Transcript

Proposed re-elevation, here's the proposed floor plan and roof plan. The main change is to the fenestration over here and the openings on the side elevation over here. That's the key difference to the refuse scheme. So here's a close up view of the lead canopy, here's a different angle and here's a wider view. So this is proposed to be removed and a single storey rear extension proposed in this section over here. Just to summarise the scheme, whilst the inspector found no harm to the conservation area with the recent refuse scheme and from the planning department there's no principal objection to the removal of the lead canopy, however the proposed extension by reason of its large size will still result in an unsympathetic extension harm in the special interests of the listed building. This harm is considered to be less than substantial harm, where the harm is less than substantial, national and local policies require the decision makers to consider whether the public benefits outweigh this identified harm. In officer's view and the planning inspector, there are none. As such, the proposal has not overcome the previous reason for refusal, including the dismissed appeal, and therefore officer recommendation is to refuse both planning permission and listed building concern. We do have the council senior conservation officer with us on Teams who would be able to answer any heritage questions. Thank you chair. Thank you. We do have a public speaker on this application and that is the applicant themselves, Mr Adrian Eales. Remind you sir you've got three minutes. Can I just ask, before we start, oh before you start, as these items are totally linked, general items eight and nine, obviously if one doesn't stand then the other one doesn't stand either. Do you require to speak twice, three minutes at a time, one on the actual application and one on the listed building consent or would you be able to squeeze it all in in four minutes, do you think? You're giving me four minutes? Yes please. If you want to have two three minute sessions then that's entirely your… I'll take the four minutes. Yes. Thank you Chair. Thank you. Your four minutes start now then sir. I hope you've all received my written points and I have spare coppers here if you need them. This is the first time we have had an application before this committee. Previous applications have been dealt with by the council at officer level. Our home is a heritage asset because it's listed but the lead canopy that we seek to remove was not part of the building when it was listed in 1985 and it has no heritage or historical significance. Page 12 of the agenda pack refers to policy DM7 heritage assets and I quote from paragraph E, The council will give great weight to the assets conservation. Any harm or loss will require clear and convincing justification. We will not be harming the historic building. Instead it's being harmed right now by a modern defective lead canopy that allows rainwater to penetrate and damage the historic fabric. We will be removing that harm, not creating any harm. We will take away the lead canopy and replace it with an oak framed orangery in keeping with the internal oak frame of the house. We are not changing anything of the historic fabric. We will not be concealing any of the historic fabric. In paragraph 17 of the Planning Inspector's Report he concedes that the primary significance of the building has nothing to do with the rear aspect where the orangery will be. His objection to a similar application was that the planned form would be eroded but he doesn't explain why that matters for this building and he overlooks the fact that the plan form of the original house was lost in the 1980s when the two brick extensions were added. He refers to excessive footprint and size of the orangery but the orangery will be single story and sandwiched by two existing taller modern brick extensions. It will project beyond them on the ground by only 1.5 meters. In terms of footprint the orangery will be a fraction of the rest of the ground floor area of the house. His view that the orangery will be unattractive is purely subjective and we hope you will view it differently. Paragraph 28 of his report contains a mistake because he says our scheme will increase the size of the lounge. The orangery will not increase it. The present external doors and wall of the living room will remain in place. In paragraph 29 he places great weight on the harm he has identified in paragraph 17 but he hasn't identified any real harm other than he doesn't like the design of the new oak framed orangery. Please form your own view on whether our proposal will harm our home or enhance and protect its heritage with a useful traditionally built oak framed addition. Thank you. Members, it is Councillor want to call the resident. Thank you, Chairman. I backed up Councillor Salty in calling this in to the committee. In one way I should declare a non-pecuniary interest. I actually did call it in alongside Councillor Salty but I think that shows you how long this application has been rumbling on for. I think having seen photographs of the back of the property and knowing the location of the property, my personal view is that by losing the canopy and potting in an orangery that isn't really a hard, what I would class as a hard, single store extension wall, glazing and wood, I can't see where the harm is to the listed building, particularly bearing in mind the two extensions to either flank of the property. The fact this is at the rear, no one actually will see it. But with the canopy as it currently is, which I understand leaks into the property quite dramatically, when we have downpours, which over the past year has been almost every day since before Christmas at some point, I really don't think this actually does any harm to the property. I think in fairness it will probably enhance it. I'm happy to support and propose that we grant the application. Thank you. Councillor Shewy? Thank you, Chairman. I agree with Councillor Whitbrad. Looking at the details of this application, level of harm less than substantial, there's been no objection from the parish council, there's no harm to the conservation area, and whilst I think it's incredibly important that we pay special attention to heritage assets, I also live in one, so I know the problems that arise when you're living in an unlisted property, we also have to equally ensure that the residents that have pumped their life savings into these properties can actually live in them comfortably and enjoy them. So I will be supporting this application. Thank you. Councillor Lee? Thank you, Chairman. I'm amazed that there's lead still there with the way things are feed these days. It's amazing it's still there. I actually don't like the look of the lead back in there, and I think the orange ereary will look much nicer, so I have no objections and I agree with Councillor Whitbrad and this other Councillor behind me. And I will be supporting the new addition. Any further members? Right, are we taking then a separate or as co-joined? We're taking as separate. Right, the officer's recommendation then is to refuse permission. All those in favour please show. All those against please show. Eleven, Chairman. I'm voting Chairman, aren't I? Sorry. So there are no abstentions. Right, therefore the officer's recommendation has been turned down. Can we have a motion for approval? Councillor Whitbrad? Thanks, Chairman. Chairman, I'm happy to propose that we grant the application with necessary conditions attached. Move a seconder for that. Councillor Sharif? Right, all those in favour of accepting the motion to approve the Plain of Fish and Peace show. Unanimous, Chairman. Thank you. Right, I now need to point out at this point, or would you like to do it? Well, that and up the road. Microphone. As the recommendation would be contrary to a previous appeal, it would need to go to DDMC. So right, if we then move on then to agenda, this is getting a little bit confusing. Agenda item nine though is to give building consent, as it is a Grade 2 listed building. The officer's recommendation on that is to refuse. Obviously the argument and the requirement are exactly the same. So if we can have a show of hands for those that support the officer's recommendation to refuse. Sorry, Councillor Whitburn? Thank you, Chairman. Just beforehand, because I'd like some clarity on the position. The officer's recommendation on the previous application was to refuse. Members have asked for it to be granted, because obviously members feel that it has sufficient weight. Why would that need to go to District Development Control? I know it's against what the officer's recommendation is, but I just don't understand why it needs to go to DDMC. It's contrary. I'll just go. It will be, in officer's, it will be contrary to planning policy and the recent appeal decision. It's contrary to what the inspector has said. The inspector dismissed the appeal on those grounds that were stated as 17, 19 and 20 years. Councillor Lucas? Could I just clarify? The appeal was on a previous application. This has now been amended since previous application, so I don't understand. In terms of the actual proposal, it's near identical. There are minor changes, but the core reason why it was overturned still remains. Councillor Whitburn? Yeah, Chairman, whilst I accept the officer's professional opinion, can I ask that it's looked into between now and going to development, because I feel it's a different application. It's separate. The original application failed and failed at appeal, but only partially failed at appeal, if you read in the report. I would just ask that consideration be given to that prior to it going to development. I really can't see any reason why it should, because it is a new application, and members are minded that it should be agreed, and it just seems to prolong something that's taken years already. Councillor Holywood? Thank you, Chairman. Just to get reassurance that if it does have to go to DDMC, that it will be done at the first possible point, because these people have been waiting a long time and had to go through a long, long process. I'm sure it will be expedited. Are members happy to delegate the recommended condition to officers? Yes. We still need to vote on Agenda Item 9, do we not? Which is elicited building consent. I have to give it by a show of hands. The officer's recommendation is to refuse. All those in favour of refusal? All those against? Unanimous, Chairman. Thank you. Can we cancel Whitford? Thank you, Chairman. I'm happy to propose granting this application. Have we a seconder? Thank you. All those in favour of granting permission, please show? Unanimous, Chairman. Can I just confirm that there's also conditions to… Yes, and that will go forward with the conditions as described. And let's see, earliest opportunity? Thank you. So, that will now be referred forward to DDMC to make an overall ruling on it. Oh, sorry, yes. The next level up from this committee is the District Development Management Committee, which is all the chairs of all the planning committees, et cetera, et cetera. And they will then go through it again. It's obviously going forward with a recommendation to approve the planning permission from this committee, and they're just basically to ratify it. Will we be able to attend that meeting? Of course. And make representations? Of course. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you, then. So, moving on then to Agenda Item 10, which is EPF/01/58/24, which is being presented by Frederic or by yourself? By Mohammed again, thank you. So, Item 10 relates to Corran's House in Epping Upland, which is a Grade 2 listed building. This application is before members, as it's been called in by Councillor Wilbride. The proposal is for two replacement windows. So, here we have the location plan. This is the site outline in red. Here's an aerial view of the property. So, here's the proposed re-elevation. The two replacement windows proposed this evening are highlighted in blue. Just as a background, so 16 out of the 18 windows on this list of buildings were granted this building consent for the replacement as they weren't considered to be of any historic significance. However, these two subject windows are considered to have historic and architectural significance. This has been the Council's position on previous applications, along with the applicant's previous heritage consultants. The core justification for this current proposal is based off a heritage expert's opinion, which does not include a physical inspection of the windows. The Council's view is based off a physical assessment and previous assessment of the windows, which I will show now. This is one of the two windows. This is the kitchen window. This was a physical inspection done by the Council's Senior Conservation Officer. This is the internal. So, these are shown to be in reasonable condition. There are no signs of cracks or any water ingress. This is the second window, the study window. Again, external and internal. And again, these are in reasonable condition, and there are no sign of cracks or water ingress. Just to summarise the case, in Officer's view there is no clear and convincing justification for the loss of these last two windows, which make an important contribution to the listed building, reflecting the skilled craftsmanship and high quality materials used. The proposal leads to less than substantial harm, and similar to the previous case, a custom on local policies requires the decision maker to consider whether the harm is outweighed by any public benefits. In Officer's view there are none. As such, Officer's recommendation is to refuse listed building consent. And again, we do have the Council's Senior Conservation Officer with us and teams to respond to any questions. Thank you, Jim. Thank you. We have a public speaker on this item, and that's the applicant himself. Mr Anthony Jackson. So again, I'll remind you of three minutes to… I do apologise. Again, this is your opportunity now to put your case, and you have three minutes in which to do that. Okay. Yes, turn your microphone on please. Thank you. Thank you. These windows are in fact in a bad state of repair, as can be seen by metal straps on the outside and other things, which have been there since before we bought the house, and one of the glass panes has now split. We therefore know you can't open them, and that's why we've painted them closed. The internal shutters on the study window, which we didn't see up, but they are there, makes it impossible to do anything immediately on the inside, like double glazing, even though I think that's pretty hideous. But you can't do that. It's not possible. In the case of the kitchen window, there are different shutters, and I suppose it could be possible, but they also are in a bad… that window is also in a bad state of repair. The inside of the shutters in both rooms have never been painted in my time for decades, because unless you open the windows, you can't get to them. We're not able to use the study we call it. It's a morning room. It's a family room. My wife spends a lot of time there, and in the winter, during the day, she wears an overcoat. It is bitterly cold. It's a huge, as you saw, a huge window with just thin glass. These two windows are the only two out of 20 in the house that have not been double glazed, and on that side that you've seen the picture of up there, all the others which we were allowed to were the same. I can assure you that it's a personal judgement, but I can tell you that. The ones which we would replace it with are hardwood. They're very, very exceptional quality, and they look exactly the same, as near as possible anyway, and the double glazing is a high-tech system which just doesn't look like... A very small gap doesn't look like double glazing. I was advised, if it's the wrong word perhaps, but I was told when I was putting this application in that it would be a good thing to have an expert give an opinion. Well, I've done that. There is a report from Charles Brooking, who is a nationally recognized architectural heritage consultant. He is extremely knowledgeable. He said that he could assess it if we sent enough photographs. I've been sending photographs and videos backwards and forwards, close-ups, distance shots, building shots, the lot, and he has given an opinion that we can do it. We can change these windows to double glazing without undermining the quality of the building. So, the position that we have is we believe these last two windows are the same as before. They were changed, and they will not, by being changed, affect the heritage of the house, and in fact, the existing windows can't be used. Thank you, sir. Sorry, I ran over, Chairman. Only very slightly. I was a county councillor for 20 years. I do understand these things. Thank you. Councillor Whitburys, you called it in, please. Yes, thank you, Chairman, and Chairman, I think these sort of decisions are always hard to take, but this is a beautiful character property, and I can understand completely our officer's desire to maintain its character, but I also understand the owner's desire to maintain its character and look after the heritage of the property, and indeed I know that to be so. The fact that so many of the windows have already been changed, it shows the care that's gone into them in making sure that the heritage of the property isn't lost, and I've seen the type of heritage double glazed windows that have been suggested. Personally, I can't see a reason why we would refuse the application, other than the fact these are the two remaining, but who knows when they were actually put in, their heritage value depends. I'm sure the officer will give us more detail, but people also have to have a quality of life within their homes as well, and I think that needs to be taken into account, and I'm sure that officers with careful conditioning could make sure that the integrity of the listed building is maintained, and I know from what I've seen of the photographs of the other windows that have been changed, why would that not be the case? So, Chairman, I would be happy to propose that we grant this application, but condition to make sure the integrity of an empathy with the original listed building is maintained. Thanks, Chairman. Thank you. Any further members? Councillor Lee. Other than agreeing, and especially in these days where we've got to economise and everything else and we're told not to use all these emissions, surely it's far better that the windows are repaired. I don't mean repaired as such, but new windows put in. I mean, has the officer actually been to see them by listening to the report, that, you know, they're broken and different things and the wind and rain - or, not the rain, but the wind's coming through. So I would support and second Councillor Whitbread in having the windows replaced that look the same. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Morris. Yeah, I mean, I think it's in my opinion people should be able to use modern technology to make their houses more liveable in, and I don't - there's a question for the officer, but can we put in place a condition which ensures that the new window will, you know, be in character with the rest of the property. We can do. Just a correction to Councillor Lee, the Conservation Officer did visit us - sorry - these are from the on-site inspection by the Council's Conservation Officer, so the Council's assessment has been based on physical inspection of the windows, whereas the applicant's judgement is based on photos. So this site visit was on the 7th of February 2024. Councillor Charif. Thank you, Chairman. I have a question for the resident, if I may. Are the two remaining windows that you're wanting to replace, will the fabric and the design, will it be the same as the windows that you have already replaced? At this point, you shouldn't really be asking the applicants. I know they can clarify, but - sorry, sir, would you like to clarify? No. Yes, I take it they will be of the same - They will be of the same. And I don't see any reason why it's been - the application's been confused because we've always got a number of windows with the same fabric, the same design. Microphone, please. You've switched it back on. Thank you. Councillor Whitburn. Chairman, I'm just going to make a small point because we downgrade the value of a report that's done by someone who hasn't actually visited the property but has inspected photographs and videos, at an age when we're living with hybrid meetings. You know, people have changed the way they do things now, especially post-pandemic, and some people will work off of photographs and videos of a site. So whilst we might not see that as equal to someone actually going and being at the site, I still think we have to give it a certain amount of extra weight if it's from a professional person who understands architecture and listed buildings. I mean, I don't think we should just downvalue someone's comments like that. Any more? Right, members. The officer's recommendation is to refuse listed building consent. All those in favour of refusal. Neill, Chairman. All those against. Unanimous. Unanimous, Chairman. Thank you. Can we have a proposal here for Councillor Chris Whitburn? Thank you, Chairman, therefore I propose that we grant the application. Seconder? Councillor Bassat. On the grounds of, please. On the grounds of that actually it doesn't do harm to the listed building and it's not to the detriment. And any other conditions you can attach? Members are happy to delegate conditions to officers. The amended motion then is to grant listed building consent. All those in favour. All those against. Carried unanimously, Chairman. Thank you. Therefore that building consent has been granted. And if I can remind you, public speakers, you can go home if you wish. You don't need to sit throughout the entirety of this. Ok, thank you. I think we can move on. Agenda item 11 is EPF 0498/24. Suki will take us through this. Hello, Suki. Hello, Councillor. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, Councillor HeDaddy said that this is item 11, application reference EPF 0498/24. This application's a demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of four dwellings with associated access and parking. It has been called in by Councillor Lee for determination by members, no objections have been received. This slide shows the location plan with the application site outlined in red. The site is located on the eastern side of Crooked Mile and covers 0.13 hectares. This slide shows a Google aerial view of the site. The site comprises a central open area which is covered by vegetation and trees. The remainder contains dilapidated sheds of brick, timber and corrugated metal construction. Trees bound the perimeter of the site. The site falls within land designated as Greenbelt. The site is located at the edge of ribbon development along Crooked Mile. It's surrounded by open fields on three sides. As you can see, the site extends further beyond the boundaries of the existing residential properties within Crooked Mile. This slide shows the existing site plan. The site has only partially been given permission under reference EPF 995/90 for nonagricultural use. However that permission was only given for a temporary period of two years. The site reverted back to agricultural use on the 8th of October '92. Therefore agriculture is an awful use of the site. This slide shows a Google image of the front of the site. Permission is sought to demolish the existing lean-to structures and erect four three-bedroom dwellings with associated parking and access. The houses are arranged as two pairs of semi-detached houses. Each house measures a maximum of 5.37 metres wide by 12.05 metres deep. Each house provides an internal area of about 98 square metres. This plan shows the layout of the ground floor. This plan shows the layout of the first floors and roof plan. This slide shows the elevations of the houses and a photographic sample of the back bricks. The houses are 8.2 metres high to the ridges of their hip roofs. This height is greater than the existing structure on the site. Materials include bricks and render walls, UPVC fenestration, plain clay tiles. This slide shows the proposed site plan. One access will serve all their properties. None of the exceptions to inappropriate development are relevant to this proposal. It is therefore by definition inappropriate development to which substantial harm must be attributed. The application site adjoins the end of a line of residential properties. Approval will therefore further extend the line of residential development within the green belt. The height and solid permanence of the proposal are also greater than what is currently on the site. The proposal would therefore have a greater adverse impact on the openness of the site. In addition, the proposal will spread urban spool northwards and eastwards from the existing ribbon development along this part of Crooked Mile, causing encroachment into the countryside. The proposal therefore conflicts with the purposes of containing land within the green belt. The submitted drainage information has been found to be inadequate by the land drainage engineer. The team advised that the information does not confirm the volume of attenuation, runoff rate, flow control location, nor has it provided any information which sets out the drainage strategy so that it can be reviewed in My Only Policy (DM 16) of the adopted plan. This lack of information means that it is contrary to this policy. Whilst officers note that the proposal will tidy up the site and has an overall smaller volume and footprint compared to the existing buildings on the site, given that the site is not previously developed and the current buildings are reflective of the agricultural use of the site, therefore the development is inappropriate development to which substantial weight must be given. The replacement buildings have a greater height than the existing structures, therefore they will be more visible from longer views. This, along with the domestic paraphernalia activity generated by the use, will have a greater impact on the openness. The Department of Living Up Housing and Communities, in their letter dated 15th of May 2024 to the Council, have recalculated our housing and delivery test results in the adopted local plan and have found that the Council has delivered 105% of its housing delivery target. The tilted balance consideration, therefore, does not apply in this case. As for these reasons, officers do not consider that there are sufficient very special circumstances that would outweigh the substantial harm to the greenbelt or from the lack of evidence to confirm that the proposal will not cause an increase in flood risk. Officers, therefore, recommend that this application be refused on this basis. Furthermore, given the in principle objection to the scheme, a unilateral undertaking to secure funding to mitigate against the development's harm to the FSAC has not been obtained. Therefore, this issue also acts as a reason for refusal. Thank you, Chairman. That's the end of my presentation. Thank you. We have one public speaker. And that's Dominic Pavalino. I've said it enough times, and he's the applicant's agent. Dominic, you have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to address the planning committee. The application presented this evening is a resubmission of one which was previously refused by the Council and is accompanied by a planning statement which addresses the concerns raised by the planning officer previously, particularly in relation to the assessment of the merits of the scheme in the greenbelt. We are disappointed that this information has not been referenced in the planning officer's report before you this evening. Paragraph 148 of the MPPPF provides for development to be approved in the greenbelt, where it is demonstrated that the very special circumstances exist, which clearly outweigh the harm to the greenbelt. The planning statement sets out the very special circumstances that apply in this case, and this information has not been shared with you in the officer's report. The very special circumstances are the considerable improvements to the openness of the greenbelt. There's a 61% reduction in site coverage, 53% reduction in built form and volume, significant visual improvement with the removal of the unsightly dilapidated buildings and replacement of well-designed family homes, the removal of the site which may be attractive and accessible to trespassers undertaking antisocial behavior. The delivery of four family homes to contribute towards the needs within the district with need being forecast to be met through the delivery of windfall sites alongside the site allocations within the Epping Forest local plan. The government's presumption in favor of development is engaged in Epping Forest due to the delivery of only 30% of the required completed homes falling well below the target of 75%. The opportunity to improve surface water attenuation by reducing built form within the site and incorporating suds. With regard to the other recommended reasons for refusal, the applicant is happy to enter into a 106 agreement to contribute towards the Epping Forest SAC. This opportunity has not been provided by the planning officers, and I request that the council to resolve to grant planning permission this evening, subject to the completion of that agreement. It is also recommended by the planning officer that permission be refused on the grounds of drainage. The application includes proposals for drainage, and more detailed methodology can be secured by a planning condition, as is normally the case. There is no drainage on site which causes road flooding from time to time. The proposal would result in significant reduction in building footprint and an opportunity to install suds features and full mitigation measures to prevent further flooding in the future. The application will clean up the derivative site and deliver four much needed family homes. Very special circumstances have been demonstrated which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, such that this proposal accords with national and local planning policy. The applicant is happy to enter into a 106 and provide full surface drainage detail to the development. We request the committee resolve to grant permission this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. If I'm still here at the end. Councillor Lee, as you called it in, would you like to start the ball? Yes, thank you Chairman. I just want to point out, it's come back, when this first came to us, I asked for it to come to us, and it was supposed to, but it got overlooked. I don't know why, but I did request that it came to us because I used to live next door to this site for years. So, I don't think this is quite accurate how this is described. It's a piggery or it was a piggery. It's nearly all concrete and hardcore. It had a building that they used to cook the pig food in. It's an absolute mess now. And on the opposite side of the road, it used to be greenhouses all the way along on the opposite side of the road. So, it's not a case, all right now it's part of the Lee Valley Park, so they're growing trees. But, it had buildings all on the other side of the road, not only greenhouses, but it had packing sheds and other things. So, to say that, you know, it's completely greenbelt, you can't call it greenbelt when it's been previously built on. Now, I called it in the first time, which didn't come to us, so that's why it's come back. So, I think that should be disregarded that it's come back to us, because with living next door to it, I knew there was a problem with flooding. When they removed the ditches and hedgerows from the fields behind, my sister who lived next door to us got flooded. So, when I saw this come up, I requested it to come to us so that I could specially point out that I wanted to make sure that the ditches was cleared out properly and that the drainage was dealt with and that there was good solid trees and bushes or hedges round it, which would help drink up the water. So, that's why I called it in the first time, which didn't happen, and then I've called it in now, because I just cannot agree that you can turn it down, that it's greenbelt. I know Waltham Abbey's the poor relation in this district, but we don't have to look like it, and that is a main entrance coming into our historical town, and you come down, hundreds of people come through there, and it looks a mess. There's nothing else it can be used for, agriculture, because pigs aren't farmed that way anymore, they're now farmed out in fields. There's nothing else in the agricultural world that I know that could live in those little pig stars and on all that concrete. So I do not agree at all with this, and so I'm dead against the refusal for it. And because I live next door to it, I do know what I'm talking about. And I would say that we had to have proper drainage sorted, and proper hedgerows and stuff that would drink the water when it's done. Thank you. Just to clarify, the site is designated greenbelt, you can have previously developed land within the greenbelt, but just to confirm the site is within the greenbelt, it's greenbelt land. Half the time we're told it's brownfield and it's been built on, so you can build on it. You know, there's got to be something that's made clear, because we're told if it's previously been built on, and then we're told 'oh, you can't because it's agricultural'. Well, we convert barns into residential, this can't be converted for anything. For any animals or people. It looks a mess, I know they've cleaned it up, and your pictures think 'oh, makes it look all good'. No, it doesn't look good, it's awful. And that is the entrance to our town. I cannot accept this refusal on this. And we need properties. The houses that are there, the ones that they're proposing look just the same. So I can't understand why you're saying 'oh no no no'. Just 50, well 100 yards up the road, then there's more houses. So it's not actually on the edge of it either, so I can't agree with it. Sorry. In terms of development within the greenbelt, the National Planning Policy Framework has set out in the agenda, and Policy DM4 does set out exceptions to development in the greenbelt. In this instance none of them have been met, hence Officer Recommendation. Councillor Lucas. Thank you Chairman. Just before I comment, I don't know if I need to express a non-pecuniary interest, I'm not an