Transcript

Good morning, committee. Welcome to new members and old members that have returned. It's nice to see you all. We start off with the webcast and introduction. I would like to remind everyone that the meeting will be filmed live or recorded and uploaded to the internet and we will be capable of repeated viewing. Therefore, by participating in this meeting, you are considered to be filmed and to be possible use of those images and sound recordings. Members and public speakers are reminded to turn on their microphones before speaking and turn them off afterwards. And if you've got a mobile phone, it's best to put it on silent or turn it off. I've got a good idea. Right, item two, advice to public speakers. That's on page four to five. Item three is apologies for absence. Apologies have been received from Councillor Gemma McIvor and Councillor Ian Hadley. Are there any other apologies? Item four, Declaration of Interest. I declare a non-pecuniary interest in the Uplands Road property. I have relatives that live there, so I will recuse myself from that part of the meeting. Okay. John, sorry I missed you there. That's the cornish I believe has been held up. Item five, the minutes of the last meeting on the 10th of April. Can I sign those as the correct record?

• Agreed. No, not agreed yet. Councillor John Whitehouse. Yeah, no, as I sent in earlier. Just the minutes don't distinguish between what was discussed and what was agreed. And then the next thing you'll see is that there should be six bullet points at the bottom of the page which says such and such was required. And those were all things that were mentioned in the meeting, but we didn't actually vote on those six bullet points. So at most it should say these things were suggested or these things were raised or something. I'm just wondering, if you could put one of the sections in community facility in the other, and should that be consistent. Okay. Yeah, I did prepare the wording for those minutes for Democrats. Yep, I agree. Apologies for any confusion caused there. I wouldn't have any issue with that change personally. Okay. Apart from that, that was a great record. Item six, any other business? No, chairman. Item seven, site visits. Anyone wish to have a site visit? Right, we'll move on to item eight, planning application EPF 17-18/18. Land at Middle Lane Hyungra. The application is the erection of seven three bedroom houses including new access from Millfield, provision and parking spaces, and managed space as landscaping. Thank you, chairman. So as mentioned, this application relates to a site at the junction of Mill Lane and Millfield and seeks permission for the ... I'll repeat again quickly, for the erection of seven new dwellings. The site is allocated within the local plan for residential development and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a legal agreement. The application is before members since there's an objection from the parish council along with a number of neighbours. As mentioned, this site is allocated in the local plan under reference Hong R1 for approximately 10 dwellings. Due to this, the site has been removed from the green belt. The policy requirements for this site are to retain the two TPO trees, one of which is a veteran tree and incorporate these into the development to create a new vehicle access from Millfield and to establish a new green belt boundary along the southern edge of the site. The proposal was originally submitted as a scheme for eight units, however, this has been further reduced to seven to ensure that the veteran tree, which is this one here, is protected. Whilst this number is less than the site allocation, this is as a result of the specific site constraints and is therefore considered to be acceptable. Concern has been raised about the second TPO tree being of veteran status. The council has received two professionally qualified opinions on this, one on behalf of the applicant and one on behalf of the neighbour, both reaching different conclusions. The assessment of a veteran tree seems to be somewhat subjective and is based on professional judgement. Due to these two opposing opinions, two of the council's tree and landscape officers visited the site yesterday, hacked their way through the undergrowth and each assessed the tree individually. Both officers determined in their professional opinion that the tree is not a veteran tree. They gave full consideration to both submitted tree surveys, however, are satisfied with their conclusions. This doesn't take away the importance of this tree, which is preserved and requires protection, however, subject to conditions, it is considered that the scheme adequately protects both trees. As can be seen, a new access would be created onto Millfields as per the site specific requirements within the local plan. A new landscaped, defensible, green belt boundary will also be established along the southern boundary. The proposed development would be, for the most part, being a linear layout along the eastern edge of the site. This layout would ensure that the dwellings are stepped away from Mill Lane. The design of the dwellings is fairly conventional and would not be detrimental to the overall character appearance of the area. This shows the location of the proposed access. No objection has been received from Essex County Council regarding the scheme, subject to conditions. Part of the requirement for the access is the