existing floor plans. You can see a number of rooms annotated on there and there are the proposed floor plans, seven bedrooms and a kitchen dining space that comes down and wraps around. The kitchen dining space is therefore 41 and a half square meters. It needs to be 34 because one of the bedrooms, bedroom two up there is relatively small. That's under the 10 square meter requirement at 7.81 square meters. So it does require 34 but it has 41 and a half square meters. It also has, you can see in the middle image there, a study room, an additional room there, six square meters which is of course an additional amenity. Just for clarification members that study room at six square meters is too small to even be a single bedroom 6.5 being the minimum requirement on that. So that's why that hasn't been sought nor would it ever be licensed. I would hazard a guess to be an additional bedroom. On that basis while it is a HMO in an area or there's already got a large number of HMOs the additional two occupants compared to its previous occupations had permitted development extensions obviously in recent years to get up to this scale is considered to have no first impact on amenity and should plan permission have been required and is considered to be fully compliant with policy. We have again a SMAT a couple of lines from Mr Henry Thorpe to draw to your attention and public speaking in this case just from the applicant over there. The kind of this property is a large number of student properties within Portsmouth and he also employs local people to manage the portfolio. He provides high-end student living and has like I say a large portfolio so he's knowledgeable and well-managed portfolio. The property provides seven bedrooms for single use which exceed the 7.5 requirement. As all bedrooms do not exceed the 10 square meter requirement require cumulative 34 and this has got 41.49. The client in this particular property wanted to provide an additional study area and that's purposely been kept to six square meters so that there's no sort of discussion amongst members that it may be a bedroom. As Ian has brought up it wouldn't be licensed would never be a bedroom and is predominantly going to be an additional study area that they can go in if they don't want to study within their bedroom. The application is fully compliant with policy and also complies with the housing, multiple occupations, supplementary planning document I urge you to recommend this for approval today. Thank you. Thank you. Members do we believe this requires planning permission? Councillor CANDLISH. Echoing what Colonel Vernon Jackson would no doubt say were he here. Planning permission is required as this location suffers from significant problems with the lack of parking, antisocial behaviour in rubbish and the increase in the density is clearly detrimental and therefore needs requiring planning permission. Thank you. Seconded by Councillor SRI. Thank you. Members those in favour please indicate and Councillor CANDLISH if you could turn your microphone off. It's unanimous resolution that planning permission is required. Okay. Members questions, comments, we have to balance the smaller bedroom with the increased communal area which we do often. Councillor Valle. I was just wondering is it possible that the person who is the smallest bedroom has a study as well? Could we not? None of your business is your answer. As the agent has suggested obviously it would have been entirely possible for the design to reduce that study or remove it and elongated that small bedroom into that space. They've made this choice to build that as is obviously in many ways the person with the other people with large bedroom have a lot of amends here but the small person equally has more mean to than you'd usually expect. So it is a very good quality of mean to you compared to other HMOs and indeed far in excess. So no need to extraordinary try to control the day-to-day living of individuals. Okay. Well I shall move a conditional permission for this application. Do I have any seconder? Councillor Valle, thank you very much. I'd just like to recite the conditions that you want. The usual conditions. I would assume that will be time limit approved plans on the necessary conditions and obligations for SPA. The usual conditions in this circumstance. Thank you. Members, anything else? Those in favour please indicate against. Thank you. So the motion passes and plan permission is granted. Conditionally that's four votes to two. Thank you, Karen. Members, the final application for this municipal year. Victoria Road North. Thank you, Chairman. 27 Victoria Road North is to change the use of a six-bed to an eight-person HMO having reviewed the application on its merits. Officers are satisfied that that change is not a material one and plan permission is not required and the condition is for an unconditional, the recommendation is for unconditional plan permission. Accordingly, members will have to come to a judgement should they disagree. To take you through the plans, so this is an HMO that has been in use for quite some time, suddenly a change of use back in 2017 was the first one and obviously there's been some changes to the building since then a large property as you can see. There's a few HMOs in the area, relatively low density area, 5.2% is now and would be afterwards. Consequently, the increase in occupancy by two people has been considered and is not considered to be resulting in any material impact on immunity that would justify refusal on the balance of communities. That is the proposed ground for plan. I would draw your attention to the basement which actually does have a small external window in a light well and is furnished and is laid out. The case officer said that when he was there there was a dining table in that space so it is part of the immunity but an unusual provision, two bedrooms on the ground floor and a kitchen