immediate neighbour but I do live along the road. So I should have mentioned that earlier, so my apologies. I, similar to Councillor Lee, know this site very well. I'm completely familiar with the poor state of repair that it is in. So I understand the necessity of putting in a planning application and I do understand all of the points raised by the planning officer, and I can see on paper the reasons for refusal. I have a couple of concerns, and my main points of concerns are similar to Councillor Lee with regards to the flooding, and if members are minded that this application is approved, that really needs to be a condition that's put in. The flooding along there is the worst that it's ever been, and actually I'm slightly further down the road, closer to the Wheat chief pub, where I've never experienced flooding like it. So that's definitely something, but I don't think this, listening to the agent, seeing the plans, seeing what can be put in place, I don't think the proposal would have any more impact on flooding than what's currently there, but we just need to make sure that our future proposals are mitigating that. I also do have concerns of the access, because when we're looking at four houses there with one in and one out, so I'm concerned about the access point, especially on to, as Councillor Lee said, a very, very, very busy main road. And even though it's a B road, it's actually extremely fast moving, so I do have concerns about that, and if we're minded to approve, I would really like there to be some, especially in terms of the, I know that we usually put a condition in place for construction, and I know there has been construction going on on this work, and I would also like to make comment that the works that have been done on the existing property that's there have been done to a very high standard. The site has been, on that side of the site, has been done very well. So if it's the same developers, I'd be confident that the site would be completed to a higher standard. We do have a local plan site very close by that was also previously green belt. I know that that is now not green belt, but my understanding in this position, yes, it does have fields all the way around it, but it is a site that isn't an infill site, but is going to be really just replacing the buildings that's there. If I could have preferred to have seen two rather than four, probably would have preferred it with less impact, but we're commenting on the proposal that's in front of us now, and I'm leaning more towards supporting the application, because it cannot stay, the site cannot stay as it currently is. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Lucas. Councillor Chris Whitbread. Thank you, Chairman. And it's really good to hear that local knowledge that's fed in at this point. Obviously, this is a green belt site, and we have to accept that has been a fact, but there is built form on the site in the way of the old piggery. And I think that has to be taken with some weight as well. I am concerned that if we were to agree this application this evening, we can only deal with the application that's before us. If we were to agree this application this evening, I'd like to have a much closer look at the conditions that would go on this site. This is a very busy road. It has pinch points and black spots all the way up and down the road, not just here. And I believe I'd want to have more input into how the entrance would be improved and actually to do some whether there was anything that could be done in the way of some traffic calming along that stretch of the road. So I think there's a piece of work to be done there. And we're told by the applicant that it would be a reduction of build on the site, which is a positive within the green belt. I think I'd need to know more about that. We hear about the potential of flooding on the site. The Coquille Mall has lots of flooding, black spots for cars going along there. So a number of issues have come up from this this evening. Mr Chairman, you're going to be very annoyed with me in a moment, because I think this application needs really good consideration. I think there are some positives as local councilors have highlighted that it's whilst it's a green belt site. There's an element of brownfield to it as well with the old pig styes. I think it would be really welcome because when you're going down that road, it's very hard to slow down sometimes just to have a good look at a site from the outside. And I wonder whether we should propose a site visit to actually get a better understanding of the site and what would be required to make it work. I.e. whether it comes down to flooding, whether it comes down to the highways issues and actually what would be a reduction in the that the built form on the green belt site. Thank you. Yeah, I know the site and it is an eyesore. But again, is it are we losing green belt through stealth? That's OK. We'll just claim that it's not a windfall site. It is green belt is agricultural. It should be returned as such. Yes, I agree. The site should be cleared and I also agree that the condition of the road needs improving. But whether or not I'm in favor of actually making the place look better and I'm building on it. I don't know. Anyway, members, any more. Councilor Bassett. Thank you. Yes. This is one of those awkward ones. And we've had these so many times in the rural area where you've got old buildings which were part of farms, glass houses. And they were brick built solid buildings in their time. But then they are obsolete to use. They're falling apart. And we've seen lots of applications for these to be converted into housing of some show or other uses. In this case, obviously, agricultural use is not applicable. And I cannot see anyone turning it back to pure green belt when there's nothing in it for them. You know, they'll just leave it. But I think one of the things we can do on this is if we are minded is there is a lot of conditions and prerequisites. We can put in, for instance, highways, for instance, drainage and everything else to actually get it to the standard which we want if we were minded to approve it. Thank you. Councilor. Thank you, Chairman. I think a site visit would be prudent, actually. I'm not entirely in favor of the building on it. I think it's agricultural land and therefore should be returned to agricultural land. But I would like to do a site visit. I think that would be an excellent idea. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Morris. Yeah, my opinion, yeah, the site is a bit of a mess. So what you don't want is for it to stay that way. I mean, we want some kind of work done here to improve it and to improve the drainage. And so, yeah, absolutely. Tending to be in favor of this application provided the right conditions put around it, like access to the road, drainage in the area. So, yeah, so that's my comment. Thank you. Right. It has been proposed that we carry out a site visit before we determine this application. Can we show of hands all those in favor of deferring this item for a site visit? All those against. Therefore, this item will be deferred for a site visit to be arranged by this committee at the earliest opportunity. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the general items of them, which is EPF stroke, zero three nine zero two four on page thirty four to seven to thirty four, thirty nine of your agenda. Suki. You again. Thank you. This item relates to property known as Plough Green Effing Road in Boyden. To a children's home for up to two children with two to three staff and manager. This proposal is before members tonight due to it being called in by councilor Chris Whitbread for determination by members. The petition has a recommendation for approval subject conditions. This is a Google view of the site. The parish council has raised concerns that they use has already commenced. I visited the site and announced and found that the use has already started as I met one teenager given in the home who I was advised needed emergency accommodation. There were also two adults present. The site joins the telephone exchange there. Sorry. And Penny's Lane, which is about twenty five metres away from the property and then to the west is Ashmore, which is about seven metres from the side of Plough Green. To the rear is the plainfield of Warwick primary school. To the north is the Effing Road. Which is a classified road close to a bus stop and further a train station. This shows the existing access to the site. This is a photo of the front elevation. This photo is of the rear of the property. This slide shows the existing front and rear elevations. This slide shows the proposed elevations. They demonstrate the lack of external changes proposed. The only difference between the residential dwelling and the proposed use is that the care is provided by staff and not the parents of the children. The staff would not sleep within the home. However, the residential, the property would remain residential in its character. Officers considered the change of use will not alter the character or appearance of this four bedroom dwelling and will not result in significant additional traffic movements to and from the property. The slide shows the existing floor plans. This slide shows the proposed layout of the ground floor, ground and first floor. The rooms are not labelled. However, the rooms will be used for domestic purposes, apart from one room which is likely to be used as an office for the staff. As this use will be similar to a home office, it's not likely to cause significant additional planning harm. The use will be regulated by the Care Quality Commission and Ofsted. The proposed use will provide much needed care facility for fundable children who require specialist care between the ages of 13 to 18 years old. A condition is recommended to limit the number of children residing at the address to be no more than two. This will ensure that the activity generated by the change of use remains akin to that of a family. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Yes, we do. Do we? Sorry, I was reading ahead of myself. We do have a public speaker on this item and that's Ada McManus joining us on Teams. You're there. Can you hear me? No. Are you on mute? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, it's fine. I can now hear you. Again, the same rules apply. You have three minutes to close. Thank you for the opportunity to let me speak at the committee. There will be two full-time staff present at the site operating a 12-hour rotary systems, working overnight with a registered manager working Monday to Friday to ensure that there are sufficient staff to provide the much needed specialist care, which is required to ensure that the children can be properly safeguarded and provided one to one support. There are already five parking spaces available at the property, which is more than sufficient to avoid any increase of the existing on-road parking issue, which especially occurs during school drop off and collection times. It will not exacerbate any issues relating to congestion in the area or result in a detrimental impact on highway safety. The proposed use would generate no greater level of noise, disturbance or traffic movements than an average four bedroom dwelling, especially as the children are supervised at all times with a consistent approach to rules and acceptable behaviour. The only difference between the residential dwelling and the proposed use care is provided by the qualified staff and not the parents of the children. However, the property will remain residential in its character due to no external alterations being required. There have been no objections received from the local highway authority or any other statutory consortee. The government supports the proposed use in residential care areas under Section 8 of the MPPF to achieve a healthy, inclusive, safe places to ensure a cohesive community can benefit from the specialist support provided by the applicant for the children to enable them to become valued members of society. This application complies with the council's adopted policies, and furthermore, it fully complies with the MPPF and will continue to provide much needed specialist presidential care for the children without resorting any adverse impacts that were significant and much outweigh the benefit of grant and planning commission. I therefore duly request that members of the Planning Committee can support the officers recommendations to approve the application with the suggested conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Chris has you called this in? Thank you, Chairman. It seems to be my turn to speak quite often this evening. Chairman, this is one of those difficult applications that come before us occasionally, and I think it's always worthwhile for the committee to have their say and their input into this type of application. And of course, it really is always difficult when you're dealing with these. I'm only too aware of the high demand for this type of usage, and I can see it growing in the future. My concern with this particular application, I am surprised that highways haven't made more of an issue with the access to the property. And the problems around this stretch of the Epping Road. Indeed, in the run up to the school, there is a parking problem and there is a speeding problem. And there is a impossibility for vehicles sometimes to pass with QBACs when it's school time. So there are a number of issues in this location, and I would have thought within this application, some thought would have been given to that. And at least towards some form of contribution towards work that has been undertaken by the highways panel because of the issues around the Epping Road and High Street junction leading up to this property. So there are concerns that I had. I also have concerns of any future expansion to the site. The site can quite rightly probably take what's been proposed at the moment, two children, two adults and a manager. I'm sure the site can take that. However, what's to stop future expansion? This is a large plot, and I believe there was an application only in recent times for a house just adjoining from the original plot. So I do think that if we agree to this application, there needs to be a lifting of any development rights on the property. I think we need to take that into account. I say personally, I am concerned by the highways issues. I find it very difficult to get over the fact that even though there are similar movements, we're told to a four bedroom house, if that's the case, fine. However, what happens if it ever expands and you've got more cars, more vehicles, at a busy time of day? I just think it needs to be thought through more clearly. In principle, I support the application, but I have my concerns. Thank you. Any other members? So can we put in the conditions if it is up for approval that we take away permitted development rights to expand the site? We can add that as a condition. We can look into removing permitted development rights. Would it be for extensions, loft conversions, outbuildings? Yes. Because those extensions will relate to a residential dwelling, they wouldn't apply here because this is a children's care home. It wouldn't have permitted development rights. It would require planning permission if it was to extend it. So that's already covered then. Also, because of the condition with just two children, if they were to increase the number of children, that would then be a contrary to that condition. And they would need to apply to remove that condition to increase the number of children. Councillor Chris Whitford. Thank you, Chairman. And Chairman, that's helpful. Of course, if more than two children were to be on site, that would need to have enforcement who would carry out that enforcement. And we have to look at the applicant has already jumped the gun and actually put the property into use before planning applications was granted. And I think that should be borne in mind when we're talking about restrictions and enforcements. I would like more detail on who would enforce in this type of circumstance. So if there is a breach of condition, they would come to the council's enforcement team to enforce the condition. Does the Equality Care Commission get involved in this as well? In terms of enforcing the number of occupiers on site, that would fall under the planning regime. In terms of the Quality Care Commission, I'm not 100% sure. I'm not sure if Suki may have an answer on that. They would only look at whether the accommodation is suitable for the children. They wouldn't look at the planning merits of the scheme. Thank you, Chairman. That's helpful, but it does leave it somewhat vague, because you're quite right. The Quality Care Commission has a lot more weight in these sort of circumstances than necessarily sometimes the planning. If you, well meaningfully, say, took on a third child, not in itself a terrible thing, but it is an increasing usage. And I don't believe our Enforcement Department would have the resource to move as quickly as we would need to deal with that type of circumstance, so it would have to be the health bodies. I'm just mindful. We are talking about this in a residential area. We need to know that the provider is going to be responsible. Have they been responsible by jumping ahead of the planning application? I'm not sure. So we've already seen one breach. When would there be another? Councillor Morris. So my understanding is that in principle, if everything works the way it should, the use of this property can be controlled and the conditions can be enforced. And I think the concerns are about whether in practice that's going to work out, whether you have the resources and all that kind of thing. But my understanding is right. In principle, it should be controlled and it should come back here and any breaches conditions can be enforced by EFDC. That's my understanding. That's correct. And I should imagine that the queer quality commission would want planning permission for you to be able to house the child before they allow you to house any child there. So they've got to be sure that you can accommodate the children. So planning permission would be one of the things that they look at when they look at your property and whether it's suitable for the number of children that are being proposed to live there. Suki, am I right in assuming then that they can't actually operate as a care home at present because they haven't got C3 permission? No, C3. Sorry, C2. They've got C3 permission, it's a residential dwelling. So my understanding is because they are a company which runs homes and they've got... The child that I saw on my site with it was as a result of an emergency situation and Ofsted also controlled the number of children. I've just been told by the applicant. And it may be you would be better to answer this question in terms of how Ofsted would regulate this sort of issue. But from my understanding is that in that situation that the house didn't have consent. But because the company is a reputable company that I've done this before and they've got ties with Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission and it was just one child. I think in that instance and given the emergency nature of the situation, it was probably given and was considered acceptable. I'm guessing, I'm not sure because it's not my area of expertise, but I would assume that was the answer to what happened. I've been told that that's correct. So they are the owners of the property and we're using it for residential and then took this child in as an emergency case and now wants to develop it as a care home. So the company bought the house, sorry the tenants, apologies. I think it'd be safe for the applicant to speak because she's more knowledgeable on it. No sorry, I saw that the tenants and they took the child in, okay. Thank you. Any further questions members? Councillor Lucas. It's not, thank you Chairman, it's not a question. I think as Councillor Chris Whitbread said when we started this, it's one of these ones where it's a difficult and unusual situation that we're being asked to consider here. And there's a lot of questions around is it, isn't it, could it, couldn't it. I think that taking into consideration we are just commenting on what is put in front of us. It's very difficult for us to say about our, and I do completely hear where Councillor Chris Whitbread was saying about enforcement, but that could be the case for any planning application. So I think that we can't be mindful of, oh that may not be enforced correctly, we have to assume that we will enforce that correctly and I would hope that our officers would do so. I think that the officer on this has spent some time, but I understand there is still some grey areas, hence why she possibly isn't quite so familiar with some of the questions. So it's been useful to have the applicant or the applicant's agent there as well. But based on what's in front of us with the conditions that have been proposed with the Ofsted Control, I can't really see any issue with it. Thank you Chairman. Thank you. Right then, members. The officer's recommendation is to approve the change of use. All those in favour of approval? With conditions. Sorry, I do apologise with the additional conditions as well. All those against? There's no additional conditions. Hmm? There is with conditions. No additional ones on top of it. The additional ones were, yeah permitted development came out of it anyway because of its change of use, so they wouldn't have permitted development, it was just a write-in to emphasise it. You can have an informative one. Yes, an effective one. Sorry, I'll totally confuse myself. I think we were taking a vote, but there was some queering about was it conditions or an informative... Sorry, if we go back to the beginning, yes. The officer's recommendation is to approve with conditions plus the additional conditions as suggested by this committee. So all those in favour of the officer's recommendation? Yes. Aye. All those against? Zero. Abstentions? Three. Thank you. Therefore that application with change of use has been approved with conditions. Item 13 then is EPF/0895/22. And you're going to take us through this? And Mohamed will take us through this. Thank you, Chair. Item 13 relates to the former Kingsman School in Royden. The proposal is for the conversion of the former school into 10 flats and a further 16 dwellings within the wider site. This site is allocated within the adopted local plan for approximately 21 dwellings and since its adoption, the site has been taken out of the green belt. Before I turn to the slides, there is an update to the agenda in terms of the parish comments. These have been published under the case file and I hope members had a chance to review the comments prior to the meeting. I'll just summarize their comments just briefly. So from the parish's point of view, concerns were raised around the drainage from the construction, the proposed access including impacts on highway safety