relocation of the disabled bay, which is situated here. And the addition of restrictions being added to parking opposite the site entrance. This shows the proposed highway works. So concern has been raised about the loss of on-street parking that this would cause. So this yellow here, you can just see, is where the parking restriction would be. This is the existing disabled bay and this is where Essex are proposing it gets relocated to. Whilst there may be some impact on on-street parking provision, it is not considered that this is significant enough reason to refuse consent. Especially given the lack of objection from Essex County Council highways. The scheme itself will provide two spaces for each of the dwellings plus two visitor spaces. So this complies with the vehicle parking standards. This shows the site. The trees here to the front would be retained. And the TPO and veteran tree are sort of behind this so you can't really see them. But they're sort of behind these trees and they obviously would also be retained. The proposal fully complies with the site specific requirements for this allocated site as laid out within the local plan. And as such this proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement. Back to you Chairman. Thank you very much. Now we've got three speakers on this application. First of all Jeremy Rees the objector. Good evening. Good evening Councillors. This flawed proposal must not be allowed to proceed in its current form. My property adjoins the site on two sides. The land owner sold his vehicle access right to this site in 2010. I've been writing to you since 2016 identifying the two veteran trees on this site. They have not moved they are there for all to see. Except for open spaces who reported they could not get close enough to report on them. My tree expert had no problems at all. Planning officers have continued to ignore the significance of these trees until challenged by my solicitor. Then one buffer zone was enforced on the oak tree T8. In late February this year your tree officer suddenly and without providing any recording evidence said that there was an error. And the field maple on this proposed site entrance T9 was not a veteran tree. Having said that it was in all the planning applications over the last seven years and to the government inspector in the Epping plan. You now have my highly qualified veteran tree experts report and using the Epping tree officers criteria he gives expert specialist evidence detailing the reasons why this maple tree is a veteran tree. Councillors are asked to disregard this expert report and accept the view of the tree officer that is not a veteran. It is not clear that the council officer has particular specialism in veteran trees and so the evidence of a veteran tree expert should be preferred. Furthermore the reasons given by the tree officer do not withstand scrutiny. Councillors you must satisfy yourselves that no harm will come of the veteran tree if you grant this application and there are wholly exceptional reasons. Clearly that test is not met. If you as a counsellor consider there is a risk of harm to a veteran tree you must therefore refuse this application under NPPF para 186. Using my specialist measurements you have my diagram showing where the correct buffer zones should be enforced for both veteran trees. This identifies that in its current form the plans show the entrance road encroaching into the buffer zones for both trees T9 and T8. With these buffer zones properly enforced it really questions the viability of this proposal in its current form. My solicitor has written to the council, solicitor explaining these important flaws need to be addressed before you should lawfully consider whether granting planning commission and the consequence of not doing so and leaving the council vulnerable at a judicial review. Also this plan clearly shows a deviation on the southern boundary line to allow for five parking spaces. Part of these are in my garden, this needs to be changed. Councillors you are the last guard please send the applicant back to the drawing board and decline this application in its current severely flawed form. Thank you. Our second speaker is Bonnie Jones, Ha Yonga Parish Council. On Teams. Good evening Chairman and Members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. Ha Yonga Parish Council has been made aware of the concerns by local residents in this matter. Local residents have concerns over the harms of the protected trees and the greenbelt boundary to the southern edge of the site. Whilst the report suggests that these matters can be addressed through conditions, there is no detail as to how this could be achieved. Also of concern are issues of access and visibility as well as the need to relocate the existing disabled pay. At a recent extraordinary meeting of the parish council more than 20 residents of Millfield were in attendance, the overarching issue being lack of parking, an ongoing issue that both district and county councillors are aware of. The applicant is suggesting yellow lines, how will this be enforced? Whilst the suggested two visitor spaces and 14 parking spaces are deemed policy compliant, this is not a suitable location with people totally reliant on car for travel. The reality is that the proposed parking spaces will simply not be enough and parking will undoubtedly spill out into the neighbouring roads. We're also aware of concerns as