and a very large utility room at the rear of the property. That is the proposed first and second floor plans. I would just draw your attention to the second floor plan and the SMAT with my apologies. The incorrect second floor plan was included in page 92. You'll see in the incorrect plans bedroom the bathroom is on the top left image, the top image top left was annotated as a study. That's now changed to a bathroom and the bathroom that was on the top right was a available bathroom to all has now been moved to become an ensuite for bedroom number eight. There we go, so that's the two changes just to annotate for you so you can see where those changes are from the SMAT drawings. All the rooms stay the same but an additional study room has now been refitted as a bathroom as I say so apologies for that error on the drawings. The application, so it's a large property so some of these bedrooms are extraordinarily large 22.7 square meters for example bedroom one there but the layout is unusual in that they have a 12.6 meter kitchen and a 9.2 meter utility space so consequently there is a basement amenity as well so consequently if one was to do planning by numbers which we do not do there could technically be defined as a failure to comply with standards however to undertake the professional and judgment that you're here to undertake is looking at those combined issues with these very large bedrooms so the smallest one is 11.8 square meters while it does have a lack of technical compliance with 12.6 kitchen 9.2 utility and the basement as well and I think I do have a photograph just not very clear of the basement I think myself actually the top left image there is the basement window so you can see it is a fully habitable room it's not a dingy cellar apologies there's no better imagery than that but in those combined amenities we are satisfied as indeed is the private sector housing team it has been licensed for some time for eight people that this is an appropriate living environment and consequently the recommendation is to grant it because plan permission is not needed but even if plan permission should for some reason be needed um then the scheme is overall considered to be compliant with a good standing of living required in pcs 23 and otherwise compliant with your mix and balance policy there is no public speaking on this one thank you members do we think this requires planning permission so proposed chair we have to hear we have to hear why you think chair I think this requires planning permission because this location suffers from a significant from significant problems with lack of parking anti-social behavior and rubbish and the increase in density is clearly development and therefore needs planning permission thank you very much do uh or does please have a seconder Councillor Schar thank you okay members those in favor of the motion that this requires planning permission please indicate that's a unanimous motion that planning permission is required thank you members any questions or comments on the application we've heard the officer's recommendation is fully compliant even though one of the space standards is it's slightly lacking um but we balanced that against the overall scheme pizza can we just briefly very briefly see the pictures again actual internal pictures so there that is the uh topmost um uh front bedroom uh on the top left there obviously the kitchen uh and uh the outside uh space at the side of the property uh rear of the property toilet um uh so the basement the window there and the layout and the living so there's three bedrooms illustrated on that one and then another bathroom and three other bedrooms illustrated on those I may be able to get the case obviously which are which but um for chair he hasn't given me notes on that thank you does that satisfy your your need okay uh members I'm going to move conditional permission uh for the application with usual conditions that are attached to I have a seconder Councillor smith thank you members is there anything else so those usual conditions are timely to prove plans on the necessary conditions and obligations for the impact on the SBA okay is there anything else those in favor please indicate against and I think conditional planning commission is granted uh with five votes to one thank you Karen um well members that concludes today's planning committee and the planning committees for this municipal year just a couple of thank yous uh to those that support us in our work here thank you to legal services uh to planning uh department and to democratic services thank you for all of your work um thank you to you members for your contributions um and not only what you do uh as we've discovered this morning it can be a little tricky uh but how you've done it over this past municipal year it's been a pleasure to be able to sit here um special thanks to Councillor smith um who we know will not be back in the chamber after next week um it's been a real pleasure working with you john and um your uh the way you go about your business in in this place is um it's going to be missed by those of us that might be back here on the planning committee next year um thank you to the chair thank you very much to the officers for your um for your um support and professional guidance really through through everything and to colleagues and to the residents and the people representing the public thank you very much it's been a pleasure for you uh even a terrific asset to the planning committee and that has been echoed by other members this morning and um and previously as well so uh thank you right okay let's uh close the meeting at 12 lowish on close the meeting just one more thank thank you to you chris just in case you're not back next year it's been fantastic year great learning curve for me and you've chaired really really well thank you kind of you thank you uh let's close the meeting at 12.37 thank you