and around information on affordable housing. These matters have been considered in the agenda and in the presentation I'll expand on some of the highway matters. So turning to the slides, here we have the application site outlined in red. Here's the former school. This is the access point and the access is shared with Kingsmead Lodge over here. Here's an aerial view of the sites, the school over here. And the wider sites. Here's the access point. This is the access shared with this property over here. So here's a proposed site plan. So here's the existing school which will be converted into 10 flats. And the rest of the 16 dwellings spread out across the site over here, along with the associated landscaping works. Here's a CGI of the proposed development. So you have the school over here, and the remainder of the dwellings spread across the site. There are a mix of dwellings, so you have a mix of flats, detached and semi-detached dwellings over here. Here are the proposed elevations. This is the school over here. And the rest of the dwellings spread out across the site. So as I mentioned, in terms of the highway works, these are what are proposed by the developer. So these are the pedestrian improvements, so these three footpaths, one, two, three, there will be improvements to them. Along with improvements to the access. And here's a further improvement further down over here. There will be a gateway feature with a 30 mile per hour restriction, as shown over here. So both of these works have been secured by condition as set out in the agenda. Just to summarize the case, the full merits are set out within the agenda, but in terms of the proposal, whilst it's for 26 units, five more above the approximate allocated figure of 21 units, the scheme before members is well designed in officer's view, and the 26 units can be comfortably accommodated on the site without amounting to harmful overdevelopment of the site. This is largely due to the conversion of the school into 10 flats. The proposal satisfies the site specific policy requirements as set out in detail in the agenda. It also safeguards the living conditions of neighbouring amenities, the protected trees, and would provide a good level of accommodation for future users. There will be benefits from the construction and occupation of the homes, along with wider pedestrian highway improvements, as shown on the slides. There will also be further benefits to education, community facilities, and open space. But overall, the proposal would deliver homes on an allocated site in line with the visions and objectives of the adopted local plan, that one of the core reasons is to provide a mix of new homes within the district to meet the needs of existing and future generations. For these reasons, officer recommendation is to grant planning permissions subject to conditions and a complete Section 106 legal agreement. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Members. Councillor Basso. Yes, having a little look at this, I can see what they want to do. Can you just confirm, none of this is in Greenbelt because it is surrounded by fields? That's correct. With the adoption of the local plan, this allocated site was taken outside the Greenbelt. Second point. Concerns over the width of the road, and if they are widening it, they are then right on the houses next door. These are the proposed works. So this is the width of the road. Councillor Chris Whitworth, did you? Thank you, Chairman. Obviously this is a site within the local plan, and we have to give that the weight that it deserves, and it's been identified for residential development, and therefore, from that point of view, we have to take this site seriously. Obviously, the design and layout of the site is as described and looks good, although it's higher than the number prescribed in the local plan. We have seen a bit of that already recently, and if in the professional officer's eyes it is correct, then I don't see a major problem with that. My real concern around this is on the highways issues and such. I think that's going to be the real impact in many cases, and it's making sure that we get the right benefits for local residents from the section 106 agreements, and we've heard about the education, the health piece, that's all very important to us. But of course, I would draw the attention to the 30mph zone for the traffic there, but people do speed along that part sometimes, so I think probably, yes, I agree on principle, it's an application that has to go ahead, it's part of the local plan. And the number of units is not outrageous, it's a little bit of a push. However, my real concern still sits around the highways piece, and what we can do to actually make it safer for residents. Okay, any further members. Councillor Lee. I'm not happy where the road is widened so closely to the house, because that's basically what happened to mine. My house you couldn't see from the road, and then highways came along and widened the road double width, that the road's right next to my house, and I would imagine the people living there won't be very happy at all. So I don't know why, looking at it, that it can't be widened on the other side, because there doesn't look to be houses on the other side. So I'm not overjoyed about that being widened to the side of the house. No, can it be widened the other side? So the footpath is being, pedestrian footpath is being widened over here. This is where the shed property is, so the footpath is itself being widened along with the access. This is the boundary for this dwelling over here. There was the picture here. So there will be a footpath along here. Is that the house that's there already? This is the existing house which shares the accessway with the school. [inaudible] This section over here. I'm not sure if the red dot is visible. No, no, it will be within the site of the application site, not from the property over here. It's a shared accessway. Councillor Lucas. Thank you, Chairman. Looking at that photo that actually is very clear that there does not appear to be enough space there for a footpath and for the access. Could the officer just please confirm the widths and that they do add up to make sure that there is enough space for the traffic? And I'm just thinking of the volume of cars going in and waste collection vehicles, et cetera. Okay, yes, I can see a drawing that looks wide enough, but have measurements actually been taken place that is going to accommodate everything that's proposed? Based on the plans, it states it's five metres. Obviously this has been reviewed by the highways officer and it satisfies all highway safety issues in terms of access and capacity onto the main road. So it does meet the requirements of highway safety concerns. Councillor Besser. Sorry. Road five metres in width, and I thought there was issues with highways if you're putting over 25 houses because of traffic, two-way traffic, and five metres doesn't allow for the traffic to pass safely. And a footpath. And a footpath, yeah. Councillor Chris Whitman. Thank you, I think Councillor Besser has a question. (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) Well, looking at that, that doesn't look ideal. So why can't a different access be made then? If this is now stuck in the local plan, don't worry about the green belt, stick what you like there, but that entrance is not good enough to be having, however, all those extra houses. So they need to look at it again and do a proper entrance with the proper road, because I would hate it if I was living there and then you're going to widen it by what? It doesn't look wide enough, even for a bin lorry, let alone anything else. The plans have been measured, it's been reviewed by the highways officer and condition 14 seeks to secure these proposed access works to the actual access and the wider footpath across the green. So these have been looked at in detail and no objections raised by the highways officer subject to conditions, one of which is condition 14 as set out on the agenda. It's actually conditioned. Councillor Sh banana. Thank you, Chairman. I agree with much of what has been said this evening. Can I just ask a question about the affordable housing? How much affordable housing is going to be part of this development, because there does seem to be a lot of houses? So as part of this submission, they did submit a viability assessment to demonstrate what could be achieved on site. So once the viability assessment was reviewed, there was a surplus identified just under 600 K. This taking into account the Section 106 figures as set out later on the agenda. An affordable housing contribution of 180,000 would be made this accounts to just less than one affordable home. Policy does allow where you can't, policy does allow where you... One home. Less than one affordable home is the equivalent, but the policy does allow where you can't demonstrate 40% compliance. You need to submit a viability assessment to demonstrate what's viable. And they have done so in this case. It's been reviewed by the Council's experts. And the conclusion is set out in the report. In that sense, it does satisfy the affordable housing policy. So what you're saying, there's actually no affordable houses being built on that site. Is that what you're saying? I thought that there had to be so many when there was over 10 houses being built. I mean, I realise planning laws change, but surely if the law is that we've set so many affordable homes, I can't believe we're building a site and they're just giving so much money that won't even buy one, that there's not going to be any affordable homes on it. I understand, Khazar. The policy does require where there's 11 or more homes, 40% affordable housing should be required. However, it does also allow where that can't be met. They need to submit a viability assessment to demonstrate if 40% is viable, if not, what could be achieved. In this case, they can only offer the 180,000, which is equivalent to less than one affordable home. Thank you, Chairman. And whilst this is a local plan site and I accept the arguments over viability studies, I think as members, we should see a bit more of those viability studies when these type of applications come forward. Because again, an important part of the local plan is providing affordable housing, particularly in rural areas like Brighton, where we've talked about before, village homes, that type of thing, where we're trying to get homes for our young people. I think there's something about I'd like to see the viability study. I accept that there is a lot of money going into the highways piece on this. But at the end of the day, this was previously a greenbelt site that's now coming to become a very valuable development site. And therefore, we need to make sure that that viability study is in everyone's best interest. So we agree, the principle within the local plan, this site has been put for residential development. You have to accept that because it's a fact. However, I do think we have a duty as a panel to make sure that -- and I accept the highways issue is covered in here adequately. It's addressed. And I accept that that is quite a costly piece of the 106 agreement. But we do need affordable housing. And we need to make sure that if that affordable housing isn't achievable on this site, and it may not be, you know, when you sit down and do the sums, it may not add up. But I do think we should defer this application until we've got more detail on the viability study, and we're able to consider it in its full merits.