to the size of the sewers and have been made aware by a resident of plans that show the intersecting of the sewers are only sized to accommodate waste from Mule Cottage and the Windmill Cottage. It is well known locally that sewers in Ha Yonga often overflow and have no further capacity. The last two property developments built in Millfield have had to provide cesspits to provide extra capacity to be discharged at quiet times. The desktop drain report for this application does not address this issue at all. If the district council are minded to grant this application, despite resident and parish council concerns, the parish council asks that any suggested section 106 legal agreement makes provision for the following. Under open space, instead of additional provision of public parks and gardens and provision of amenity green space which amounts for £7,491 per dwelling, could this money be used to provide additional parking for the people of Millfield on the open space adjacent to Millfield? This should be specifically recorded in the section 106. This council also asks that the £1,394 per dwelling which is shown as additional provision for children and young people is given to Ha Yonga parish council to manage and use for provision for children and young people within the parish. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. >> Good evening. As such, the principle of development has been part of a rigorous process of consultation through the local plan review. We have been working closely and collaboratively with planning officers to achieve the development of seven high quality three bedroom homes. Since the original proposal, we have amended the scheme to ensure that the site's highly valuable veteran oak tree will not be impacted and that the required land around it will be retained as a buffer of open space. This is fully supported by the council's tree officer. The plans for vehicle access to the site have also been agreed and secured by condition to include a wide drop curb crossing and relocation of the nearby disabled parking bay. Parking provision of two spaces per unit plus two visitor spaces is in line with policy and the county highway authority are satisfied with the proposals. The scheme is supported by flood risk and drainage assessment which outlines a sustainable drainage systems including permeable paving will be implemented to achieve a green field equivalent runoff rate. It also outlines the arrangements for foul drainage and sewage discharge will be subject to agreement with tem's water. On that basis, our proposal supported by the council's drainage officer. The context based locally within ONGA recognize that the site requires a high quality design approach. Our plans have evolved in response to consultation feedback culminating in a scheme that is sensitive to the setting for ONGA using traditional architecture and materials including red brick and grey slate roof tiles. There are landscaped areas and open space, good sized gardens for each house as well as biodiversity enhancement measures which are secured by condition. The proposal will be delivered alongside financial contributions including approximately 62,000 towards the provision of additional public parks, gardens and amenity spaces including those geared towards children and young people. We hope that you can see that we have worked hard with your officers to ensure a scheme that is policy compliant, well designed and which delivers a sensitive addition to HIONGA in accordance with the site allocation. We therefore hope that you can agree with the recommendation of the committee report and grant permission for the proposals. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now members, do you want to go first? I think you should ask the member if they would like to first. Local members from ONGA? It is in my ward now but it wasn't until this year and I must admit that though I sat on the original application which came before us in 2017, I have not really had much opportunity to look at it again, apart from all the paperwork which I have looked at. There were a couple of points raised here. One about the southern boundary which has been suggested is incorrect. And that's a matter of fact. So it either is or it isn't correct. There are views on the trees and they both appear to be retained and hopefully buffered from anything that's going to damage them. But the southern boundary is something I would like to ask the PlaDIG officer if he has a view on because that might make a difference to the layout of the site. But it's very difficult to tell. So I think I'll leave it to Mr Courtenay to comment on that. Is this with regards to whether it's encroaching on... Not a matter for the council I'm afraid. Land ownership is not an issue that the council looks into. Obviously land ownership is land ownership. A developer is not able to encroach on someone else's land. So if we approve this tonight and it turns out that actually they can't build as they proposed to build because of encroachment and that's a legal civil matter between the parties. They may have to come back for a change. But it's unfortunately not something that we would look into at this stage. Councillor Abrahams. Point of clarification if I may. I understand Mr Courtenay to say that two of the tree officers had gone yesterday to look at the tree and decided it was not a veteran tree. Was that correct? And are we talking about the