Transcript

That attracted people's attention, didn't it? Good evening to our visitors, our speakers and to our members. We have a lot of new members here this evening, so welcome. I will say a little bit about the proceedings when we get to item two, but let me just first mention the webcasting introduction. I would like to remind everyone that in this meeting it will be filmed live and recorded and uploaded to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing. Therefore, by participating in this meeting you are consenting to being filmed and the possible use of those images and sound recordings. If any public speakers on MS Teams do not wish to have their image captured, they should ensure their video settings throughout the meeting are turned off and set to audio only. Visitors and public speakers are reminded to turn their microphones on before speaking and off when they have finished speaking. So everybody, welcome to the Area Plan Subcommittee South on Wednesday 12 June 2024. I am Councillor Lyon and my name is there in case I forget who I am. We have Vivian Messenger, who is our Democratic Services Officer, who will be taking notes. We have my co-chairman here who is Chidi Wege. We have Steve Mitchell over there who is actually going to be managing the webcast. So he will be looking at the recording. We have one of our officers, Graham Courtney, on Teams and we have Suki Dahua here in the Council Chamber. So with that I will go to item 2, which is advice to public speakers on pages 4 to 5. I ask you to note that, but I will explain because we are a number of new councils here this evening. The way things will work is I will hand over to one of our planning officers who will outline each application, then there will be the opportunity for the speakers either for or in opposition and also the town or parish council to speak and then it will be handed over to councillors. At that point only councillors may speak, visitors and speakers may not speak during the discussions that we have here before we actually make our final decision. And then each application will be put to the vote and we will consider the vote and what the situation is once we have voted on each application. So having said that, we will move on to item 3, apologies for absence. Chairman, I have received apologies from councillors Brook, Wiskin and Pond. Thank you. Declarations of interest. Okay, Councillor Sungan. Thank you, Chairman. Item 9, I have a non-pecuniary interest. I know an interested party associated with this application. Item 11, I have a pecuniary interest. My company collects the rent and I shall be leaving the meeting for that application. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Allgood. Yes, thank you. Item 12, I have actually met with the applicant, however, it is non-pecuniary and non... Councillor Isby. Thank you, Chairman. And I have an interest I would like to declare on item 9, which is EPF 177/23, by virtue of knowing one of the parties associated to the application. Also, I think sensible at this stage to declare an interest from the registered speakers list. Three of the speakers I know as ward residents, so both non-pecuniary and non-prejudicial. Thank you. Councillor Allgood. Thank you. I have non-pecuniary interest in items 9, 10 and 11. All three of those have been heard at parish when I've sat on there, not that it's made any difference. I'm coming open-minded. Item number 9, I do know somebody that is associated with the application and on items 9, 10 and 11, I do know one of the speakers that's speaking. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Rackham. Thank you, Chair. I believe I've got a non-pecuniary interest in item 9 as well. Thank you. Councillor Allgood. Can I also add that I also know some of the speakers for tonight as well, the objectors as well. And also, I've been contacted by, like everybody else on the committee, by many, many residents on items number 11 and number 9 as well. Thank you. Councillor Copley. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to declare a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8. Bear in mind, I was the Deputy Chairman of the Loudoun Town Council Planning Committee when that came before us, I think two times in the last calendar year or so. And the other one is the agenda item, which is the FERS. I'm not sure it is a pecuniary interest but I knew the applicant 20 or so years ago. No longer, though. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. As previous Chair of Chippewa Parish Council, I also have a non-pecuniary interest in item 9 and also know one of the speakers as well. And I will declare an interest in item 9 as I know the Chairman of the Parish Plans Committee who will be speaking this evening. And I'm also aware of one of the people involved in that development from what I've seen on some of the documentation that's come forward, but it's a non-pecuniary interest. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to minutes, page 6 to 9. Can I agree those minutes? Agreed. Thank you. Item 6. Do we have any other business? None, Chairman. Thank you very much. Item 7. Site visits. Any requests for site visits? Excellent. No request for site visits. That's a good move. So we will move on to the first application of the evening, which is item 8, EPF 1291/23, 18, Kenilworth Gardens, Loughton, IG 10/3 AG and I'll hand over to Suki. Thank you, Chairman. EPF 1291/23 is seeking permission for a first floor extension, demolition of existing rear conservatory and erection of a new single storey rear extension with roof light, change of roof from pitched to small crown, replacement of all windows and new porch with Gable D Tower 18, Kenilworth Gardens in Loughton. This application is before you today as it has had objections from the town council and a neighbour on the grounds that it is overbearing and will cause loss of neighbouring residential amenity. The application site contains a detached house and is the end property on the western side of Kenilworth Gardens. This slide shows the location plan outlined in red. It's the end property on the western side of Kenilworth Gardens. Due to the staggered position of the houses within this cul-de-sac, the application property is significantly north-west of the rest of the houses on this side of the street. The adjoining property to the south of the application site sits 7.8 metres further west of the application site. This is a street view of the site. To your right is Four Bowling Close and to the left is 16 Kenilworth Gardens. This is a view from Bowling Close, looking at the property behind the head you can just see the top of the existing rear extension and that's 16 Kenilworth Gardens there. The northern side flank adjoins a footpath and is approximately 9 metres from the side flank of Four Bowling Close. There are no habitable rooms facing the application site. Number 5 Bowling Close is separated from the application site by a distance of 7.8 metres and the ground floor rear extension is over 17 metres away from its front elevation. The existing property has an existing full-width 4.9-metre-deep extension, plus a further 5.1-metre-deep conservatory close to the mutual boundary with 16 Kenilworth Gardens. The proposal seeks to convert the existing footprint of the ground floor extension into a large living space at first floor level, a staggered extension which is set half a metre from the side boundary, which then extends to 3.4 metres deep and 2.5 metres wide to create an en-suite and then extends a further 1.5 metres to the maximum depth of 4.9 metres. The roof will be modified to include a central crown roof. This slide shows the proposed front and rear elevations. The roof will be 0.5 metres below the main ridge of the roof and will therefore remain subservient. The Juliet balcony will not allow access out and therefore would be akin to a large window. The materials will be controlled by condition. This view shows the existing and proposed side elevations. The upper floor extensions will be set a minimum of 2.6 metres in from No. 16 Kenilworth Gardens and therefore their residential amenity will not be affected. Thank you, Chairman. So that's the end of my presentation. Thank you. I believe there's no speakers on this particular application, so I will hand this over to members. Is there any ward councillors? Thank you. Hi. Councillor Barbara Cohen. This house is in my ward, my new ward, and it was brought up to the Loughton town council and they had issues with it about being overbearing, loss of light and overshadowing the other properties and loss of privacy to the neighbouring houses. The committee objected because it was 50 per cent larger than the original dwelling and the first and the rear first floor extension would result in a negative impact on the neighbours at No. 5, Bowlin Close, and also the proposal would be out of keeping with the street scene. So that's what it is. Councillor Murray. Yes. Thank you, Chairman. This isn't in my ward, but it is in the ward I represented until May for 30 years, so obviously I know it very well, but the ward got chopped in half. I've listened to what Councillor Cohen has said about the town council view and obviously I was aware of that. I think in terms of the changes that the applicant has made from an earlier application, it would be difficult to refuse this. I'm not over happy with it, but I think we do have to have good, strong reasons to refuse and though I wouldn't set myself up as an expert in any sense in planning, I've been to enough planning meetings to know that you do have to put forward reasonable planning reasons for objecting and I would be struggling to find those. So on balance, I'm going to be voting in favour. It's not saying that I'm particularly happy about it, but I can't really develop any cohering planning reasons for saying no. Thank you, Councillor Murray. Thank you, Mr Chairman. If members were minded to grant this application, could the Planning Officer indicate whether the permitted development rights would be removed for any further development? Thank you. Councillor Kaufman. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I support the permitted development point, it's very well made. The view that I would like to see, I think the relevant view is the view we should see from Bolin Close looking across that adjoining properties view to see what it would look like with the extension in place and the view that I saw was the view as it currently stands. I don't know if we can have that slide back up. Have we got a slide showing an impression of what it would look like should we give this consent? This is the plans. The plans show the existing and proposed design. Yes, what I'm looking for is the street. There was a picture of a street scene. The existing one. The existing street scene looking across the property from Bolin Close. Then we're looking at the house as it currently stands. That's it. Yes. Where is the extension? Sorry. Go back one please. Sorry. I need to come forward. Sorry. The view we need to see is what does it look like after you've built the building. How far out does it come across that view? You can see the rear extension, the single storey rear extension where my pointer is. So it will go up to there. So it will rise in line with that rear extension. I would have thought as part of the verification process it would have been really nice to see an image of that drawn. What we're doing is we're guessing what it looks like. It's about there and it's about this and we're not sure. As part of the verification, the street scene is so critical to what we're consenting. I know it's too late now but it is a bit of a guess how much damage that's going to do to that view. So I'm concerned about it. I'm not sufficiently thinking to be against it but it would really help us to see what we're consenting please. The street scene hasn't been provided but you can see that it would rise in line with there. The plans do give an indicator of the depth of the extension. So you can see that it would just go straight up from the existing rear elevation of the ground floor extension. So if I could take you back to the street scene. Does it go to the full size of the proposed ground floor plan and then the proposed first floor plan? It's sitting half a metre from the side flank of the ground floor extension and then it tapers, it only goes up to about 3.4 metres deep and then it extends a further 1.5 metres deep. So the overall impact is lessened by the L-shaped design of it. Okay. Okay. Are there any other questions? Any? Councillor Morgan. So can we just have a quick look at the location plan again please? Do you have a question? Yes I do. I was just waiting for it to stop going towards the bits. So the windows on the side are actually overlooking the property up there, aren't they? Because they've got three larger windows that will be overlooking. Is that correct? Could we go back to the plans again please? Side flank windows. So these windows here, so this window is slightly larger but there are existing windows already within. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I just want you to double check because that one's quite small and needs a bigger. Thank you. Okay. So we have no more questions. Can we put this to the vote? All those in favour, sorry. Plus the removal of the PD rights. Is that okay? Can we do that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. With the inclusion of removal of PD rights, can we put the application to the vote? All those in favour of agreeing this particular application? 18. All those against? None. Any abstentions? Two. Okay. That has been approved and we move on to our next application which, if you find it. Okay. Thank you Chairman. Next item is item 9 which is EPF 1770/23-191 the FERS High Road Tugwell IG75AS pages 15-28 to consider the report for the change of use from existing residential to nursery with class E. So I'll hand over to Suki. Thank you Chairman. This slide shows the location plan outlined in red. The application site contains a bungalow and is located on the western side of the high road. This application is before committee because more than five objections have been received. The addresses and concerns raised are listed on page 18 of the agenda. Since the agenda was published, the Council has received further comments from 37 Fairview Drive, 94, 120 and 125 High Road, 5, 6, 12 and 30 Coolgardie Avenue, 10 and 12 Key West, 3 New Barns Way, no number New Barns Way, 15 Chigwell Park Drive, 12 New Forest Lane and seven emails with no address who reiterate their concerns regarding insufficient parking will encourage inconsiderate parking, will increase traffic congestion, sound report inaccurate, proposal will cause noise pollution, harm to road and children's safety, overdevelopment, no need for nursery, conversion to class E will make flats possible, no location for fire drills, air pollution risk due to increased traffic, loss of bungalow will cause delays for emergency services, no mention of ecological survey for protected species. Chigwell Daycare Nursery objects on the grounds that it will undermine expansion potential. The site is located on the western side of Chigwell High Road, which is a busy classified road. To the north of the site is the grade two listed two storey house, opposite is a two storey apartment block, 120 High Road. To the south west is for the lanterns, this dwelling is set significantly back from the front of this application dwelling, there's a lit public footpath which runs between four lanterns and the application property. To the rear is five new barns, which is a two storey detached house. The site is 100 metres away from Chigwell Station. The nearest bus stop is about 230 metres away, which is about a three minute walk. This slide shows the photograph images of the front and rear elevations of the bungalow. The applicant Amy Davis has a contractual position to purchase the property subject to planning permission. This slide shows the condition of the existing lounge, as the property has not been lived in or maintained for four years, its condition has deteriorated. This slide shows the view from the garden looking north westwards towards five new barns way. This slide shows a photograph of the protected horse chestnut tree within the grounds of 189 High Road. The root area of this tree within the application site will be protected by a new planting area. This is a street view image of the site looking from new barns way. This slide shows the existing floor plan and elevations of the bungalow, it contains three bedrooms. This slide shows the proposed floor plans and elevations. Amended plans have very recently been submitted, which show the internal bin store on the southern corner of the building with an opening within its front elevation. The agent has advised that the bin store would contain adequate refuge and recycling storage to manage the waste arising from the proposed use. Nappy waste would be collected in separate bins within the refuge store, ready for collection by businesses that are licensed to handle commercial waste. Other waste will be collected as per existing. Given the information, members are advised that condition 16 on page 27 of the agenda is no longer required. On the site visit, Chairman Lyon requested more information in regard to the disability access and further information on toilet and kitchen facilities. Plans now show the disabled access into the building, which would be via the front entrance. Toddlers rooms one, two, and three are all accessible. There's a disabled accessible WC here and there's six toilets and hand basins here. This is acceptable and would meet early year standards and it would be sufficient to accommodate the number of children that will be using the facility. There's also a kitchen and preparation facility shown on the ground floor. Plans have also been amended to show the storeroom to be moved to the mezzanine