Just to confirm, the viability assessment has been published under the case file. So it is open for members to review and the public. Can this be conditioned for the late stage review regarding viability? I set out on page -- if I -- there is a review mechanism. So I think it's page 50 of the agenda. Point one is affordable housing payment, plus a review mechanism, which would be the late stage review mechanism, in addition to the payment of 180,000. Page 50, under planning obligations. Page 48. Bear with me. So we can look at it again once they've built them and sold them, we can see if there's any more money available. Did you -- sorry, Councillor Whitworth, did you want to propose that as a motion to defer this item until we have got everything in front of us? Thank you, I accept the documentation is down, I accept the members can go to it, but I do think members need a proper pre-seed, so they can understand it in some detail. They're not the easiest things to read, I've read many of them over the years. And I accept that there are times when so much investment has to go into a site in order to take it out of the ground that you can't always do everything we would wish. And I accept that, but I do think in order to make good decisions based upon sound judgement, we should see that probability study in an executive statement format, so we can actually see it and understand what it is before we make that decision. I think we all accept that the premise of development on this site, it's within the local plan. But this was a Greenbelt site, it's now in the local plan, so it goes onto a development site, but we do need to make sure that we are getting the right level 106 agreement from it and the right level affordable housing that can be put onto that site or delivered elsewhere. Remember, 600,000 for us is not a lot. If you're having homes on the site, it's worth a lot more to us as a council, a lot more value. It is open to members to reconfigure the other section 106 contributions, so you can allot more to affordable housing as opposed to the current proposed 180,000, so instead of open space community facilities, those can be directed towards affordable housing if members wish to do so.

• Thank you, Chairman. I think we're gonna have a lot of these complex discussions around local plan sites. I'd like to understand how we got to that position on balancing off, whether that was with the consultant with the local parish council or how it was achieved. I'm hoping for 10 for one minute to be a planning expert, but I just think we need to understand as members how that arrangement has come, is that the optimum for that site? I just think that's really important, so I would say defer to the next meeting of plans west, because that's where the decision should be taken, but I'm also relaxed because it is a local plan site for it to go to district of local control, whichever is quickest.
• Thank you. There's a motion before you, members, and then to defer this decision on this application until the next plans west meeting. Is there a seconder for that proposal?
• DDMS. - Sorry.
• I would prefer for it to go to the next plans west meeting.
• Yeah, we can determine that. I don't think it needs to go to them.
• Just walk us. - Oh, okay.
• I'll just do that as a place.
• Oh, right. Oh, yes, possibly.
• I'm in.
• Okay, yeah. Sorry. I appreciate you.
• I'm not wishing to create a further debate from the floor and I apologise for not coming through you, chairman. I just feel it would be whatever the officer thinks is best. At the end of the day, plans west should be where it's decided, because we're the local committee, but obviously if it's some time before we meet again, I think it's right for the applicant, knowing that we already agreed that this is a residential development site, within the local plan, that we get this done as quickly as possible. It's just the fact we need more information to make that decision.
• Sorry?
• Would you like the date of the meeting, chairman?
• Yeah.
• The next meeting of plans west is the 17th of July.
• 17th of July, is that soon enough?
• Right, so have we a seconder, then, for the seconder of the roof? Thank you.
• Do we have a show of hands, then, to defer this item to the next meeting of the plans west on the 17th of July?
• Unanimous, chairman.
• Thank you.
• Will then it be explained to us why there's not actually any affordable housing in it, or how it has come to that, because I need to know these things, because, you know, we're told we've got to have affordable housing. So I'd like it explained that I can understand it, because I'm not an expert.
• I think that is what Councillor Whitford requested from the officer, was it? A layman's version of the viability.
• Noted, Councillor.
• Thank you.
• If you thought that was complicated, right, agenda item 14 is EPF stroke 0751 stroke 23. And I think, Mohammed, do you want to explain the context of this in conjunction with item 15 and how it's proposed to present?
• I hope this doesn't confuse members, but both items on 14, I'll be presenting them together, but they are dependent on each other, and they'll be tied into a single section 106 agreement together. So they do need to be considered together. They are dependent on each other. So item 14, one relates to Middlebrook Farm and the second Willowbrook, both in nazing. Both applications are outlined with all matters reserved except for access. So for clarity, members are only considering the principle of the development, the access and other material consideration are set out in the agenda. Matters relating to scale as in the building form heights, appearance of the buildings, layouts, and landscaping, they are to be fully assessed by a future reserved matters application. So here we have the location plan for both sites, so Middlebrook over here and Willowbrook over here. So here's a wider context of where the sites sit within nazing. So this is Willowbrook over here. I'll set out in the report part of the site contains an allocated employment site, which is Naze E1, and over here we have Middlebrook and again part of the site contains an allocated employment site, Naze E7. Here are the employment allocations, so in terms of Middlebrook, it contains this employment allocation over here. And for Willowbrook, it contains this section over here. So here's an aerial view of the site, so this is Middlebrook Farm. This section is the allocated employment site. Here's Willowbrook. And this half of the site is within the employment allocation. So here are the indicative layouts, so in terms of the proposal at Middlebrook Farm, the proposal is to demolish existing commercial buildings, followed by the construction of up to 16 market dwellings and associated works. This is the indicative layout of Middlebrook, so it's only indicative, we're not considering layout this evening. And this is Willowbrook, so the proposal at Willowbrook is for the demolition of the existing buildings, followed by up to 22 commercial units, as indicated over here, and six affordable homes and associated works. So here's a CGI, again this is indicative. So this is Middlebrook. So these are the, this is where the employment allocation is, and it will be replaced by these homes. Here we have Willowbrook. These are the indicative commercial units. And the six affordable homes. So here's a closer view of Middlebrook. Here's a closer view, so this is where the employment allocation currently sits, will be replaced by these homes. So here's another view of Willowbrook. These are the commercial units. And the six homes, affordable homes. So here's a closer view of Willowbrook in terms of the access and the six affordable homes and indication of how the commercial units would be set up in terms of the barriers and entrance. So here are the proposed Middlebrook pedestrian and highway improvements. So at the junction of the whole lane there will be highway works in terms of increasing the visibility. And across the road there will be, within the application site, there will be pedestrian improvements, as shown over here. Here are the proposed access improvements to Willowbrook. So Willowbrook would have a vehicle access and a pedestrian access. So these are the improvements to the vehicle access over here, so visibility and upgrades to the existing bridge. And the pedestrian links are over here. So both these highway works have been secured by condition, are set out in the agenda. So the full merits of the case are set out within the agenda, I'll just summarise both applications now. So for Middlebrook, the proposal would replace the obsolete commercial buildings not fit for modern business needs with high quality new residential dwellings. As a result, the change to a less intensive use would enhance this section of the green belt and that of neighbouring properties, as it would lead to less commercial activity and less built form on the site. The loss of this employment site at Middlebrook in this instance is justified as the commercial floor space would be relocated to Willowbrook where high quality commercial buildings are proposed. And there would also be a net gain of 1,680 square metres of employment floor space. In terms of Willowbrook, the proposal would provide high quality commercial buildings within the allocated employment site and also deliver six affordable homes. Both these applications would deliver improved vehicle and pedestrian links including eight cycle spaces at Nasingbury parade and improvements to the old Nasing Bus stops just near the Willowbrook site. Subject to detailed assessment at the reserve matter stage, both proposals would safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring amenities, provide a good level of accommodation for future users and meet the needs of modern businesses. There would be benefits from the construction and occupation of the homes and the commercial units. There would also be further benefits to education, health services, community facilities and open space. Overall both proposals are in line with the visions and objectives of the adopted local plan which is to provide new homes within the district and also support economic growth. For these reasons, officer's recommendation is to grant outlined planning permission, subject to conditions and a completed section 106 legal agreement. Thank you. Thank you, man. That covers both of these applications, wasn't it? Thank you. We do have public speakers on these two items. The first is Lynn Jemaine Webber, who is an objector regarding the Middlebrook Farm application. On Teams, yes, thank you. Where are we? Can you hear me? Hello, yes, good evening. Thank you. Yes, again you have three minutes if you'd like to commence. Good evening and thank you, chair, for hearing us. I'm speaking