same tree, the maple tree? Because I thought when he showed us the final picture, the maple tree was pointed out as a veteran tree. So I'm slightly confused. Can I please have clarification about the views? We know Mr Roosa's expert, what he said about the maple tree. Can we please have a clarification of what the tree officers atiserum have said about it. Thank you. Yeah of course. So as far as I'm aware, I'm not a tree expert myself. But as far as I'm aware certainly the two TPO trees, so the two trees covered by tree preservation orders are this one and this one. So these two here. My understanding is that this is the veteran tree. Certainly on our mapping system that's shown as the veteran tree. Obviously that's why we've got this large protection area here. That's why the roadway has been redesigned to avoid any encroachment on that area and why the scheme was reduced in scale. So we didn't have any encroachment. This is the other tree that's covered by a tree preservation order. I understand that's the other tree where there's disagreement over whether it's a veteran tree or not. I'm getting a nod from the objector over there, so that's good. So that's the other tree that's in dispute. It was obviously when we preserved those trees. This was recognised as a veteran tree and this one was not. As I say the tree officers have gone down on the back of this disagreement and reassessed that yesterday. And they're still of the opinion that it's not. And I will just say because there was some comments about them not being experienced. They are very experienced officers who over the years have been involved in the council's veteran tree project. They've recorded hundreds of veteran trees throughout the district, including the veteran tree that is on site, that we recognise is on site. So they are both very experienced in assessing veteran trees. But yeah, so these are the two trees that we are debating. Go to John Whitehouse. Yes, I think it was commented clearly it's an allocated site. It's not the principle development that is up for discussion, but it is a matter of do the application and the conditions meet the requirements of the local plan. And we seem to have a situation where there's a degree of protection to the trees in both scenarios, whether it's a veteran tree or whether it's a TPO tree. It's the extent of the protection the buffer zone, which is is an issue. And, you know, clearly there's a difference of professional view on that, you know, and at the end, you know, I think we've got to go with the advice that we've received on that issue. I did want to it does rely very heavily on conditions. I mean, so landscaping plan for this application. There's no in a lot of the other details are subject to condition and that makes some of these things less certain than they might otherwise be. I mean, I think that's unhelpful to judge. Be going to judge things like, you know, is the green belt boundary to the south sufficient? And, you know, is the other landscaping sufficient? You know, I think I would want to sort of send a strong message that, you know, when the landscape plan does come in to be considered by officers, it's looked at very carefully, you know, with those local plan things in mind, because, you know, it's not uncommon for these things to slip through. You're looking quite different in the actual landscape plan. They do look in the conceptual plans that you see at this stage. And I'd sort of just flag up that warning, I suppose, but in terms of it complying with policy, I don't see any reasons where it does to an extent that it has enough weight to overturn the recommendation. Thank you, Chairman. Just a couple of points, really. As you know, this was in my ward up until last election and happened to be in the parish council meetings where the residents turned up to complain. One of the main complaints, as the clerk actually said, was this will cause lack of parking. Like all our estates, there's nowhere to park. Everybody's parking on the road. If you're taking spaces away on the road, it's only going to create more of a problem. They are parking on the verges, on the green space down there, like the same problems we've got at Shelley everywhere. I think we should really look at this in that respect of what's going to happen. And the clerk actually said, can we use 106 money to do something about that? I'm not totally sure we can, so I'm asking the planning officer if we can. My second point is, we all know there is a problem down there with the sewers and the services. Is it a planning matter or not? Again, I'm not totally sure. Okay, I'll deal with the second issue first, purely because, I mean, drainage certainly is a planning matter. Obviously land drainage officers have assessed this. They have provided their comments, they've suggested conditions. They're happy in terms of land drainage. They don't deal with sewerage though, they deal with surface water runoff and things like that. Sewerage would generally be covered by building regulations and things like that. It would be covered by other legislation, so it isn't something that we would consider at this stage, obviously. I understand it's an issue, certainly an issue for existing residents. But yeah, it isn't really something that we would consider at this stage. In terms of the parking, I mean, there has been some discussion around this. Initially, my first question is, I think the parish council did raise