level. It's proposed to close the two existing vehicular access points at either end of the site frontage on the high road and replace them with a single access and egress midway along the site frontage via a drop curb vehicular crossover. A separate pedestrian access is proposed to the south adjacent the public right of way. Three car parking spaces are proposed. The planning statement indicates that the start times for pupils will be staggered to minimise any disruption to the free flow of traffic in the area. The highways authorities considers the location to be inaccessible for other modes of transport other than the private car and there are appropriate parking restrictions on the high road at this location to limit street parking. Consequently, the highway authority satisfied that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety or efficiency. The authority advised that the front parking area should only be utilised by parents and not staff who should be required to use sustainable modes of transport to travel to and from the site. A buggy store will allow parents to drop buggies off before travelling to work. A cycle store is also proposed to be located in the rear garden and will be accessible via existing side gate off the pedestrian footpath which will be controlled by an intercom system. The rear garden of the property will be divided into two separate external play areas comprising of an immediate rear terrace and then the lower garden beyond. It is proposed to have approximately 20 children using each external play area at any one time. That's 40 in total. The use of these spaces will be supervised by staff at all times. This slide shows the measures proposed in the transport statement to ensure staff travel to and from work using non-car modes of transport. Conditions are also recommended which requires cycle storage, spaces and green travel plan to ensure that the start time for children are staggered and the use of the car is minimised by parents. The highway authority satisfied that this will be sufficient to ensure highway safety and the free flow of traffic will not be seriously affected. The rear garden of the property will be divided into two separate external play areas. Concerns were raised about the sound and noise coming from the use. The existing terrace will be enclosed by a continuous two metre high fence with a solid gates providing access to the lower garden area which itself will be enclosed by existing perimeter wall and fencing. It is proposed to have approximately 20 children in each area. The environmental enforcement officer has reviewed the submitted noise assessment and found the proposal to be acceptable subject to the recommendations of this report being conditioned as part of any permission. The assessment within the report made calculations from the centre of each play area which are considered representative of the proposed activities. Any noise close to the perimeter or boundary of the fence will be reduced by increased barrier attenuation. In terms of the perimeter fence, any standard wooden fencing such as a close boarded panels with no visible gaps to ensure no direct line of sight was considered suitable. It should also be noted that the children will be supervised at all times and therefore subject to the above suggested condition is not considered that the nuisance generated by the proposal be excessive. The hours of operation will also result in no activity during the evenings and weekends unlike the current residential use, therefore minimising the overall impact. It is for these reasons that it has been recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you, Chairman. Okay, so we have two speakers or three speakers on this particular application. The first speaker is the objector in person, that's Cindy Lessing, I'll hand over to Cindy. I'm Cindy Lessing, representing 459 residents who object. Two previous applications for flats were rejected by planning due to lack of available parking in the general location, nothing's changed. Two applications have been approved for a single occupancy dwelling as it was inappropriate to allow change of use. Again, nothing's changed. It seems Council believe there are inadequate local nurseries, this is not the case. There are 19 locales, locally 8 in IG7, safe nursery expansion in Chigwell has been identified without need for planning permission or siting on a dangerous main road. Parish not only identified that out of date figures from the infrastructure plan have been used, but the 2021 census shows less than 25% of households with dependent children. The noise pollution of children and traffic is cumulative. Noise generated by 40 young children in an open area is far more intrusive, impacting severely on the lives of all the nurseries' neighbours. As evidenced by Parish, the noise report appears significantly flawed and should be given minimal weight. Other than by car, there is no easy access to the site. With two or three trains an hour and one bus, public transport is wholly inadequate. Six parking spaces will cater for no more than 10% of parents dropping off their children, leaving 50 parents searching for parking spots twice a day. Considerable congestion will be created on the high road. Parents unable to access the drop-off area will have to wait for cars to leave. Cars will either manoeuvre in a confined space or dangerously back out onto the high road. Illegal parking on double yellow lines in the high road will inevitably increase as parents' cars block the road or the over-congested roads behind the nursery where commuters already park. With a supermarket without a car park and yellow lines on station road planned, the lack of parking here must not be seen in isolation. The 20 staff are not allowed to park on nursery premises. With inadequate public transport and despite cycle storage, how can the nursery ensure their staff only walk or cycle to work? Staggering drop-off and pick-up is an unrealistic expectation. Parents will drop off and collect at their convenience. They are paying. Are you prepared to put young lives at risk? Parents need time and adequate space to safely drop off and collect children and their baggage from a nursery. In the absence of proper delivery or collection facilities, a serious accident could occur. Where is children safeguarding? This proposal is unwarranted, a danger to life, fraught with noise pollution and totally against the environmental wellbeing of its neighbours. Please reject this now. Thank you. We have the second speaker, which is Councillor Selina Jepko from Chingwell Parish Council. Selina, over to you. Thank you. As Chair of Planning, there are not many applications that result in hundreds of residents objecting, but you have not one of those but two in front of you this evening. Firstly, the FERS, a proposal so potentially intrusive and damaging to residents that 459 people submitted their names and addresses in objection to it. Planning officers describe this as a petition without signatures and haven't referenced it properly in the report to you, but that is 459. We hear that there is a buyer lined up once Class E status is granted. What will happen then? Who knows? But before us tonight is an application for a somewhat impractical nursery. You're the parking authority, not highways, you, Epping Forest Councillors. If you think that three parking spaces is not adequate for parents to drop and pick up 60 children, then you need to speak up. If you think that parking is not practical to use or it's not adequate in terms of design or layout, you're the parking authority. You're the ones that can say that's why it's not compliant with local policy T1. If you think the suggested mitigation that all parents will walk and all staff will use other means of transport can't be achieved or enforced, then again it's up to you to say the parking is not practical and so is contrary to policy T1. The developers' noise report places all children by the back door, not the boundary of the lower playground and upper playground where they'll actually be. The noise report plays with figures and claims a wooden fence panel will reduce the noise of excited children to the extent that up to 40 of them playing a metre or two from gardens will be quieter than any noise any of you heard if you went on the site visit. The environmental officer says the report mitigation measures must be made conditional but the developers' report doesn't recommend any mitigation. It just goes to show what can be done by the experts employed by developers. He who pays the piper truly does call the tune. Officers say there's a need for nursery places quoting the 2020 infrastructure document but that says the 48 needed is between 2016 and 2033 is based on the submission version which had 376 dwellings in Chigwell. The actual adopted local plan reduces that to 206 of which 105 are planned to be retirement units. Officers say the noise impact is not contrary to DM9 but make no reference to the more specific requirements of policy DM21, local environmental impacts, pollution and land contamination. This says the council requires the local environmental impact including noise does not lead to unacceptable impacts on the health, safety, well-being and amenity of those in and around the proposal. DM21 says the council will resist development that leads to unacceptable local environmental impacts. This includes noise. DM21 says adverse impacts and activities must be mitigated and reduced to a minimum. This is simply not happening here. We ask you to refuse because the design and layout of parking is not practical contrary to policy T1. We ask you to refuse this on the grounds it does not comply with policy DM21 A, B, B1, B2 and B3. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jeff Cote. If we could move on. We now have the applicant's agent Tanya Tindall. Thank you, Chair. Members, to set some context, this application has been submitted by a young female who has spotted a need within the local area. The property, as you have seen, is a large four-bedroom detached bungalow. It has a poorly planned layout with a number of internal rooms that lack ventilation. It provides poor quality family accommodation. The building has been vacant for over four years. Its condition has deteriorated over that time and it requires significant refurbishment. Despite having been on the market for well over a year, there has been very limited interest in its continued use as a dwelling. The Council's spatial development strategy allows the net loss of homes where the benefits will materially outweigh any harm. Essential facilities and services like this will be supported where they meet an identified demand. The local plan identifies that one of the key infrastructure priorities for the village of Chigwell is the provision of appropriate education, including early years provision to support the existing new and planned for housing in the area. The infrastructure delivery plan indicates an essential need for first 48 early years places to meet the needs of new residents. You will have heard that the pressure for places is only going to increase with the upcoming expansion of childcare support by the government. The proposal is to convert the vacant building into a day nursery for up to 60 children, taking advantage of its accessible location almost opposite the underground, close to buses and near to Brook Parade. The proposal will deliver employment opportunities as day nurseries tend to employ local people wherever possible. A new vehicle access will be provided following the closure of the existing two accesses to improve current highway arrangements and improve entry and exit from High Road. Start times for pupils will be staggered to minimise disruption and parking restrictions on this part of High Road will limit on street parking. As you have seen, buggy and cycle storage along with a green travel plan will be provided to all users and staff to encourage non-car modes of travel. The highway authority is satisfied that the proposal will not be detrimental to highway safety and all across the borough there are a number of day nurseries that operate successfully on busy roads with very limited parking, most notably the Crystalis Nursery on High Road in Loughton. The nursery will operate 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and the use of the two external play areas will be more limited to between 9am and 6pm. These areas will be supervised at all times to safeguard neighbouring amenity. Overall the proposals meet all tiers of planning policy and guidance and would provide much needed additional pre-school facilities in an accessible location. Thank you. Okay, members, over to you. Councillor Ritchie. Thank you Mr Chairman and just to welcome you to the chair. I think you've definitely got your hands full with the agenda this evening. Obviously this application falls in my ward. Like many of the other councillors I have been inundated with objections and dozens and dozens of them at that. Look, I think the application has been presented in its entirety. I think there are significant concerns that have been raised and I acknowledge much of what the speakers have said as well as what the residents have raised in their objections. The main issues which sit very uncomfortably with me are obviously the inadequate parking provision. I think it's simply inconceivable that we have up to 60 local children using the nursery and potentially up to 20 members of staff and having parking provision on site for just three spaces, you know, whilst the highways authority has said that there's no concerns raised on safety grounds, I think it will have a material impact on residents along Chigwell Park Drive, New Barns Way and also further along the high road. So that's definitely something which is, you know, a major red flag for me. And then a couple of the other points that have been raised already which again do raise alarm is, you know, the impact on the neighbours on 189 along New Barns Way and further along the high road because of noise pollution. I have had sight of the noise report which has been submitted as part of the supporting documents and frankly speaking I don't think it's fit for purpose. There's lots and lots of technical errors that have been flagged up in there and, you know, I'm minded to agree with the residents on this that, you know, it will have a detrimental impact on residents and neighbours all along the proposed site. So those were some of the issues which I have quite significant concerns about. I think the officer did highlight in her report about insufficient waste disposal services. I know Chairman Youd attended the site visit as one of the only members that, well the only member that was there and, you know, again I think, you know, having inadequate waste disposal for a site which could potentially be used, you know, by up to 60 children will cause, you know, an impact on the area. So those are some of the views that I have but, you know, I would be keen to listen to other members but I stand with my 450 plus subjecting residents on this. I cannot support it. Councillor Soongar. Thank you, Chairman and I also welcome you in your new position as chair and what a start you're going to have. 459 residents signed a petition and for some reason there was no signature. However, 459 people did put their name down and I have seen a list of these 459 residents and I've been inundated like the rest of the committee. My phone has, my email has completely gone into meltdown so there's got to be something there. Something's happening. Our residents are not happy. They have elected us to listen to them and we are listening to our residents. When this application was brought in front of the committee the very first time I was somewhat confused and surprised that Jigwa Parish Council didn't put an objection and I was inundated with emails at that time, not as many as this time and I then thought the way forward would be if people are complaining through emails and yet it's not been lodged as an objection then it would only be fair to get a site visit and hence why I call a site visit and since that site visit 459 plus residents have come to know about this application and Chairman, you attended the site visit. However, I move on. So whilst we've had objections we've also had some element of support for the Jigwa Nursery. I have huge concerns about the location of this proposed nursery. Being a Jigwa Village Councillor for eight years I can tell you the one thing that's always been drawn to my attention whenever I've spoken to our residents in New Barns Way is commuters during peak hours parking there, blocking their driveways. I know one particular resident, I won't say which number, but she's forever struggling to get these cars moved. Now can you just imagine, members, if you've got parents who as we already know and we all know in our wards, we've got schools and how inconsiderate are some of these parents when they park and drop their kids off, can you imagine what the impact would be on this nursery where they will be looking to park, I would imagine, on New Barns Way and Jigwa Park as well, Jigwa Park Drive and on Coolgardie Way. That will be the parents and also the commuters as well, so you've got a double whammy there. In terms of highways, I know in the report from our offices that highways have not objected to this, but it's not the first time that highways have never objected to this. However, as local councillors and as local representatives that have been duly elected by our residents, we know the area far better than the actual highways team that's sitting somewhere in Essex County Council and I can tell you that area, that particular position for the nursery, I don't think is suitable and I too, like with councillors, my ward colleague cannot see any grounds how we could support this application, but I am prepared to listen to the rest of the committee, see where they sit, but as far as I am concerned, I have to be on the side of all of my 459, I would say that's an understatement, it's more than 459 because my email hasn't stopped and it's still pinging as we speak. So Chairman, I personally cannot support this application and I'm with my residents on this one. Thank you.

• Thank you very much. Before we go on, I just wanted to point out, I did go on the site visit. It was a very difficult visit because the property wasn't very accessible. We had to go in through the side door, which was a very narrow entrance and that was being considered as a buggy entrance and it's only about 66 centimetres wide, so it's pretty narrow. I think the point about the bin store, I think that is going through the front and they're actually making access on the front, but that is again, at the moment, there are about four or five bins sat outside in the front garden or front area. So that's potentially an issue, but I think that's going to be dealt with. The buggy store, I think is another question. Things have actually changed. We have got some further information and I think the plans now do actually show toilets and a kitchen area. However, my concern would be that 60 children and 20 adults, I don't see any staff facilities. So that's a consideration, but I'll let the debate carry on and I'll hand over to Councillor Williamson. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, we have been inundated. I'd like to thank those residents that emailed me and wrote their own emails and actually put their own thoughts down. Those that cut and paste somebody else's thank you, I've really got the message over and over again. A lot of the objections mentioned that this could be a step for turning the nursery into flats. I think we can make it clear here that that would need a further planning permission and that that's to be discounted. We've had people saying there's not enough provision. There's people saying there's too much provision. It's not for us to decide on the viability. I have got serious problems with parking. I think the highway authority are probably saying that the ingress and egress from the site are probably acceptable, but I think it's naive to think that three parking spaces can service this nursery at drop off and pick up. So I find it very difficult to go any further with this application on that basis. But if we are minded to approve, I think something in the presentation was about the play area is being used between nine and six only. We have a condition for the hours of opening of the nursery. If we are minded to approve, I think we could add a condition that the play areas are only used between nine a.m. and six p.m. I'm finding it very difficult to back this application. Councillor Murray, I think next. Thank you, chairman. I won't speak for long. We take a close interest in all things Chigwell. Can I thank the public as well for all the residents for the number of emails? And I do slightly disagree with Councillor Soonger, but I think he probably will agree with what I'm going to say. I don't actually think it's the quantity of emails that we received that signified it. That is significant, but I think the most significant thing is the quality of the arguments. And I obviously haven't made my mind up until we come tonight, because that's what's required of us. And I've all listened to members, but I thought the quality of the arguments. So if I receive 100 emails from some different residents and I think there's poor arguments and I receive one that has really good arguments, that's the more important email, in my view. But not only did we receive a lot of emails, we received really good arguments. I won't rehearse the arguments that we've heard, because I feel I've supported it, but I must just comment on a contribution we had from the planner, sorry, not our planner, but the professional support in the application. To cite the Christmas nursery in Loughton as a reason for saying yes to this, to me, doesn't show any understanding of the reality of what we face in Loughton when that's used. That does exactly what the objectors are saying this one will do. I'm president of the Abbeyfield Society, which is a lovely development, a lovely concept, now unfortunately right by this nursery. And the beginning of the day and the end of the day is an absolute nightmare, and you only have to speak to any Loughton resident that has to use that part of the high road. So the previous Councillor that just spoke was absolutely right, one of my biggest concerns is parking. And I also think one of the other people who contributed, non-Councillors that contributed, has given the Chigwell Councillors, because I'm looking for them perhaps to give technical reasons to reject, has probably given you some ideas to put in the motion. So yes I will listen to the whole debate because that's what's required of us, but at the moment I'll be voting against you. Councillor Owen. Thanks Chairman, yeah actually Councillor Murray just covered most of it, but in Loughton I think we've got at least three nurseries on the high road, two of which have next to no parking that I'm aware of, however I will say certainly when my children were at nursery I think my wife pretty much walked them there every day as exercise for herself and the children. So I'm not sure parking is too much of an issue per se, although I do have concerns on the staff getting there if they're not from the area. And also just on Chigwell being sustainable, I mean the train station does have multiple trains into London so I'm not sure we could put down that that's really a reason. I looked it up just now, there's at least six an hour to Liverpool Street going via Woodford or via Haynot. May I point out, Councillor Owen, that we're on the loop line and there's been a severe restriction because the trains are being taken out of service because of motors but carrying them. Noted, I think in Loughton I've waited over 15 minutes myself, but yeah I looked it up for tomorrow morning and there's six between eight and nine. Thank you very much. Okay, Councillor Morgan. Thank you Chair. Ms Tindall stated that there's cycle storage but I couldn't actually see on the planes how many cycles actually, I couldn't see anything for cycle storage or how many done. Also she noted that there's an extended drop-off. That's highlighted concern to me because we have up to a thousand children walking up to West Hatch and you've then got the extended period where parents are coming in and across the pavement that they're walking on and I've lived around there for sort of 50 odd years and walking down the alley unfortunately I've got to say I'm sorry I couldn't attend the site visit but I was otherwise engaged. You walk down the alleyway and when you get to New Barnsway you can actually hear the people talking in the lanterns which are the cottages to the left as you look at the property. You can actually hear them talking in their front, in their back gardens when you reach the end of the alleyway. So when you've got 20 or 40 children playing in there the people at New Barnsway are going to hear everything. So I've got to say I'm very very concerned about that along with the inadequate transport because there is no transport, I live in Chippewa so no transport and the fact that I think under the T1 the parking we need to really have a look at that and also we do have to look at the TM21 noise report because I have walked down there regularly and it's highlighted up more. Councillor McCann. Thank you, Chair. If I could just say, I think I echo the thoughts of my two Chigwell Lambourne Ward colleagues. I think the points are well made. The other thing I just draw attention to is a couple of statements within the report. So page 23, the indication that start time for pupils will be staggered to minimise any disruption, to free flow of traffic and then conditions recommended requires further details of how children will be taken to nursery to encourage not mandate the use of sustainable modes of transportation. I just think the wording used is rather fanciful, I think there's a bit of a reality check required in terms of a forward look as to how people use nurseries. I don't think, unless I'm going to be corrected by any member or the officer, there's no way that we can mandate how customers or users of this nursery use it in terms of getting children there and back. I find very little assurance in the statements that are used there, but I'll continue listening. Thank you. Thank you. Before we carry on, I think there's two parking issues. One of them is the drop off of parking and the second one is commuter parking and I think we need to distinguish between those two. Councillor Chihal Holden, I think was waiting to speak. Very patiently, Chair. Thank you. I'm sure you are. One of the things I wanted to just say and a lot of the points have already been said, so I'll try and keep it succinct, for me, the problem is going to be Brook Parade because what we may tend to see is that staff will park on Brook Parade because it's free parking and actually that would be an issue which is already a congested area and for me, that would be a problem if that was to happen. The other thing that has just been pointed out is that Tubal Station is not a step-free access, so if you've got a buggy and you're coming by train, it's not a viable option for you. That's just another thing to think about in this consideration. Thank you for that. Councillor Ritchie and Councillor Simka, did you want to say something else? Thank you for allowing me to come back, Chairman. I will keep my remarks very, very brief, but it was just to follow up from my ward colleague, Mr McCann's point in the officer's report, page 22 and page 23, and if we quote the very first paragraph on page 23, which states the development has the potential to result in a net increase in traffic using roads through the EFC SAC and therefore could have a likely significant effect on the FSAC in relation to the atmospheric pollution impact pathway. I think it basically reinforces the same message which has been echoed by many members and I think I would be quite happy if you wanted to take it to a vote, Chairman. Thank you. Yes, I think we've got Councillor Rackham and then that will be the last question and then we'll go to the vote. Thank you, Chair, and congratulations. I'd just like to mention something that no-one else has mentioned, well, two issues. Deliveries. Surely there'll be deliveries and if we've got all this traffic coming and going, when are they thinking of delivering? The other thing is parents are normally going to work, so they're going to want to drop their kids off before they go to work and that can be any time that they choose. If they've got to be in work by nine o'clock and the trains are not running properly, they'll probably want to sort of deliver the kids to school when they want to deliver the kids to school, not when they're told to deliver the kids to school. The other thing I'd like to mention as well is thank you to all the residents that have obviously contacted us all. It's the most emails I've actually seen, I think, on an issue apart from one of the others that we're going to discuss later on. I wondered what sort of consultation was actually done with the residents in this ward, if there was any, and what was the outcomes of it? Did they look at what - because we have got over 400-odd people writing and I just wondered whether they took that into account because it doesn't look like they have done. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I think we've heard enough of the debate. I think we will put this particular application to the vote. So this is a change of use for a day nursery Class E with the creation of central vehicle access following closure of the existing access and associated cars, cycle buggy and scooter parking. So all those in favour of approving this with the conditions that are actually listed in the report, plus a couple of other conditions which we talked about, nine to six opening. Was there another condition that was registered? I think there was one that I was looking at which was no further development on this site, no permitted development on this site. Sorry, Councillor William. It was the play areas nine to six if we're minded to approve. Play area being open for nine to six, yeah. Okay, so all those in favour of the application? None, Chairman. All those against? Sorry, 19. Any abstentions? One. Two. Oh, two, sorry. 18. Okay. Well, that application has been refused. That means that this will now be considered by the applicant as to what they do next. No, no, no. Sorry. We need grounds for refusal. Thank you. Chairman, may I suggest grounds for refusal starting with inadequate on-site parking provision contrary to policy T1 coupled with non-compliance to policy DM21 from part A through to B5 which states, if I just get it back up onto my screen, the residual local impact of the development which will lead to unacceptable impact on the wellbeing and amenity of occupiers of the surrounding land due to noise. And then I'd also like to put in, based on the officer's report, that the development has the potential to result in a net increase in traffic using roads through the EFSAC. If any of the members want to add additional grounds for refusal. But those are the three that I would lead with. Is there also a question of displacement parking? Yeah, so I mean we can put in impacts on neighbouring roads at Chigua Park, New Barnes Way from overswell parking. Councillor Sunge. Can I just add to that? I think we might need to just streamline that a little bit more. So the parking provisions is lack of inadequate parking provisions which will have an impact on neighbouring residential area, namely Chigua Park Drive, Coolgardie Avenue, New Barnes Way and something that Councillor Holden just said, Brook Parade as well, because that really would mean parents will park on Brook Parade, walk from there and it's very close by. May I suggest, just having those as two separate points, so inadequate onsite parking provision as being number one and number two, impacts on neighbouring roads at Brook Parade, High Road, New Barnes Way, Coolgardie and Chigua Park. So we need someone to propose that. Councillor Issey. Yeah, I would like to propose Councillor Sunge's second that. OK. Apologies, Chairman. Can I just come in? Sorry, I didn't want to interrupt. I do have my hand up. Carry on then. Just before you go to the vote on this, absolutely, I've obviously been listening to the debate and not going to disagree on this. Much of what the members say, certainly around parking displacement, absolutely, I'm upset with that. I just want to warn members about and refuse on noise impacts. I'm just going to remind members that we do have a submitted noise report by the applicant expert, we have had that viewed by our own internal lawyers officers and they haven't raised objection. We have obviously had issues previously at Hill where we have gone against professional advice without having evidence of our own, contrary to that. So I just want to warn members, I don't know if Suki wants to come in and say something I can see her hand on that, but just before you go for a vote on that particular reason, I do want to say we can do it from a labouring amenity point of view in terms of DM9. So, yes, the report, the environmental noise report does accord with environmental legislation, but DM9 impact on amenity is slightly more subjective and it looks at the residential area and the character and amenity of that residential area of the neighbours. So if that's what you want to do, then. Thank you Chairman for allowing me to come back yet again. I would push for including DM21 because I think there's slightly different policies compared to DM9, so DM21 very clearly focuses on different parts in terms of the wellbeing and the impact on neighbours, not exclusively because of noise, but because of the development as well. So I would feel it may weaken our grounds for refusal. I appreciate what Mr Courtney is saying, but the officer's report shows some favourism to policy DM9, so I think using that as a basis for refusal may weaken us at any potential appeal. Can you turn your microphone off, Councillor Sungga? Sorry. Carry on. Yeah, no, no, I was just going to say, I completely appreciate, thank you Councillor Bussey, that again, no issue with referencing DM21, it was because obviously you did specifically reference noise impact, and that's what I just want to warn members that, as Nsuki says, in terms of the noise assessment, we have had the experts opinion on that. So I think we just want to avoid that the reason impact on MNC and absolutely DM21 as well as DM9, we can 100% refer to. One other thought I had was in terms of restricting the development. No further development of this particular site other than change of use. Yeah, okay. Just in terms of submission. Councillor Morgan. Thank you, Chair. I would like to recommend that we use DM9 and DM25, I know we used DM9 before, but DM91, item five, the noise impact assessment is slightly weighed in favour, when I've read it, in favour of the applicant. And technically it was flawed, it didn't really address properly the noise. So I wasn't happy with that, it was noise. And 9A, item three, the development doesn't make a positive impact or contribution in place. No, I think we've already got the views from the planning officer to say that there has been a professional review of that. So I think we need to minimise the response on that and carry on with what we've actually said. Any other comments on the proposal? Just to clarify, sorry, apologies, I really hate just cutting in, particularly when I'm on the meeting. Yeah, carry on. I just want to clarify to Councillor Morgan that we said in my notes I've got that we would be referencing DM9 and DM21, so we would be referencing both policies. Yeah. Okay, okay, that's fine. Okay, so we have a proposal for refusal. Has anyone got enough, can you read it out? Have you got enough information to read it out? So members, you're voting for refusal, inadequate onsite parking provision impact, the parking impact on neighbouring roads, non-compliance to DM9 and DM21 to do with an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity through noise, a net increase in traffic on the EF SAC and just a note that you are agreeing with what the planning officers have said on those two noise conditions. Could we just change that word in displaced parking? Displacement. The planning officer will give the final wording that goes out. Okay. So inadequate, so number one is inadequate onsite parking, number two is the creation of displacement parking, number three is the harm to neighbouring residential amenity through noise disturbance and then number four is the additional chips generated through the EF SAC. Is that, everyone agreed with that? Okay, so can we take that to the vote? All those in favour of that recommendation for refusal? 