this in their section. But I was a bit confused as to where they were referring to in terms of that. Because I think they referred to open space opposite the site. So I'm just going to quickly share my screen, hopefully that's going to show up. This is obviously our mapping system. Obviously this is the site here. And they were talking about open space opposite the site. So I don't know if that's this area here. I know, Councillor Dadd, I don't know if you'd like to come in at all on this, because I know you've had some, sort of, you've raised about the parking. Or is it somewhere else on this site that we could easily point to? Because I think that would make a big difference. Councillor Zafi? Yes, that wasn't the site that I was thinking of. But I'm unclear whether you can actually use that money from S106 or S278 if higher rates haven't commented. But if you go into Millfield and turn left, there is some green space at the end there, which already I understand is used for excess car parking space. But there's also this situation where that could perhaps make some more parking space, as could some of the other homes which haven't got drives and dropped curbs. But I don't know whether that can be dealt with in this application, or whether it needs to go back to the parish council and have another discussion in another way. Thank you, Councillor Dadd. I've been given this little bit of fault in fairness, and I can't say with any certainty that yes, we could use the sexual 106 money for that. Obviously it relies on other factors. What I've put up here is that overlay, that red hashing, is actually, I wouldn't say it's 100% correct, but it's usually pretty correct, that's land within Epins ownership. So actually, the open space that you're referring to there, Councillor Dadd, down here, actually is Epins land. So that potentially would make it easier to use any sexual 106 money to provide parking. Obviously, if we were talking about land over here, then I think I would say no, that's not possible, because that's third party owners and you'd have to get them to agree it, and that wouldn't be something we could do. But as I say, I cannot say with any certainty, yes, we could definitely get it. But what we could obviously do is if members are minded to approve, subject to the legal agreement and the conditions, obviously we would have to sort out the details of that legal agreement, and part of that could be that we explore whether the money that we've suggested get used for the open space can be used for the parking, and if it can't be used for the parking, then we use it for the open space. Or possibly come back to the Chairman of the Trust, Vice-Chair, to discuss that. I mean, there's ways we potentially could include that without having to go through a deferral and then speak to those listeners and then come back to members, if that's what members are minded to do. I feel that there is a way we could be a little bit pragmatic and explore that with that kind of option of possibly using it for parking. But obviously, if you're seeking to approve on the basis that it's going to provide parking, then obviously we would need certainty on that. But if it's a will it be good to have parking and if we can't do it, then we could use it for open space. I think there's some scope there. Councillor Jones? Oh yeah, sorry. I agree exactly with what you're saying, Graeme. But my point is that the current houses there haven't got enough parking if we could do something on either end and make more space at the top. We're gaining spaces and, as Councillor Gadd actually said, if we actually looked at doing some drop curbs. There's three options there that put together would solve the problem. Yeah, as I say, that can be, depends on the vote, my members. But that could certainly be what you delegate to us, but essentially it would involve us speaking to house listeners, obviously. Other sections of the Council, because obviously we aren't involved in the land ownership and the housing side. We'd have to have discussions with the housing. With housing, obviously I don't know how far the money would go. I'm not sure how many drop curbs that would pay for, how many parking spaces that would pay for. So there'd be a lot of discussion to be had, but certainly I think there is an option there to have those discussions. Councillor Beland, do you want to make that as a proposal? Did you want to make that as a proposal? I will, yes. Have you a seconder for that? Okay. All those in favour? That's it. Are you voting, Chair? I'm not voting at the moment, no. Eleven, four. Everybody. Apart from you, Chair. Yeah. Sorry. Are you abstaining? Absolutely, yeah. Apologies. Can I just come in just for clarification purposes for my notes then? So on, I've only got the report, I haven't got the full agenda. On page seven of this report, I'm not sure what page that is on the full agenda. There's obviously the list of contributions that we've recommended which, so that's broken down into one, A, B, C, D, and then two. Obviously two is the FSAC mitigation. That's non-negotiable. That needs to go to the FSAC, but in terms of A, B, C, and D, what is it -- well, D isn't a contribution, so sorry. In terms of A, B, and C, what is it that we're looking at? Are we looking at an option that we explore all of those contributions for parking? Is it just what is laid out in 1A, 1B? Can I just get a little bit of clarity on that just so