19. All those against? Sorry, were you voting in favour of refusal, Councillor Caulfield? Yeah, so it's unanimous then. Unanimous. Thank you, members. So that has been refused and it's back to the developer to consider that. Thank you very much. Okay, members, we will move on to another exciting application. We now move on to the land which is south of Cheekwall Rise and that is item 10. To consider the report's proposed site as a natural burial ground with associated landscaping, access improvements and parking. I will hand over to Suki to outline that proposal. Thank you, Chairman. This is EPF1919 of 23. It relates to land to the south of Cheekwall Rise. The above slide shows the location plan with the site outlined in red. It covers 10 hectares. The application is seeking permission for the use of the site as a natural burial ground with associated landscaping, access improvements and parking. The application is before this committee since the recommendation is for approval, contrary to an objection from the town council and from local residents. The concerns are listed on page 30 of the agenda. Since the agenda was published -- Oh, sorry. Take it a bit closer. It is a bit close. Okay. Is that better? Yeah. Sorry about that. Sorry. Since the agenda was published, the council has received further comments from 9-11-14 and 15 Chester Road, 15 Haynot Road, 94 High Road and two emails with no address raising concerns around noise disturbance to the peace and quiet because of big crowds of people. Close cut grass around graves is inconsistent with the concept of a natural burial ground, which should involve minimal and sensitive management. Detailed plans for maintenance, ecological enhancements, landscaping and grave plot layout have not been adequately provided. Queuing of traffic causing obstruction to the surrounding area. Over-spillage of parked cars on neighbouring roads. Littering of surrounding roads. Overlooking and loss of privacy will cause depression and gloom. Security issues from users of the cemetery having to access to the rear gardens. It's on the edge of a built-up area of Chigwell. The proposal will push the edge of the built-up area towards Buckhurst Hill and will cause loss of greenbelt land, loss of noise pollution from activities generated, negative impact of the use to young children, harmful to biodiversity. Plan applications for natural burial grounds have been used as a ploy to free up greenbelt for other purposes. If planning permission is granted, EFC must ensure that the applicant cannot do anything else with the site other than develop it and use it as a natural burial ground. This should be controlled by condition. Additional comments have also been received by neighbours in regard to potential flooding. No objections have been raised by our land drainage team subject to conditions. The environment agency who deal with groundwater issues have also not raised an objection and the case officer advises that they were made specifically aware of the groundwater risk assessment report submitted with this application. Conditions for 12 to 14 will ensure that flood risk is mitigated against. This slide shows an aerial view of the site. It's located on the western side of Chigwell and abuts the M11. It abounds Chigwell Rise which continues onto Rodding Lane to the north. Residential drillings to the south on Chester Road. To the south are open fields. It's covered in grassland with hedgerows and trees on its borders. The site is currently used for car boot sales on Saturdays and bank holidays for part of the year. Planning application reference EPF 2131 of 19 for use of the site as a burial ground with associated landscaping access improvements and ancillary buildings was refused by members on the grounds that it was harmful to the landscape character of the landscape and lack of parking and lack of adequate drainage provision. At appeal the inspector considered that the proposed buildings and associated development were inappropriate development as they did not preserve the openness of the green belt. The inspector particularly noted the introduction of two buildings. 30 car parking spaces and access roads to a grass field would manifestly be harmful to the openness of the green belt. The inspector also noted the impact of the headstones, the proximity of the plots, the long straight drives and the formal landscaping. However, the inspector did not support the council in regard to the parking provision or land drainage details. The inspector awarded costs to the appellant in regard to the highways and drainage reasons for refusals as they weren't supported by technical data or professional consultees. The same number of parking spaces have been provided in this application and the professional consultees also find the land drainage details acceptable subject to conditions. This plan shows the layout of the scheme. The revised scheme has now removed all built development. It proposes that services would be organised by local funeral directors and take place at a separate location. An independent undertaker would organise the preparation of graves and coffins and would be then transported from the service venue to the burial site. For family and friends visiting the graves, access would be as with the normal cemetery. The parking will be located to the north west of the site utilising the existing field and provide parking for 30 cars. A wooden five bar field gates are proposed to secure the car park. The proposal includes an area of woodland centrally located at the site, enhancing the planting and also enhanced planting on the boundaries of the site. The paths around the site are intended to be either mown paths or reinforced paths to retain a natural appearance. The rest of the site will be natural in appearance with a mix of grassland, wooded area and tree planting. The proposal will accommodate up to 150 barrels a year. The proposed parking area would be constructed from permeable materials like grasscrete which would blend in with the surrounding land. Pedestrian access would be provided by mown paths and headstones are to be replaced by plaques that are no higher than 5 centimetres to identify the plots. As the proposal provides no built structures or hard landscaping, the reason for dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of openness have been addressed and it's considered that the site would preserve the openness of the green belt and accord with the purposes of including land within it. It's therefore seen as consistent with policy DM4. The rural character will also be preserved. The works are to be carried out in phases. Phase 1 is in peach and includes the work through the access car park boundary planting and woodland glade. Phase 2 is in blue and phase 3 in purple and 4 in yellow and phase 5 in green which will be last and will not commence until after the boundary native planting has been established as it is located close to the existing residential properties. Given the location of the application site and the immediate neighbours are those backing onto the site on Chester Road and Great Owl Road, the distance from the car park in the area is about 280 metres and so it's sufficiently distant to ensure that the amenity won't be affected. Whilst the proposal would introduce additional movements, the greatest impacts would be as a result of burials at ceremonies whereby there could be a significant number of people arriving and leaving at the same time. It is anticipated that there could be a maximum of 150 burials but this would average out to about 2.4 a day. Conditions 28 on page 44 limits the opening hours from the 1st of April to the 30th of September to 9am to 6pm and from the 1st of October to the 31st to 9am to 4pm. The general use of the site by visitors to burial plots would be more sporadic and would attract significantly fewer vehicle movements and therefore it's not considered that it would cause an undue disturbance to surrounding residents. A tree buffer would be provided between residential properties and the burial area. The proposal would be very clearly visible from the properties, however loss of private view is not a material planning consideration. The proposal will appear natural and improvements will be made to the existing vegetation at the boundaries along with additional planting in and around the site. Condition 30 requires no lighting to be installed within the burial ground to prevent light pollution and maintain the rural character of the site. This slide shows the landscape master plan for the proposal. The existing trees and vegetation are to be retained and protected. Native trees and understory planting along the site boundaries and tree planting along the footpath to provide visual interest. The tree officer has requested that the exact tree species size and position be provided up front before determination. However the case officer was satisfied that given the details submitted in this plan the exact details could be controlled by the recommended conditions 25 and 26 which the tree officer would then sign off. This slide shows a CGI impression of what the site would look like in five years time should permission be given. This is it in 10 years time and finally 20 years time. Thank you Chairman that's the end of the presentation. Thank you Chairman. Okay so we have three speakers on this one we have first speaker which is Bill Dart who's an objector in person so over to you Bill. Good evening my concerns and objections to the planning application are as follows. There needs to be a condition added to ensure that if planning permission is granted the land can only be used as an actual burial ground. If it is not used as a natural burial ground the site must be returned to the green belt. Applications for natural burial grounds have been used as a ploy in other parts of the country to free up green belt and the land sold as a brownfield site for significant profit. Is the applicant genuine about developing and operating an actual burial ground or is his motivation to make a quick profit or some other development? Neither the applicant or the site are registered with the Association of Natural Burial Grounds and they are not subject to their code of conduct. The applicant appears to have no experience of establishing and operating an actual burial ground. Natural burial grounds are long-term investments with long-term responsibilities towards bereaved families. The landscape of the natural environment the applicant's only motivation appears to be profit. This 22-acre site proposed for the natural burial ground is highly visible from hundreds of homes and many locations in Buckhurst Hill, Loughton, Woodford and Chigwell especially in the winter and the spring. If planning permission is granted we could ruin the openness and the natural landscape of this important part of Roeding Valley and the burial ground will be a thorn in the side of the local community forever. The applicant needs to specify in detail how he will operate this large burial ground without a reception facility, without toilets and washing facilities, a large building to store grave digging and maintenance equipment, a road to enable undertakers to take coffins and caskets to burial plots, facilities for the storage and disposal of green waste and rubbish. These were all in the last proposal which was rightly dismissed at appeal by the planning inspector, but it will be difficult to operate this large burial ground without these important facilities. I have visited and spoken with the operators of several natural burial grounds. A discreet, well-landscaped, well-operated and maintained natural burial ground in the right place is a good thing. However, I have no confidence that the proposed burial ground will be any of these. The applicant has been unable to supply a detailed landscaping and planting plan to support his proposal. A detailed layout of burial plots has not been provided. Burials need to be unregimented and blend into the landscape and planting plan if the cemetery is not going to stand out like a sore thumb. No detailed maintenance plan has been provided. A natural burial ground should be subtly manicured and well maintained to look like wild meadow and woodland. This takes careful landscaping and maintenance by skilled people. There should be nothing on the burials which is not biodegradable. There should be no paraphernalia so common on gravesites these days. If we are not careful, approval of the application in its current state will be the thin end of the wedge. I urge you to refuse the application this evening until the applicant has provided much more detailed plans on how this natural burial ground will be developed, maintained, operated and the conditions on the application have been tightened up. Thank you. And our second speaker is again Councillor Selina Jefko from the Schuylkill Parish Council. Thank you. The Inspector dismissed the previous appeal as an inappropriate development on Greenbelt. The parish objected on these grounds but officers advised Plan South members against objecting on that basis and so you did not to your cost. Tonight we urge you to consider that reason and others for refusal again. The parish continue to consider that the proposal, particularly the car park, is inappropriate Greenbelt development. This Greenbelt was designated as of high importance in terms of its contribution to separating Chigwell and Buckhurst Hill. Whilst the hard standing and buildings have been reduced, cars parked every day across this meadow will significantly impact on the openness and the purposes of this area of Greenbelt. Another objecting was flooding and groundwater. The Tier 2 risk assessment, since submitted, shows residents and councillors were right. The site has two types of soil, clay closest to the M11 and sand and gravel closest to the residents of Chester Road and Great Owl Road. There are numerous references through the Tier 2 risk assessment to issues but little regard seems to have been given by anyone to these findings. Page 14 of the risk assessment states the site is located at an area of potential groundwater flooding. The risk assessment also states the site is likely to suffer from water logging during wet weather and winter. Most damning, the conclusion of the risk assessment, due to the proposed burial numbers of 150 burial per annum, the overall risk score of the site would be a high risk site. The risk assessment requires graves are no deeper than 1.4 metres in the sand gravel half of the site rather than the more normal and widely regarded 6 foot under. It says that having more than 50 burials a year in the gravel half of the site would not be safe. Why have none of the statutory consultees picked up on this? Why are there no conditions to ensure this? More importantly, what else has been missed? The applicant has no experience in these matters and his own evidence shows the site is high risk, yet specific recommendations of the risk assessment have not been considered at all by environmental officers or reflected in the conditions. The parish asked for a condition that this is operated to the same high standards as local authority cemeteries and coffins must be used, but again that has not been conditioned. As we have heard, DiEM21 is the policy that addresses local environment impacts, pollution and land contamination. This includes pollution from surface and groundwater. When dismissing the appeal in December 2022 before the adoption of the local plan, the Inspector did not rule on DiEM21. Tonight, having seen the Tier 2 risk assessment from August 2023 that was not previously available to the Inspector, it is clear that there is substantial evidence to support a refusal due to failure to comply with DiEM21 as well as a field full of cars being inappropriate development in Greenbelt. Thank you. We now have the final speaker, the applicant's agent, Mr Nigel Bennett. Good evening, Chairman, Members of the Committee. We have worked very hard with your officers over many, many months on this application to address their concerns and resolve all technical matters in reaching this positive recommendation before you this evening, endorsed by all the statutory consultees. The only reason the Planning Inspector dismissed a previous appeal relating to the earlier cemetery proposal was due to the impacts on openness on the Greenbelt resulting directly from the new buildings and structures that were proposed on that earlier proposal. The appeal decision was issued, notwithstanding the fact that a cemetery use is identified in the MPPF as being an appropriate use, and despite the fact the Council had costs awarded against them on two out of the three reasons for refusal, there has been drainage flood risk and car parking matters, concerns that I've heard again echoed this evening. This revised proposal removes all of the built footprint from the land and involves a natural burial ground comprising a mix of grassland, wooded area and extensive tree planting. There will be no adverse impact on the openness on the Greenbelt whatsoever. The comments from the Council's landscaping officer are wholly unreasonable in our view, and your planning officers took the same view, in fact. The level of information that's been provided, despite what you've heard from others, has been extensive, with high quality and sensitive landscape architecture designs from ACD environmental consultants. All of the landscaping officer's concerns relate to very detailed matters, all of which are fully controlled by a whole raft of planning conditions that have been imposed, 31 of them in total, covering every single aspect of this scheme. Nothing else to say really, members, but I very much hope that you can support your officer's recommendation and grant commission this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. Before we move on to members' comments, I think it's worthwhile noting that there is a report from Melinda Barham, which has been referred to, where the land to the south of Chigal Rise and the landscaping issues, they object to the proposal. So that's on the main website, so it's worthwhile noting that, but also to note the inspectors' comments, which relate specifically to Greenbelt coalescence and development on site. So, my sort of thought in the background is, how does it go forward with nothing on the site at all, to actually provide for some of the services that are needed to actually operate the burial site. So I'll hand over to Councillor Rizzi or Councillor Sungga. Thank you, Chairman. Being a Councillor for Chigal Village for some eight years, this particular application is probably the most important one I've ever had to deal with. And with 400 odd residents, and my Councillor Murray indicated, maybe I didn't say, but thank you, because the comments have been very genuine. Every single one of them have had a different thing to say about this particular application. Chairman, an appeal was held and a notice was served by the appeals inspector on the 28th of November last year. And one of the main things that he said was that he had an issue with, was the building, the buildings that were being proposed to be put on this particular site, on the Greenbelt area. It's already been alluded by the objectors as well, and I think you've just said that as well, Chairman, is if there are no buildings, it begs the question, is this a viable proposition for a burial site on a Greenbelt area if, how are you going to operate a graveyard when you've got no way of storing the machinery to dig up the graves? Where are you going to put those? Where are the facilities, the WCs for the public and visitors, and of course the maintenance sheds? You know, you're going to keep this place nice and tidy, how are you going to cut the grass, how are you going to keep, look after the woodland area and the tree planting as well? The lack of sanitary provisions. So, is this a viable proposition? And I will say no. Furthermore, being a Councillor in the area, I know the area very, very well. So there are five things I'd like to point out that I have an issue with, or I cannot get my head around. One of them I've always alluded to is the provisions, the buildings that are not going to be there, because they were there to provide the sanitary and the other stuff to operate the amenities on site. Flood risks. I disagree with the Inspector about flood risks, because I live in Chingwell and so do many of our residents here tonight, that when it rains it rains. And we know for a fact that Buckhurst Hill Football Club, which is further down, well actually a few hundred yards I would say, you can't see the football pitch, you can't see the goal posts, and it's like a river. So I disagree with the Appeal Inspector's views on that the flood risk can be discounted. Being an Asian, I know that funerals that we attend, 30 spaces, car parking spaces, absolutely no. No way. You're going to have more than 30 parking spaces, because people that will come to the funeral will have more visitors. So where do the overspill of cars go? Well let me tell you where they'll go. They'll go on Chingwell High, Chingwell Rise, and both sides of Chingwell Rise, Chairman, will be with cars. And we know the impact of having cars on both sides of Chingwell Rise, because there's a car boot that takes place on a Saturday. If anybody here has ever been trying to get from Chingwell to Buckhurst Hill, Buckhurst Hill, Chingwell, they'll know that you can never ever sometimes get through. And people, being people, the way they park, inconsiderately, will block certain, the B road that links up Chingwell to Buckhurst Hill. I have an issue with that. I also have an issue with the natural habitat that enjoys the openness of that area. And number five, the families living on Chester Road, as a young family that moves into an area that's got houses down Chester Road, and I've met many of the residents there, has a family. The mother and father will probably take the front bedroom as their bedroom. And where do the children go? They go to the rear bedrooms. And what do the children see through their rear bedroom windows? You see, if the application was to be granted, they'll see a burial site. They'll see people, loved ones, being buried there. That surely is not good for the well-being of our children. And of course, when they're going to school, getting ready to go to school, they come out of Chester Road, and this is an impact on the great old road as well. What do they see? They come out of Chester Road into Chingwell Rise, left or right, whether they're going to Buckhurst or right to Chingwell. Chairman, they're going to be seeing, if there's a funeral possession going on, they're going to be seeing a funeral possession going on with loved ones being taken away. And they are just starting their day at school, and that has a negative impact. For those reasons and more, and I'm happy to listen to more, I'm sure there'll be others from my colleagues here, I'm of the opinion, and a strong opinion as well, that I cannot find any reasons how I could possibly support this application. Because this application seeks to cause a lot of harm to the appearance and the character of the landscape, and the loss of landscape. The suburbanisation also of the green barrier, the green barrier that separates Buckhurst Hill to Chingwell. We're going to lose that. And there are insufficient parking, like I said, 30 parking spaces, absolutely no way. How do you manage that? How do we monitor 30 parking spaces? Because there's going to be more cars, I guarantee you that. And of course, when I said flood risks, when we've got so much water, where is that water going to go? There are no drainage provisions, there is insufficient drainage provisions. Can you wind up please? I'm very passionate, I will just finish up with two more points, and of course the lack of buildings, the viability of this graveyard, and the sanitary accommodations. I cannot support this application. Thank you, Councillor Soonger. I will be objective of this application, thank you. Well done. Councillor Chairman Holden. I'll be quick. I'm sorry, was somebody in front? Sorry. Just to say also, I think there's probably an impact on the M11, which also is prone to flooding. And that needs to be considered in this, which would be awful for people who use the M11, like myself, and already know the congestion that's on there. If flooding was an issue, that would be an issue for everybody. Certainly in Grange Crescent, or is it Grange Hill, Grange Farm Lane? Grange Farm Trust also have this issue with flooding down to the M11. I think Councillor Williamson was next. I'd like to say as the ward Councillor, I might be able to get a couple of words in after the performance from my ward colleague, but I will keep my remarks brief. The application, whilst the building and the fixed structure has been removed, I think it still is extremely inappropriate development on the Green Belt. And the applicant's agent had raised a couple of points, which had raised eyebrows with me. And the appeal inspector's report is very, very clear that it wasn't because of the openness alone of the Green Belt. It was surrounding the principle of inappropriate development on the Green Belt. And with this proposal, whilst the fixed structure has been removed, there's still enough, in my opinion, which generates harm to the openness of the Green Belt. You talked about the reasons for costs, and two out of the three reasons had been awarded costs in favour of the appellant. And simply put, the reasons why was because I think our offices didn't provide valid supporting evidence and documents to that effect. So I don't necessarily think the argument that costs will be awarded, regardless of what reasons for refusal may be proposed, is going to hold up. The reason why I think it's inappropriate development on the Green Belt is at the moment we have unspoilt open land there. If there is a road which has been built up, if there is car parking spaces with tarmac, clearly it results in the Green Belt being lost. Once it is lost, it's lost forever. So that, to me, doesn't sit very well in amongst all of the other reasons that have been mentioned. I think the message is very, very clear. Residents have been crystal clear in their objections. And the strategic location of this part of land in our district is not to be forgotten. It is incredibly important to separate two historic towns in Buckhurst, Hill and Chigwalt. And my fear, alongside the many residents that have written and are here today, is that actually development here will mean that we have the merger of two towns. So, Chairman, those are the reasons why I cannot support this application. We have comments from Suki and from Graeme, I believe. I note your comments about the highway issues, but we've consulted professionals who looked at the technical data submitted and they're satisfied that it won't cause highway harm. We've already had a cost decision. If we go down that route looking at highways harm and congestion, traffic congestion harm, we will be liable for costs. I take the officer's point on board and I know Mr Courtney has also got his hand up. I don't think necessarily, I agree with the officer, I don't think necessarily going down the route of parking and the stress on surrounding roads is necessarily our strongest point here. I think the two points which I've highlighted, probably in my opinion anyway, take priority over those two. So, Chairman, over to you, I know Mr Courtney wants to come in. Graeme, did you want to come in? Well, I don't really want to re-emphasise because we have been spending quite a lot of time talking here. I was going to mention what Suki said about the fact that we've had costs awarded against us on highways and drainage grounds. So obviously I would very strongly recommend that we do not seek to refuse on parking/highways or the grounds of drainage or flooding. We did that last time. The Inspector said we did not have the evidence for it. I very much respect you, Councillor Rizzi, but I do take a little bit of offence of being an accusation that officers didn't defend the, and I'm sure you're going to come in and say that's not what you said and that's fair enough. Mr Courtney knows I have an immense amount of respect for him and his professional duties, but I'm just going by the appeal inspector's report. I think we can focus on the Greenbelt issues. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I don't want to dig a hole for myself, but I'm going to anyway. When I pop my clocks, I'm not expecting more than about 30 people there, people I owe money to probably. There are lots of funerals, and I suspect there will be 150 people turning up, 200 people turning up. Don't over-egg it. There will be lots of people turning up with nowhere to park. I hear this nonsense. We can't talk about parking. It's nonsense. But if 150 or 100 or 50 people turn up of my age, they're going to want to find a toilet, and they will be very annoyed if they can't find one. So it's absolute rubbish what we're considering. I don't know why we're spending an hour discussing rubbish. It is rubbish, and I'm fed up with discussing rubbish. We must have facilities for anything like what you're proposing. I'm just going to expect people to turn up. Nothing there. It's hopeless. Now, I was involved in another application. You've got to be a bit careful. Well, we were trying to be persuaded that the planning gain was for another cemetery in Chigwell, that there was desperate need for more burials, but the cemetery said they've got enough room for the next 35 years. So is there a proven need for a cemetery in this location? I doubt it. The impact on the Greenbelt purely by the nature of it used to be a very nice strawberry field. We used to go there. It served its purpose for that use. I'm showing my age. We must deal with facts. And if you're having that number of people turning up, there must be facilities. There's going to be a big yellow JCB doing whatever it does. Where's that going to go? It's just we must have reality in front of us. And I hope I'm not digging my own grave, but this is not reality. Thank you. Councillor Murray. Thank you, Chairman. Can I just assure Councillor Kaufman senior that in 30 years time, because of the respect I hold him in, I will be one of those 150. But that won't be for a long time yet. We need to just focus, I think, on the Greenbelt issue. I've lived in Loudon for 65 years. I see our role as Councillors as being very protective of the Greenbelt. This is a really important piece of land between Buckersdale and Jigwell. Other members have explained that really well, but I just wanted to reinforce it. And for me, that's a good enough reason to say no. OK. Gosh, everyone putting their hand up. I think Councillor Murray, then Councillor Morgan and Councillor Allgood and Councillor Patel and Councillor Williamson. Thank you, Chair. I do have a few issues with this. LACO states that it's a legal requirement to secure boundaries for cemetary. We've seen nothing about that. And it is Greenbelt. And if they're securing the boundaries, I'd like to know what they're securing it with. Also, on page 35 of the tier two risk assessment, the overall score was high risk, which really concerns me. And as we heard earlier, Graves must be one metre above the natural water table. Otherwise, under DiEM21, there's a pollution issue and Graves should be two foot down. I've got lots more, but I shan't. In agreement, it does take 15 minutes on a Saturday to get from Chesterville to the David Lloyd. So I'm very concerned about the water login, but definitely under the LACO, I'd like to know what the officer has. Thank you. We can find out about that, please. OK. I'm confused now with who's the next one to speak. So this was looked at by the Environment Agency. The flood risk and the groundwater risk assessment was looked at by the Environment Agency, and they were satisfied that, subject to condition, that this wouldn't be an issue. Even though it states on page 35, it's my risk. Sorry, can I ask, can I have the answer to the LACO question as well, please? To the what? The LACO question. The local authorities, oh, I can't think of the name, the local authorities cemetery sort of 1972. But it states we have to secure boundaries and what sort of boundaries they were. Because I couldn't see it on there. It doesn't, I don't think there are any secure boundaries, apart from the gate, that it would just be the trees. So it's not, it's a legal requirement. It is a legal requirement that is secured, that's why I'm asking the question. It's not a planning requirement. It's not a planning requirement. There may well be a legal requirement, it's not a planning consideration, I'm afraid. Thank you, Councillor Allgood. Can we move on? Councillor Allgood. I'll be quite short on this. I might be on my own here, but I'm not actually against a natural burial ground. I am objecting to the development of any building, any roadworks on it. And for that and that reason only, I think we should support, go against this. Everything else has already been covered by the inspector saying don't do it. Graham has said don't do all these other arguments. So we just go for the green belt and the over development of the green belt. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Williamson, I think, has been waiting for a long time. Thank you, Chair. I think I wouldn't be upset if I turned up on the no toilets. I think it would be much more serious than that. There is a storage shed shown on some of the plans, on one of the plans, but not on all of the plans. We've got no details, what that looks like, how big it is. The operation has been already mentioned, how you operate a burial site with no offices or any infrastructure on site. I think when we talk about natural burial grounds, we think of a rural idyll, not next to the M11 and residential housing. I think it's dangerous as a council for us to go against the decisions in the appeal. I think we're opening ourselves up to serious problems. The main point is the landscape officer, whatever the applicant says, does object on the grounds of unacceptable harm to the appearance and character of the landscape in this prominent position. This is one of the most iconic views from Buckers Hill. It's from the top of Queens Road, top of Palms, everywhere in Buckers Hill. We know this site well. I've lived with it for over 70 years. I really find it difficult to support this application, but I think we should only turn it down on the landscape officer's objection. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor McCain. Thank you, Chair, but Councillor Williamson has stolen my thunder, and I've got nothing further to add, only just to draw attention to the tree and landscape officer's addition to the report. Thank you. Councillor Pincher, sorry, delay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. As you know, I am always a well-behaved Councillor. I do not repeat everybody else's points. I'm not going to mention anything to do with the Greenbelt landscaping has already been established. The car parking does turn it from Greenbelt to Brownland, which is the issue I have that I'm just going to raise. As much as the Chigwell residents and the Buckers Hill residents love to be with each other all the time, I think the towns do need to have a bit of a separation, so that's a barrier between the two towns. And I think we're definitely testing the residents of Chigwell and Buckers Hill's patience with the GGSK development across the road, football club with the way it is on Saturday, car boot sale and Thames water, digging up those roads all the time. That's me done. Thank you. I will not be supporting the application. Thank you very much. I think we've probably debated this long enough. So, can we go to the vote? The recommendation is to approve this submission. Are all those in favour? All those against? None. We've stolen your thunder. Unanimous. Was it? No. Oh, you'll abstain. 19 against and one abstention. Thank you. So, none against. Okay. Well, reasons for refusal. We'll have a go at this. So, can we, yes, inappropriate application and the landscape officer's report about the harm to the openness and the landscape of the area. And also, well, yeah, I think that's all it can be, really. Should we be mentioning the plaques and the grass cutting, because I think a natural burial site would have natural grass areas, not mown areas. I think the application falls short, because if you're going to run a graveyard, you need the facilities, like the toilets and sanitary provisions as well. And the appeal inspectors made it clear that no buildings, absolutely no buildings on the appeal. So, it's a catch-22, so you can't have the buildings, therefore you can't run a graveyard. Chairman, if I may summarise the points that I had listed, and maybe members want to expand on those if possible. So, impact on the openness of the Greenbelt, thereby constituting inappropriate development under Greenbelt. The potential for merger of two towns, yeah, so suburbanisation, yeah, coalescence or suburbanisation of two towns. The unacceptable harm to the landscape, as evidenced by the landscape officer's report. And insufficient facilities for the purposes of a burial ground. Just cause harm to the appearance and the character of the landscape, the loss of the landscape. Okay. Microphone. The cause, the harm to the appearance and the character and the loss of the landscape. Okay, Councillor. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to issue the merger point, because if the merger, the situation has been dealt by removing the structures and the building there, mentioning the merger point might be an issue for me. So, the merger of the two towns has been dealt with by removing of the structures on the land. If I can come back in, Chairman, it does mention in the appeals inspector's report about - there was a point I was reading on page - There was also a barrier. I think it was on 54, 55, 56, somewhere between there about the appeals inspector specifically commented on the two towns. So, it was something that was noted. Yeah, I think there was also a question about there was a barrier area towards Chester Road which has now been diminished. So, the actual site will move closer to residential development. Councillor Morgan. Councillor Morgan. I'd like to add that obviously under the tier two risk assessment, it shows there was a risk of pollution and that's under DM 21. And I'd like to add that because I think that's important because we haven't ensured there's adequate mitigation on that. I think that would depend on the submission for that sort of treatment in the future. So, I think we need to concentrate on what we've got because if we drift off into other things, it might not be acceptable. Councillor Kaufman. Thank you, Chair. Question for the offices. We want to be absolutely clear. Cemeteries, are they inappropriate in the Greenville? Cemeteries are not inappropriate if they don't harm the openness or the purposes of containing land within it. In this case, because it's an open field with no development on it and it's positioned strategically near the M11, with the residential properties on Chester Road, the M11 is an urban structure. The burial ground, if it has the plots and the car parking and the paraphernalia associated with the burial ground and facilities, it would in a sense add to urban school. That's the point I think I was going to go at, which is that I think I would try to stray away from concentrating too much on the burial aspect of it and be more focused on the car parking and the fluff around the edges, so to speak, rather than focusing too heavily on that because I think that would put you weak at appeal. I mean, is it correct to say that you're objecting on the... can this be one reason for refusal in that it's harmful to the Greenbelt because of coalescence and the harm to the openness? Yes. And the openness of the Greenbelt as well. Okay, so we've got a reason for refusal. Sorry, Councillor, I heard you also mentioning... Councillors mentioning harm to the landscape. Do you want to add that as a separate reason? The real word is unacceptable harm to the appearance and character of the landscape in this prominent position. That's it. Okay, do you want to read that out? Do you want to read that out as a separate reason for refusal? Yes. So, yes, exactly. Insufficient facilities for the baptism operating a burial ground. I was going to ask one more tricky question for you, which was that we're objecting to the impact on the landscape. Are we objecting to the landscape by planting of trees? Are we saying that... because what would the... say the applicant planted the boundary and came in. He doesn't need planning consent to plant his boundary, does he? No, no. I think it's the infrastructure, the paths and the... I would be hesitant to weigh too heavily on something that, respectfully, I don't think he needs planning consent to plant his boundary at. I think there's also a question mark on the naturalness of a natural burial site. Yeah, that's fine, but I think to concentrate on areas like the boundaries, I don't... I don't know. I haven't included boundary planting as a reason for refusal. Councillor Ritchie, are you okay? Yeah, I mean, this is an application for a burial ground, so therefore it's got to try to meet every single ticket, every single box. So we've already discussed this, and I think we should add insufficient amenities to facilitate running a... Infrastructure. Infrastructure. So whether that's storage, sheds, buildings, and you really know if it goes to that, then the inspector's not going to allow that. That's recorded, yes, isn't it? Yeah, yeah. Okay, so we have a... Happy to propose that. Second that. Okay, can we put it to the vote, please? All those in favour of that proposition? You are making sure we're avoiding the rest. Unanimous chairman. Anybody against? Councillor Morgan. Yes, I know you did, but what did you want to add? It was just to say that we have had applications for planting the boundaries, so that's why I was very confused. That's why I put my hand up, to say are we sure we do have to have applications for plant boundaries. That's why I was asking previously. Okay, thank you. Okay, so that has been refused. Thanks to the speakers. We can... Of course, someone's leaving. Okay, we can move on. We have one more application, which... Two more. Oh, no, no, I won't talk about that in a minute. We have number 12, which is... Oh, number 11, isn't it? Fenceby's Road, that's the next one. So, that is EPF 2447/23, 233-235, Fenceby's Road, Chigwell, IG 7, 5EB, pages 57-75. Then to consider the attached report for demolition of two semi-detached dwellings and the replacement with six apartments. So, Suki. Thank you, Chairman. This application is before members today due to objections being received from the town council and neighbours. The concerns are laid out on page 59 and 60 of the agenda. The application site outlined in rent is located on the western side of Fenceby's Road. It contains two semi-detached properties. The proposal seeks consent for the demolition of the existing two properties and replacement with a new build containing six flats with basement parking for six cars and one parking space at the surface level. The basement parking will be accessed via a car lift. This application is a resubmission of the same refused scheme under EPF 633 of 20, which was dismissed at appeal. The inspector found that the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of occupants of surrounding residential properties and highway safety to be acceptable. The only reason for dismissal was the lack of a unilateral undertaking to secure contributions towards mitigation measures to prevent any harm to the integrity of the FSAC. This decision is a material consideration to the determination of this application. There are street trees and a grass verge directly to the front of the site. The rear of the site is slightly irregular as the garden for number 235 is longer than that of number 233. There's a mixture of size, type and character dwellings along Fenceby's Road. The site is approximately one kilometre from Grange Hill Station. The site is not within the green belt or a conservation area. This slide shows a street view image of the site, of the front. This is a rear view with the surrounding context. This slide shows the existing site and floor plans of the two semi-detached houses. This slide shows the proposed site plan. You can see the three garden areas. The two smaller ones are private gardens to the attached flats and the larger garden is communal for the remainder of the flats. One car parking space is provided there. The total of seven car parking spaces were considered acceptable by the inspector and in line with transport policies. Particularly given that the site is a fairly sustainable location in close proximity to bus stops on either side of Fenceby's Road with underground stations further afield. The highway authority have also not raised objection to the proposed development in terms of parking or highway safety. Conditions recommended by the tree officer will ensure that the health and stability of existing trees will not be harmed. The flats are arranged around one central core with four one-bedroom flats on the ground floor level. Two two-bedroom flats are contained within the upper floors of the building. There are some windows shown in the side elevation of the proposed development. These are either secondary windows or windows serving bathrooms. Planning conditions are recommended requiring that these windows are fitted with obscure glazing to prevent overlooking. The planning inspector found that given the position of the surrounding dwellings and the separation distances that would be maintained including having regard to the makeup of the surrounding area. The proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the levels of privacy of occupants of the surrounding residential properties. This plan shows the roof plan which is predominantly pitched with two small sections of crown roof. This slide shows a section of the proposal. This is the existing and proposed north and south side elevations. You can see faintly the line of the original existing buildings imposed on the proposed drawings. The additional depth and height was found to be acceptable by the planning inspector. This slide shows the existing and proposed west or rear elevations. This slide shows the existing and proposed front and eastern elevations and street scenes and the proposed street scene below. The site sits between 237 Fencepiece Road and 231 Fencepiece Road which are detached properties and a semi-detached property. Like the existing dwellings on the application site and the proposed building, both properties on either side are two storey in height. The inspector found that the proposed development takes many cues from the surrounding built environment. It incorporates a double storey bay window to the front with hanging tiles and hipped roof, exposed feature timber work to the part of the first floor, rendered to the first floor and part of the ground floor with brick and clay tiles elsewhere. It would have a pleasant fenestration arrangement with these bay windows and distinctive central glazed features above the entrance. He found it to be well designed as it uses the most positive aspects of materials and architectural features of the surrounding area. Although it would be greater in scale and mass than the existing buildings, it would replace the submitted plans to show that this is not by an excessive amount. He found the stepped design to reflect the character of the street. He therefore found it to be a high quality design which used materials which were entirely appropriate for their context. This slide shows the basement plan. The inspector found that the proposed development would introduce an additional four dwellings above the current arrangement. This would increase the amount of comings and goings in general activity than the present situation. However, none of these activities would be unusual in a predominantly residential area. And having regard to the background noise levels from traffic and other general comings and goings and residential activities, it's not considered that this would be an unacceptable impact in this regard. The inspector noticed that noise levels from passing traffic were typically higher than that at the rear. He therefore found the imposition of conditions relating to the noise level of the equipment would ensure that the car lift would not have an unacceptable impact in terms of noise and disturbance. In conclusion, the planning inspector only refused the previous application for the identical scheme on the grounds of the lack of FSAT contributions. This application has a recommendation for approval subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking to secure these contributions. This issue has therefore now been resolved. Thank you, Chairman. Alright, so we have three speakers on this one. First of all, we have the objector, Mrs Anne Russell. Good evening, I'm Anne Russell and I live with my husband Victor at 231 which is adjacent to the proposed development. This planning application is almost identical to EPF/0633/20 for which planning was unanimously refused by the previous area planning subcommittee in June 2022. The appeal by the applicant against that refusal was dismissed by the planning inspector in October 2023. Nothing has changed. I have previously objected to insufficient car parking spaces, an increased risk of flooding, cramming a large building into a small space, overcrowding, overlooking our property and thus taking away our privacy, disturbance and noise from the car lift, garden, vehicles and people. The intended building will be quite a dominant feature to us and our immediate neighbours due to the fact that it be extended over four metres beyond the back of the original house and it would be built on much higher ground due to the incline of the hill. There is little or no space at the side of this proposed development with just one metre clearance from our boundary, so certainly crammed in it would feel on top of us. Although the part of the building that would be adjacent to us is single storey, as previously mentioned it would be built on much higher ground. We would certainly notice the dominance of this building, we would feel boxed in and it would give us a feeling of enclosure, taking away our airspace as well as our peacefulness and privacy. Although Fencepiece Road/Chigwell is on the main A123, it is a narrow road with just two lane traffic. Outside of our house is a grass verge with lime trees which help to absorb traffic noise. We have a long frontage so our back garden is quite a distance from the road and hence it is most peaceful. We would certainly lose the peace and tranquility in our garden that we are accustomed to and have enjoyed for many years. No amount of screening would stop the noise of residents and their guests in the back garden. 