I know what sort of amount we're talking about? Yeah, sorry. I actually think we should look at all of it. Agreed? A little bit more? Yeah. Okay. Captain Bedford. Thank you. Yes, it's a difficult one, isn't it, where we've got two experts, one against the other, effectively. I can remember walking in this area when we were doing some leaf-lint quite recently, and I can remember going up to that area that we've just discussed about car parking there, and it was quite full of cars, and they were parking on the grass. There was no -- the area that's designated for car parking there is that small T end, but they were all over the place. There were cars all over the grass in front of people's properties. Very similar situation that we've had at Shelley, where people have allocated car parking, but it's not in front of their house, therefore they drive across the grass and they park outside their house. I think the 106 monies might help. We might be able to redesignate that, or we might be able to use it to improve car parking. But my point being, actually getting back to the actual site itself, on the HGGT board, when I was on there, we were looking at making improvements to cycle paths and access roads, and the discussion there was called a no-dig method for bringing in -- when it got close to trees, the no-dig method actually improves the viability of the trees that it can impact upon. So instead of digging out and putting in a foundation and putting in a top soil, and then whacking that down and putting an asphalt on the top, the no-dig method is basically they scrape the surface back to expose down to where the first layer of roots are, and then they build it back up again with a permeable top soil and dressing that allows cars to drive over or bikes to ride over, but doesn't impact permanently on the tree roots. I'm just wondering if this is something that should be considered on the access route, especially in the area around the two trees, the veteran trees. Obviously, with the veteran tree itself, it's quite mature, it's quite big. But in another 10 years, it could be another 10 foot, and if it's worked out on the diameter and it's worked out on the circumference of the tree itself, then that area is gradually going to grow. So thinking ahead, perhaps we should be considering a no-dig method for access road into that site. I just wondered if officers would like to comment. Thank you. No, that has been put forward in the submitted ARB, What is it called? Arboricultural Impact Assessment. I think the condition we've suggested is actually for tree protection details to be submitted, including an arboricultural method statement, and I think it'd be expected that it's in there. But yeah, certainly it's been identified by the applicant that that is what they would need to do in that root protection area, and certainly it's what we would expect. Councillor Janet Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. My question is going to be about the trees. I think unfortunately we haven't got a tree officer here because it's obvious that so many of the questions are going to be about the tree. I was very interested in what Councillor Bedford has just said, and maybe that answers to some extent my concerns, which I really wanted to ask about the plan that you've put up, which shows the big area of protection for the identified veteran tree and the road going over part of the roots of the non-identified tree, although according to one of the reports where it quotes the government staff, it's a big grey area sometimes whether it's veteran or not. Yeah, I just think if my question has been answered a bit, you can see there the difference between the protection around the veteran tree and the non-veteran tree, and I would have asked the tree officer some questions about that, but I think Councillor Bedford's contribution has answered some of my concerns, if we can do that. Sorry, just to go in. I'm going to repeat the fact that I'm not a tree expert in any way, and yeah, I agree it's a shame. I did ask if we could have a tree officer, but it was a bit late notice unfortunately to get somebody along, they weren't able to make it. My understanding is obviously the difference here is being that obviously as a protected tree, as I said earlier, doesn't take away from the fact that it's an important tree. We want to make sure it's retained, it's protected, that it is a very important tree, but obviously you can do things like Councillor Bedford says with the no-dig method of the access in the root protection zone, things like that. Obviously if it's a veteran tree, you can't even do that and that's why obviously we've now got this curved access road around the root protection zone for the veteran tree. Obviously if we did consider that to be a veteran tree, then yeah, this roadway couldn't go as close to it as it can, but as a protected tree subject to the appropriate mitigation and construction methods, that would be fine. Alright, my apologies, Councillor Jones. Thank you. In fact, Mr Courtney has just answered the very question I was going to ask, so thank you. Yes, I wanted to actually raise a couple of things about the trees. I think I read in one of the, I can't even say it, although cultural, I won't say it, tree survey and conditions, there was a suggestion that because of veteran or over mature trees, or just mature trees, the habitat that they support was very important. And there was