233 and 235 are well built houses, no structural defects, no dampness, perfectly good family homes. Is it not better to protect and preserve than demolish and destroy? Apparently there is a shortage of houses for families all over the UK. Is this what town and country planners want? Pull down good family houses and build yet more and more flats of which there are plenty in Chigwell. To keep building so many apartment blocks in Chigwell will take away Chigwell's character and charm. Should the proposal gain permission it would certainly create precedent, will be followed by yet another planning application for another block of flats, possibly in quite close proximity to this site. This proposed structure has been linked architecturally to a detached house, however it certainly is not and would house six families, not just one as a detached house would. In sufficient parking spaces I understand the space below ground for six cars is quite tight for manoeuvrability, possibly safe and comfortable parking for four to five cars only, so this planned car park... Thank you, could I ask you to stop now please? You've had more than three minutes. Thank you very much. Okay, we are now going to ask Councillor Selina Jeffcote to add her points. Thank you. Thank you Councillor. There was talk of costs awarded previously when the council had won an appeal. Do not be frightened, you should be congratulated that Epping Forest was not even close to being put on the list of councils at risk of special measures last summer. You are not Lewis in Sussex, which finally went into special measures recently, being unable to improve on losing over 70% of appeals. Have confidence in your decisions, appeal inspectors have shown you are right over 90% of the time when you choose not to follow officer recommendations. To Fencepiece Road, not only is this site not in the local plan, but it doesn't comply with policies. Noise. I hope you've seen the revised noise assessment submitted after the parish objected. Again, to describe it as creative is generous, misleading may be a better adjective. The ground floor plan shows the car lift approximately one metre from the bedroom and living room windows of flat floor. The manufacturer says the car lift produces 57 decibels every time it rises and it needs to come up to go down each time. The background noise of the road and area at night is 37 decibels, yet the revised noise report estimates that the distance between the car lift and the flat will reduce the lift noise from the manufacturer's stated 57 decibels down to 34 decibels in flat floor. As the noise report makes clear, British Standards guidance is that anything more than 9 decibels over background noise will have a significant adverse effect. How the noise level is allegedly halved is not explained in the revised noise report. These unsubstantiated figures are wrapped in pages of jargon to produce a conclusion that a car lift is half as noisy as the manufacturer says it is. Officers just mentioned DM9 noise and refer to neighbours, not the far more specific DM21. More importantly, the inspector did not rule on DM21 when previously dismissing this appeal. Therefore DM21, local environmental impacts, is crucial as it specifies noise pollution and has not been previously considered by an inspector. Then the parking. Not the number, although the parish council comments detail the excessive problems in this area already. Within 50 metres of the site numerous already approved developments require a total of 125 spaces under Essex parking standards and deliver only 71. Block after block of flats almost a kilometre from the nearest station rather than the required 400 metres just continue to add to the problem. Officers or the applicant will tell you that an inspector has ruled on the number of spaces and so it is not an issue. That is maybe, but the inspector did not rule on size. As I have explained before, Essex parking bay size without pre-agreed exceptional circumstances is 2.9 metres wide. That is unless it is next to a wall when it must be 3.9 metres wide. Three of the six basement parking spaces are undersized and do not comply with policy T1. We ask that you refuse this on the grounds that a car lift that operates at 57 decibels, according to the manufacturer located one metre from a bedroom window, is contrary to policy DM21. We ask that you refuse it because the undersized parking bay does not have regard to Essex parking standards contrary to policy T1. Thank you. Thank you. We have the applicant's agent, Charlie Bliss. Over to you, Charlie. Yes, good evening. Well, this application has been before you before and it has been through the hoops with the inspector as well. It is actually an identical application to the one that went before because the inspector found that the three major issues which were the character, and I will quote, The proposed development would be of a high quality design and use materials appropriate to the overall context. It would not harm the character and appearance. And that's the inspector I'm quoting there. Secondly, the inspector talks about the overall proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupants or of the surrounding residential properties with regards to privacy, noise and disturbance. Thirdly, the inspector, and I quote again, says that the development provides appropriate parking and does not result in cumulative severe impact on the operation of the local network or compromised highway safety. Now, the one reason that they did dismiss it on has been dealt with, the section 106 has been signed and submitted to the council, it's gone to the officers and it's with their solicitors at the moment. So that has been dealt with. That was the sole reason that the inspector gave. Now, I've listened this evening to many comments that we must look at what the inspector says and I think that is very relevant in this case because the inspector actually likes this building. Once it understands that it's sustainable development in a sustainable location, understands the needs of housing and frankly understands the need for appropriate development in a town areas as opposed to developing on the green belt. So, I put it to you that really tonight we've just got to look at this, we've got to observe and appreciate the comments of the inspector and his reasons for giving his decisions and I would also submit to you that it is a high quality design which will deliver additional compliant homes in a highly sustainable location. Incidentally, we do agree with all the conditions and frankly this is the second time we've been here and we will keep going. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. I'm one of the ward councillors but I'll reserve my position. So we have Councillor Chihau-Holdren, did you want to make any comments on this one? I think it's been said eloquently. I really like the comments from the President next door and I understand the issues. I think for me the actual parking is the big thing there and the impact to the neighbours with the lift and the additional noise and traffic flow. So I think it's all been said but that's my view. Okay, thank you. Councillor Morgan, did you want to add anything? Yes please. Under the British Standards guidance it states that anything over nine decibels of background noise actually will have an adverse effect and we've just heard from Councillor Jeffcote that the lift is 57 decibels with the background noise at Fencepiece Road of an evening is 37. That's huge. So for me under our local policy page 60, DiEM21 environmental impact and the noise pollution, that's a real issue for me. Also with the three parking spaces next to the walls, unfortunately Councillor Jeffcote took everything I was going to say but in my opinion there is no sustainable transport links. The bus comes once every 30 minutes, it's regularly withdrawn so it's normally once every hour to hour and a half and to get to Grangeill station or Haynall station is at least a 15 to 20 minute walk. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Murray. Yes Chairman, I'll keep my remarks short but I think from Councillor Jeffcote we have heard the arguments for why we shouldn't be supporting this application. And I just have to say on the basis of what I've heard, the applicant was almost trying to convince us that the loss of two semi-detached dwellings with the replacement of six apartments and Chigwell has apartments glowing out of its, you know, was somehow meeting a real social need. It's an opinion and I make it very clear that it's an opinion but I don't think this is about meeting a social need, it's about maximising profit from a site. That's an opinion, I'm not saying it's a fact and it's not a planning consideration, I accept that. I'm expressing really an opinion, I just think it's a bit rich to kind of put this application in the context of meeting social needs because that's the meat doesn't wash, that's not what's driving this application. We should say no on the two grounds that Councillor Jeffcote has just said and I must just say I was really impressed by the local resident. It's just a pity that you've missed the parish council elections because in three years, four years time madam, you won't be able to enjoy your garden as much but I think you'll make a very good parish council, are we? Can we go after something George? Thank you Councillor Williamson. Thank you chair, just very briefly on the noise, the Environmental Health Officer has commented on the application and there is a condition 19 which he's asked for so I take on board with the previous appeal and with the section 106 in place, I don't think we've got anywhere to go to be honest. Thank you, Councillor Algood. Yeah, I was there at the first time and I'm aware of all the objections that we've done. I think the inspector has countered the arguments and I agree with Councillor Williamson in the sense that the only ones that were there are now no longer there. We can't use new evidence or unless I'm aware of something, we can't use arguments we didn't do before because that will be thrown out so they have countered the arguments provided by the inspector. Obviously there are conditions attached and therefore I can see no reasons to object against this. Thank you. Councillor Oosterbeek. Thank you chairman and I'm minded to agree with the two people that have spoken before me. I think the inspector's report is very, very comprehensive and it touches on each and every point that had been raised and it counters it quite clearly. The main difference between this application and the one that had come before committee a couple of years ago was that there was no SAC contribution and obviously that has been mitigated now. The applicant has signed up to a section 106 agreement and I think on planning grounds and on planning grounds alone we'll find it very difficult to refuse this. And it's not because I agree with the design or the loss of two semi-detached properties or what everybody else has said about the noise pollution element. I think the inspector's report is very, very clear on this. Yeah I mean my comments on this one is particularly related to the car lift and access to the site because it's a very, very busy main road. But again we haven't got that argument that we could push through. I think we've probably done. Suke did you want to add anything to that at all? Just to reiterate in the fact that the Environmental Health Officer hasn't raised an objection. The inspector found that the external classified road noise meant that the lift noise would be acceptable given the background noise. So there wouldn't be a justified reason to refuse it on noise ground. Sorry just to come back in because actually I forgot to mention that but the appeals inspector mentions point 17 and it rebuts it very, very clearly about you know it's not considered there would be an unacceptable impact in this regard when talking about noise and disturbance. So I think if we were to try and rely on some of the detailed analysis that have been done about the number of decibels and the impact on the noise I think it would probably fall short as a reason for refusal were it to go to a bill. Chancellor Cohen. Does the car parking need to be to be regulated as an amendment to if this is given permission, is the car parking going to be looked at? I'm not sure that it can. So we find the case was found the car parking to be acceptable so we find it acceptable given the sustainable location. Microphone. Just one point I think Councillor Jeff Cope mentioned parking against the wall and the distance additional space between the wall and the car parking space is that something we can deal with? The case officer found that it met the standard so it is acceptable I'll just bring up the, I can just quickly measure it but. I mean obviously we can we can there could be a condition put on that the parking layout is to be agreed. We could obviously look at that obviously the risk there is if we insist on wider spaces there will be fewer spaces. So we certainly can look at whether those spaces can be made more usable and slightly larger but it would inevitably result in a reduction in the number of spaces. We can add it on but yeah it may be counter productive. Okay Councillor Kaufman. Thank you chair. A question I've got about this car lift it's not the 50 decibel noise that the motors make when it moves it goes up and down. But the car lifts I've been associated with have an audible siren that runs alongside the motors in the event that you're stood underneath the thing. Because if the lifts coming down you don't really want it landing on you. So if someone is using the car park say at three o'clock in the morning to get a car out is there going to be an audible siren blaring out at high decibels echoing through the neighbourhood. Alerting that this lift is coming down because I think that that possibly hasn't been considered by the inspector might be something that's material and something that should be looked at. Because I think we can all agree that if someone is doing that at three o'clock in the morning. I don't know what the operating standards are of these car lifts. Graham, Sufi any comments? So there's a condition attached on which limits the noise that can be emitted from the car lift if I just quickly get the right page sorry. Condition 90. Yeah condition 19 yeah. Is there anything else? No it's a different one. What was the condition? Respectfully I'd say that prevailing background noise level at three o'clock in the morning is going to be basically zero. So I don't know how you'd kind of square that condition away. Because presumably it has to be harmful or cause as little harm as possible for as much of the day as possible. Well Councillor Williamson. If it helps chair there are developments in Buckers Hill that have this sort of arrangement and I've had no complaints at all from anyone. Thank you. I think that probably says it said it all if you've got practical experience and there is no noise at three o'clock in the morning by sirens going off I think we can. Can we insert a condition therefore? Can we put a condition on to say there shouldn't be any sirens going off? Yeah I don't see why not. That's condition 19. I don't think that condition is clear enough. I mean if the car lift was found to be too loud the second there are other legislation in terms of environmental health provisions which if it's a noise nuisance they can get involved in as well. The likelihood of it being noisy is likely to be very occasional given the current noise levels in that location. And I would imagine that the manufacturers would try and ensure that it is as minimises any noise pollution because they're all for residential properties so in order for the product to be acceptable they should be respectful of the residential use. Just to see if we can draw this up to a close because I'm sure you've been sitting there for quite some time. May I suggest maybe at the end of condition 19 we could add an additional line requiring details to be submitted as to how the hydrocliff will comply with that condition. And that way we can then get that confirmation from them prior to the occupation of the development at least. So we know that up front rather than having to deal with it after the matter. I think I'd make that prior to commencement. Not prior to occupation, prior to commencement. We want the answer to that sooner rather than later. Fine, so I think with that amendment we can take this to the vote. So all those in favour of approving with the conditions and subjects of the 106 agreement, the demolition of two semi-detached dwellings and the replacement with six apartments. All those in favour? Eight, Chairman. All those against? Seven, Chairman. Abstentions? One, two, three. That's right. Eight, four, Chairman. Seven, against. And three, abstentions. So the application has been approved. Okay, we now move on to item 12, which is number 2, Danbury Road. Thank you, Chairman. I'm going to present this one for you. Hopefully you can hear me okay. So this application seeks consent for the new porch and some minor window alterations to Danbury Road. Some of the proposed changes are retrospective and some are proposed. The application is before members since it has been called in by Councillor Brooks and former Councillor Heath. It is recommended for approval subject to conditions. So some members may recall this site as it has quite a lot of history, most recently being refusals. However, in December 2017, consent was granted by the South Committee for an additional attached building that contains three flats. As can be seen, works commenced on this development, however, to date have not been completed. Attempts have been made to obtain consent to convert the existing dwelling, this bit here, into a further three flats, creating a total of six on the site. However, consent has been refused for this. The application does not propose any change of the existing dwelling to flats as part of this application. So unfortunately, despite requests for such, the plans submitted do not accurately reflect what has been built on site, the existing plans that is. And this does differ from what was granted consent. However, I shall make it evidently clear as to what was granted consent, what has been built and what is being proposed. It is important to note, though, that the key consideration is the proposal compared to the approved plans, not what has been constructed on site without consent. So these plans show the original dwelling on the site, which was prior to the 2017 approval. These are the plans that were previously approved by South Committee in December 2017. So I will use these later to compare the proposals, but this is the new block of three flats that was attached to Dappy Road. Since the requested existing plans do not accurately reflect what has been built on site, I have instead included some photographs of the as-built development. Concerns have been raised by neighbours regarding changes to the rear amenity space and parking layout. However, when compared to the 2017 approval, there appears to be no substantial difference. So this is the 2017 layout and this is the current proposal. Whilst the porch extension would remove what appears to be a small planted area, it does not change the proposed parking. It does make the parking spaces slightly tighter. However, they still measure off at five metres in length. Concerns were raised about the internal layout shown on previously submitted plans, but based on the proposals, I personally found to see any concerns around the internal layout. This is the proposed ground