a suggestion that there should be protection for that type of growth underneath, rather than just lawn. And I wanted to make sure that is in the conditions, because obviously an artist's impression from the layout here just looks like a grassed area which would not support the habitat. And bearing on from that as well, the number of bats that there are, being identified, there's about 50 I understand, and only a couple of them, pipistrels, will go in buildings, so most of them will actually need mature trees. And I couldn't see anything in the conditions to actually indicate that the trees that they are actually removing, what replanting they're going to do as far as replacement and the type of trees that would support that sort of thing. And also, linking with this, there should be surely a bat survey for the summer, because February there wouldn't have been much movement of bats. I'm wondering if that could be put in and made sure that's in the conditions, should we decide to approve this. In terms of the protection of habitats within the veteran tree, certainly that again has been identified by the applicant that there should be a posteburgh fence. It does talk about conditioning, there are fairly generic conditions we put here, it may be worth having some specifics added to those, including that. And also about the replacement trees, we can easily add those in. In terms of bats, again, I know there is a condition around further ecological surveys or undertaking what's in the submitted ecological surveys, but again, not a problem adding in about any necessary bat surveys in that as well. All of that can be incorporated into conditions if, obviously, members are minded to approve. Mr Bedford. I think there's an important point to remember here as well. When we look at the site and we see how technically overgrown the site is, there's obviously going to be some impact on the two trees at some point with the vegetation and the growth and the habitats that are nestled around those two particular trees. But also, I think we have to think that, you know, with that vegetation and stuff growing around, how often have we gone past a tree and we've seen lovely ivy creeping up the outside of the tree and eventually it chokes the tree to death, and that's the end of the veteran tree or your protected tree. So I think, actually, putting these houses in here is probably going to actually save these two trees long term, because what's going to happen is they're going to tidy up around the base of the two trees, yes, they'll protect the habitat to a certain extent, but I do think it gives the trees a chance of breathing, actually recovering a bit, because, you know, we can go so far and we can help the trees so far by tearing the stuff down and brewing it around, but eventually, even with mature protected and viable oak trees, how often do we see an application for top crown thinning, and trimming back so that the tree that's going out of control is suddenly brought back into control and is balanced, it can grow in a balanced way. And I think this is an opportunity, not only to get the houses, but it's also an opportunity to save a veteran tree and a protected tree, and I think that's the way that we should be looking at this as well. Thank you. Okay. Do you know the speakers? Do you know the speakers? No. I don't think it's necessarily an additional condition, but yeah, should we clarify whether members want us to firm up the conditions? Obviously, if we feel we do require an additional condition, we can add that in, but otherwise we'll try and firm up the existing conditions as per Councillor Dadd's approval, but you'd probably need to second and vote on that. Okay. I'll oppose it then. Okay. Is that great, members? No need to second. Do you want me to do that? It's just to add more detail, a little bit more specific detail, within the existing conditions or to add additional conditions if necessary, to deal with the need for any additional bat surveys that may be required to obtain details of replacement tree planting for anything that's been removed, and also to ensure that we protect around the veteran tree, to protect the existing ecology of that tree as per the submission. I think that's correct, isn't it? Yeah. Okay, so we need a seconder for that condition. Right, so the application is to approve with… We need to vote on that. All right. All those in favour of that condition? You don't have to turn it off. Now we can move on to the actual main approval of conditions, and I think there's 24 conditions. Those in favour of the recommendation approved with conditions subject to the 106 legal agreement? All those in favour? Unanimous chairman. Okay, thank you very much. Okay. We now move on to item nine. Do you want to go through the people who own here just want to go? That application in meal lane has been approved. If you want to stay for the one other item, you'd be welcome to. Otherwise, thank you very much for coming. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. So, my name is Amy Hallett. I am the case officer for this application. I'd like to begin my presentation by drawing your attention to the fact that the correct planning history isn't displayed on the original agenda, but for the purposes of transparency, I have it displayed here for everyone to see. So, this application has been brought to this committee due to one neighbour objection and also the parish objecting to the application. So, the application site is the penultimate property in a small row of dwellings as you leave Tootill and it's within the metropolitan green belt. It comprises a detached bungalow amongst a vast mix of property sizes, types and designs, as well as a broad mix and pallet and materials. The proposal is in two parts, changes to the front and a rear extension. We will review the former first, if that's okay. So, to the front, it's proposed to ameliorate the existing recess and turn this into an enclosed area, forming additional accommodation. This requires a slight increase in the ridge height, but would still sit lower than the main roof. The front is also slightly extended by removing the existing bay window and the proposed materials will match the existing. And to the rear of the property, there is an extension which does not span the entire width of the property, but it does bring the built from closer to the neighbouring property to the south-west, which is called West Lee. Although there is still a gap between the two properties. The proposed rear extension has a flat roof to help reduce the massing and also limit any potential impact on neighbour immunity. So given the reduction in gap between the application site and West Lee, it is necessary to assess neighbour immunity and the accompanying objection from this resident. The owner of West Lee has raised an objection pertaining to a loss of light and how the proposal was suggested to block a bedroom window. For reference, this window is circled on the presentation site. From reviewing the layout of West Lee, officers can confirm that this bedroom will lose views from windows to the site. However, there is no right to view and given that this is a dual aspect bedroom, officers are satisfied that sufficient light will still be able to enter this bedroom. There are also no proposed windows on the side elevation of the proposed site and this will be conditioned to protect the privacy of the occupants of West Lee. The suggested decrease in the value of the neighbouring property is not a material consideration in the decision making process. In terms of the distance between the two properties, there is still a gap between the built forms of the applicant site and the neighbouring property. Applicants are entitled to build up to the boundary. Maintenance and ownership of the boundary are a civil matter and therefore do not come into our decision making process. Overall, officers are satisfied that neighbouring amenity will be preserved. So in conclusion, the proposed extension and alterations do not impact the openness of the green belt and have been designed to protect neighbouring amenity, further protected through planning conditions. The design does not cause detriment to the street scene and the proposal complies with all relevant policies within the local plan. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, have you any questions for the case officer? Councillor Jones. Sorry, can I just clarify one thing? We were told that it would be conditioned, that there wouldn't be any windows on that side that might impact the neighbours. The listed conditions in the report, it does list the plans for which it has to be built according but from, but doesn't actually specifically list no windows in that sidewall. Is the condition listing the plans sufficient or should there be a specific condition to remove the possibility of windows on that side? Thank you, Councillor. I can do a specific condition which will include any additional windows on that side of the nation. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I'd just like some clarification from officers, please. We say that we have an objection from one neighbour and the parish council. I thought the parish council had to attend in meetings where they objected. There seems to be no objectors here present this evening. No, unfortunately, if it's just the parish council, then they have to attend and speak. But if it's the parish council and at least one neighbour, then they don't have to come and speak. And this is one of the reasons we're looking at changing our delegator because it's very confusing. Anyway, thank you for that. Any other comments? Yes, I would like to comment. Right. That's okay. First of all, do we want to actually make a proposal about the condition that Councillor Jones raised? I have to propose that condition. You've got that proposal. All those in favour of the proposal from Councillor Jones and the seconded by Councillor Bedford? Unanimous. Yes, I do want to say something about this. I know that the previous application was refused. I know that area quite well and they are all different. And I think this will be an improvement. And I cannot understand on the town council's objection that it wouldn't be in keeping because there isn't a particular star. On the neighbourhood plan it doesn't have any particular characteristics for the rural parts. But it also, in my view, does comply with policy and also on the neighbourhood plan policy ED1, which is character and design. And I personally think it would be an improvement. Okay. Any other comments? So could we have a proposal that we grant this application? All right. All those in favour? Unanimous. Okay. We will now complete that item. Item 10, no need to exclude the public and press. And all that remains of me to do is to thank you all for your attendance and declare the meeting closed.