first floor, so this is the ground floor flat, the first floor flat, and these are the ground floor rooms of the dwelling with some bedrooms here. This shows the second floor, the proposed roof plan, so this is the studio flat and these are a couple of extra bedrooms in the dwelling. So this shows the proposed front elevation compared to the approved front elevation. So as you can see, the only changes proposed are the addition of the front porch, the provision of five roof lights to the front roof slope, and the modification of this front window from three panes to two panes. The biggest change in this application is, of course, the new front porch, however similar sized front porches can be seen at number 8 Downbridge Road and behind in Chelsea Gardens. The five roof lights are proposed, which is, let's be honest, quite a lot, and does appear somewhat cluttered. However, roof lights are generally PD, and again, others can be seen within the immediate area. This just shows the previously referenced examples, so this top photograph is number 8 Downbridge Road, which obviously has a porch and a couple of roof lights, and these are the properties to the immediate rear of the site, which again have these protruded, sorry, protruded porches, and again, have some roof lights. So this shows the proposed and approved rear elevations. The changes here are the retention of this round gable window, the provision of a larger set of doors here in the dormer. The reversion, also reverting back to this two-pane window, because actually what's been built on site is what appears to be a Juliet, or the start of a Juliet balcony, but as can be seen, they're actually proposing to put that back to a window, and then some changes to the ground floor windows and doors here, patio doors. So concerns have been raised about additional overlooking as a result of these windows, however, you can clearly see here that there are no new windows being proposed, so no additional harm would occur from this. This shows the proposed and approved flank elevation, so again, these are the changes here, simply minor alterations to these three-flank windows. And finally, this shows the return of the rear projection, so again, the change here is this additional second roof light, and this solar panel here. So the objections received are largely around the principle of the entire development, issues around internal and external space standards, or concerns around possible future schemes, such as a change of use of the flats, or two flats, sorry, or the use of the site as a HMO, however, none of these issues are relevant to this scheme in front of us. The only considerations are whether the proposed amendments would cause any harm over and above the previously approved scheme, which officers consider they will not. Therefore, officers recommend an approval, subject to conditions, and hope that a grant of this consent will see the scheme finally finished on site. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have two speakers on this. We have the objector, Mr Stephen Eves. Good evening, members. The application before us relates to 2 Danbury Road and also the three flats under construction attached. This is a contrast with application EPF 270717 that was restricted to three flats only. The consequences of this change is that once approved, the proposals will resolve and regularize the entire scheme and site, including flats that never met the space standards. The scheme is largely consented in a piecemeal fashion already, and residents opposed this. We do ask members to consider how improvements can be made to the submission to assist the local community, please. Despite officers acknowledging confusion with the submitted plans, a lack of clarity around what is consented and what is proposed, officers have nevertheless recommended approval of the scheme, and it is considered reasonable that councillors and neighbours should be able to understand a scheme where our professional officers have struggled. This is fundamentally unfair. A valid application should be clear. Officers considered concerns regarding the intensification of use of the property as an HMO, but concluded this was not part of the proposal. But the long planning history clearly demonstrates that what is applied for and what happens in reality is simply two different things. The use class order permits a change of use from class C3 dwellings to class C4, an HMO for up to six persons without permission under the general permitted development order. This could result in the three flats in the existing dwelling all being divided into 12 separate, lettable rooms with associated waste, noise and cars under permitted development, a horrifying possibility. Residents ask that a restrictive condition be imposed and could be worded akin to the restriction on extensions under permitted development. Similar to notwithstanding the provision of the general permitted development order, the occupation of the approved dwelling shall be restricted to use class C3 only for occupation as a single family unit only and no other use whatsoever. To prohibit the intensification of an already cramped site, we can only strongly urge members to consider this on our behalf, please. Lastly, the conditions recommended by the officer for landscaping, drainage and boundary detail to EPF 270717. This approach binds only the area containing three flats and not the existing dwelling house. This approach makes no provision for landscaping boundaries or drainage adjacent our property. We ask that members secure conditions relating to the entirety of the site now under consideration. This would require only modest further work by the applicant, but the impact of the local street scene and drainage is significant. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We also have the applicant, which is Paul Brian. Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. I come before you today seeking approval for a modest extension and minor amendments to our property at 2 Danbury Road that focuses strictly on completing what was initially approved in 2017. The proposed one meter porch extension serves three critical purposes to move this forward. Firstly, it will improve disabled access to the existing flats by providing a larger staircase area, ensuring compliance with accessibility regulations. Secondly, it will house an otherwise large unsightly green external electrical supply box newly required by UK power networks for flats. This will prevent an eyesore and potential sightline issues for drivers around the road. Thirdly, it will address a failing foundation of the existing porch, ensuring the structural integrity of the property. Regarding the LRA is concerned about the porch being beyond the building line. I think this has been proven by Mr Courtney that this is in line with other buildings. Objections for the neighbours were not found to be valid by the inspector in previous applications and they have not been found by the planning department to be considerations for this application. I acknowledge and empathise with the frustration caused by the prolonged delays in completing this project. However, I assure you that these delays were not intentional, but rather the result of a series of unfortunate circumstances, including tragic family events and contradictory guidance from the planning department, despite initial positive feedback and recommendations for approval on the flats to house applications. But there was a lot of scare mongering around what this may or may not be, and I can assure you it is none of what I said before. As stated in the agenda report as not development requiring planning, the eternal amendments aim to improve the layout, increase accessibility and enhance the overall symmetry and aesthetics of the property. The velux in some of the flats are essential for fire safety and there is no effect on parking. I humbly request that you consider this proposal objectively without the influence of past applications or misinformation. I have no desire to turn this house into an HMO. This is a simple and necessary alteration that will bring closure to a long-standing issue, allowing my family, the neighbours and the community to move forward. I would like to thank Councillor Brooks, who cannot be here today, for bringing this to committee. And to Councillor Allgood for offering me the same courtesy that has always been given to my neighbours just by listening to my position. And I welcome any questions or concerns that you may have, and I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much. Over to Members. Ooh, Councillor McCann. Thank you, Chair. I suppose, just draw attention to page 77 in the proposal. Despite requests for accurate plans, ongoing concerns regarding the submitted proposed plans, the general plans proposed are somewhat confusing in terms of what has existing consent, what has been undertaken on site and what has been proposed. Now, then it goes on to say the proposed changes appear to be. Now, from the presentation by Mr Courtney, it seems to be that an application has been made and he's rather been kind of filling in the blanks. So I do think he's exercised a lot more patience than I would have done. Is this not a case of if what we've got in front of us to approve, how can we be assured that what we've got in front of us is what's actually going to transpire from what we've seen so far? So I have some concerns about the chequered past around it. Obviously we've read at length here applications, as obviously the applicants alluded to being wrongly advised by the Planning Department. My only concern here is we're working on the basis of what they appear to be asking for rather than what they potentially are. So I'll just put that out to other members for consideration. Thank you. Thank you. We don't have Councillor Brooks who originally called us in, but again we have two ward members that are here. Councillor Cohen, have you got anything to add? And Councillor Gabbard, have you got anything to add? So Councillor Cohen first. It's just the HMO issue that we're concerned about. Can we have it in writing that it will not be an HMO? Is that permitted? We put a condition on saying that the permission will only allow the property to be used as C3A, which is a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household. And that will allow you to ensure that it's not a HMO. Okay. Okay. Right. Right. Thank you. Councillor Williamson. Thank you, Chair. It is confusing, I must admit. I went down there with the plans and compared what's built and pretty much agree with Mr Courtney's sort of highlighted plans and elevations he showed us. I think what we all want is this building finished. Finished, yeah. I think that's the bottom line here. Not only for the applicant, but for the residents around the area. On the points raised, I think what we should consider doing is the C3 usage, remove permitted development rights and put a landscaping condition in for the whole site. I think that covers the points raised by some of the residents here. We just need it finished. We do, yes. I was down there today and it's an eyesore. It does need to be completed. Sorry, one of the reports says the flattered development is nearing completion. Well, I saw grass growing in the lounge. I didn't get that far in to see. Councillor Murray. Yeah, thank you. I feel sorry for Councillor Cohen and Councillor Gabriel because this is both new to them. Because again, this was in the Road and Walk. I do want to just explain that Councillor Brooks is really upset and annoyed that she can't be here tonight. She's had a long grand holiday months and months ago. But she did what she did to call this in, which was necessary. Equally, I don't pretend to have followed every twist and turn of this, even though I was one of the ward councillors. Because very early on, we agreed between us that Councillor Brooks would be the person following this in absolute detail. And she would just be chatting to me about it while I did other things in the ward. We are where we are and I do want to, just before I forget to do it because it's very important, I do want to thank the residents that have put up with, quite frankly, an unacceptable situation for too long. And I don't just mean the immediate residents. You will be really surprised by the number of families and children that have had to pass this site for how many years every day going to school. That is such a well-used site that is one of the few primary schools and imprint schools, Whitebridge, that has to have two patrol people. So that end of that road has a patrol person because of the number of children that are walking from Road in Gardens, from Road in Road through there. And they walk up Cheltenham Gardens, having passed Danbury Road. So I think it's beyond the pale what the local community has had to put up with. I really do. That's my view. I'm not saying whether there's good reasons for why it's happened. I can't judge that. But it's just been unacceptable. But we are where we are and I think the thing I want to say is, and again I've got to be careful how I say it, but the community has absolutely no reason to have faith and trust in good intentions. The good intentions might be there. I'm not in a position to challenge those. But if you were to base it on the previous year's experience, they've got no reason to believe that. So we must have this C3 restriction that has already been agreed. And I think I'll leave my comments there, Chairman. I think we've got there. Councillor Allgood. Yeah, I obviously followed this because I did speak to the applicant at one point and I'm aware of the objections. So I think for their benefit, if I go through some of them, because they're going to be a bit confused why we're not actually covering them, because they're not actually part of planning, as we would say. So not following procedures. I accept that it looks as if it's gone different. The last application, which is what we're actually looking at, effectively rectifies all the differences and brings it together in one piece. So the actual house build has actually been approved. We might argue it slightly differs, but that is what has been approved. So it's not a case that we can just object because that has already been approved. Poor quality of building finish. Again, it's been built to that standard. That's how it was recommended. Potential fire risk. I can't see how that is, other than it's a risk now because it hasn't been finished. Once it's finished, it won't be a fire risk. Discrepancy and inaccuracies of plans covered that. Front porch is too far ahead. We've sort of suggested that one metre in front is there are other premises down the road that have the same. So that's not an issue. Development of not keeping with the area. The house has already been built and modified, approved for three flats. So in that respect, it is exactly what it is. Difficult is in parking in the area. It was approved with three flats and the existing property, so we can't do anything on that. Noise pollution. Again, the flats have already been approved. Concerns over parking. Yeah, covered that one. So what I'm seeing in front of me is an application for a porch, which is one metre in front. And sort of minor superficial things to show that what has been built has now been approved. And I can see no reason to actually find any objections on this. Because the actual house has already been built and has prior approval and we're not discussing that. We are looking at minor modifications and a porch. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Caulfield, was it? I was just going to make one amendment. One amendment for the record, which was that I was on the town council when the objection was written. So I think I'll stand back from this one in terms of voting. Any other comments? Councillor Kelly. So my comment was just that considering, as Councillor Murray spoke about, the faith, that people have been putting the things to happen in a timely manner. What assurances or reassurances do we have regarding the time constrictions around the modifications and the build? Or are we looking at another series of months and years where nothing is done? So I think we've probably covered this now. So the proposal is to approve this application. We have a number of amendments to include or a number of conditions to add. One condition was make sure it's only for C3A single person households or households forming one family and a landscaping condition. And Councillor Williamson, you said one more and I didn't hear it. Development rights, withdraw development rights. Okay, so we have that before us. All those in favour? Sorry, sorry. Yes, sorry. Just before we go to the back, can we just clarify what permitted development rights is it, is it all, is it class, obviously there's various classes, class A, B, C, D, E, F. What are we restricting here? You do need to be a little bit more specific. I think it's all because of the, even the outbuildings, there's not enough room for them. I think it goes across the whole lot. I think you're right. There isn't any more space to build anything else unless they go up. So I think, I think that's all development rights. Is that okay? Are we happy with that, Graham? Yeah. Okay, right. So we put that to the vote. So all those in favour of approval with those conditions? Yes. Fourteen, four. All those against? None. Any abstentions? Four. Okay, well that is carried. So that has now been agreed. Thank you very much for your time. The last application is withdrawn because it required a speaker from Buckersdale Parish Council who didn't register. So you need to talk to the chairman of the… I should either admonish them or buy them a drink, I'm not sure which. So it's gone back to officers for consideration. Thank you for your time. We've closed the meeting at three minutes to ten. Well done. That's a long one. Go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]