on behalf of ten companies who currently operate at Middlebrook Farm, some for as long as 22 years and the buildings are generally in good condition with individual toilet and water facilities and ample parking in a large industrial area at present. These concerns are linked with the Willowbrook site, the sister application. Even though industrial space is being built at Willowbrook, will it be affordable like for like or the nearest square footage? And are there any considerations for moving costs, the downtime and the type of businesses that need to be accommodated for? PCR car repairs is concerned he would not be allowed to trade, same as seeing polishing, canopine and powder coating solutions, because they all have using extraction for their manufacturing process. And that includes significant dust, use of chemicals and noise pollution, which would be in a mainly well-established residential area. And these units would also need to be adapted to suit individual business needs. Most businesses did receive communication from L.W. Development and we did reply with our concerns, but have not as yet had any response, which hasn't really been appreciated. If the rents and rates are applied that are higher, it will actually force many businesses to close, which will have a massive impact on many livelihoods and families and the area would lose several services that are actually currently available to them. Bolden signage solutions, for example, serves Nadine Parish Council and other local authorities and appreciates the importance of local support, notwithstanding the detrimental effects on people's mental health, as no business there has any plans to change locations. The proposal states that Middlebrook Farm is within the ownership of the applicant. To our knowledge, the owner is Mr. Jay Speller of Nasling Farm Products, to whom we currently pay our rent and electric. We were all concerned at the lack of affordable housing at Middlebrook should the application be successful. But we are aware now of a section 106 legal agreement in place. The five or six houses that have recently been built close to Middlebrook are currently still unoccupied and awaiting completion. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, there's been complications with getting services to the properties. May we respectfully suggest that the Willowbrook site would lend itself entirely for residential dwellings, including services and access as it is already a well established residential area. This would mean the Middlebrook site could be left in its current state for industrial use, with potential for developing further industrial or storage units. Can I ask you to wind up please? This would mean one industrial site and one residential, causing less disruption to current residents and businesses as there are still opportunities for increased employment within the Middlebrook site because of possibility of expansion due to its large footprint. Thank you. If you can, if you can stop there now please. Thank you. Unfortunately, you had your three minutes. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker on this is the applicant. Dean Williamson in present in person, I believe, again. So you have three minutes. Thank you. Good evening. Our proposals for Middlebrook Farm and Willowbrook aim to bring economic prosperity to N Derrick creating jobs, workspaces, homes and affordable housing, while improving the greenbelt and supporting the local plan. Middlebrook Farm comprises old buildings on previously developed land used for business and storage. It's located on a private road where the adjoining employment space that was allocated for employment has been developed for housing. Our proposal is to replace the outdated buildings with new family homes. These homes will have a smaller footprint and volume, improving the greenbelt, and the site will be enhanced for open space and biodiversity, with improved access for safer walking and cycling. And the rationale behind this straightforward. The building to middle Middlebrook Farm are outdated and near the end of their economic life. Importantly, the current occupies are in short term lets with no statutory protection and can be asked to vacate at any time, particularly as the owner Mr Speller is soon retiring. We can offer a better solution. We will work with the businesses to relocate them to modern facilities at Willowbrook, ensuring no loss of employment, and improving the greenbelt at Middlebrook Farm. We will also provide policy levels of affordable housing at Willowbrook with good access to public transport. So there are many benefits, much needed family and affordable homes, better workspaces with protection and no loss of employment, enhanced greenbelt and biodiversity, and safer areas for walking and cycling. Concerns regarding traffic and environment impact have been assessed by various statutory bodies and found to be unsupported by evidence. The Highway Authority, the Environment Agency, and all other statutory bodies support this proposal and have no objections. In summary, we have spent two years working with planning offices under a planning performance agreement. The result is a proposal that supports a local plan and aligns with the Council's vision for high quality housing, protection of employment space, and environmental improvement. There are no statutory objections and based on the MPPF and an adopted local plan, it is recommended for approval subject to conditions. By approving this application, you will bring opportunities and economic prosperity to NACES. Thank you. Thank you. As we run two into one, sorry, I did go out of bulk here. Have you anything to add to your statement regarding Willowbrook or have you covered it both in that one statement? Unfortunately I have more to say. So regarding the Willowbrook application, we have a Phil Bevis in person who's an objector to the Willowbrook proposal. You have three minutes left. Thank you. I'm actually a resident of Green Lane and I speak on behalf of a lot of the local residents of both Green Lane and the Old Nazing Road. There's four points that I'd really like to raise this evening. The first one is that a lot of the contention here seems to be around the change to the local plan that happened in March of last year. From our discussions with local people, we feel that there has been zero consultation in this whole process. Most people didn't even know this was up for debate, let alone have the ability to vote on the issue. We feel collectively that they should remain as a residential area and I know it's all in the local plan but there are precedents where local plans can be overridden by local councils. So I'd ask you to consider that as an option. The second point is something which is really pertinent to myself. As I said I live in Green Lane already. My property is directly opposite the bridge that leads into the Willowbrook site over the Relief Brook. What is being proposed in this proposal here is that the existing bridge is going to be ripped apart and replaced with a much wider and more intrusive construction, really to handle huge numbers of additional lorries and commercial vehicles coming in and out of the site at all hours of the day and night. For me personally, I feel this is an egregious invasion of my personal privacy. Can you imagine in the winter months all these vehicles coming in, there will be headlights shining into our property, just completely invading our privacy. I'd like to ask all of you who are contemplating this decision - how would you feel if you have to go home this evening and explain to your family that you're going to have this lack of privacy and this invasion into your lives? It's just not acceptable and I think whatever happens to the land, any entrance of this size and scope should not be placed directly opposite anybody's personal property. There's plenty of scope within Green Lane for additional sightings of that bridge, so that's a key point. The third point is just really relating to the air pollution and noise aspects. We're hearing in this country all the time about measures to improve air quality and reduce pollution, and yet in this part of nazing, it doesn't really seem to matter apparently that we can have this invasion of 400 to 600 vehicle movements a day right on our doorstep, which is going to really alter everybody's lives in the local area. The final point is just really in relation to the general traffic and the chaos that the whole thing is going to cause. If you can imagine, once the parking is full within the new development that's proposed, any overspill is going to be directly in Green Line, causing congestion. I mean, already we've got evidence of lorries trying to get past each other. They can't get there, they have to go up on the kerb. This is going to cause damage to our property. Thank you very much. Thank you for listening. If you could turn your microphone off, please. Thank you. Mr. Williamson, do you want to come back now, please? Thank you again. Just to reiterate, Willowbrook is a redundant site with a residential dwelling and established use as a haulage and transport depot. In the adopted local plan, half the site is allocated for employment and the remainder has been removed from the green belt. As I said earlier, our proposal is to create modern workspaces on the land allocated for employment with the remaining area providing six affordable homes. We'll also add extensive landscaping and public open spaces to enhance the area for everyone. And the rationale behind this proposal is thus, the site has been removed from the green belt and is allocated for employment in the adopted plan. Our proposal will therefore deliver an allocated site for employment, provide high quality business space, job creation and support small and medium-sized businesses, including those from Middlebrook. It will also meet affordable housing need, ensure more families have a nice place to live with access to public transport. And we have engaged with residents and some have raised objections, mainly suggesting that Willowbrook should be used solely for housing. However, this would contradict the site's allocation in the local plan, which was adopted by members after extensive public consultation and a thorough site selection process. The Highway Authority concludes that the proposal will not have a significant traffic impact and will not be detrimental to highway capacity or safety. Concerns regarding flood risk, air pollution and noise have been assessed by the various statutory bodies and found to be unsupported by evidence. And again, all the statutory bodies support this proposal and have no objections. Again, in summary, this proposal has been carefully planned with planning officers under a planning performance agreement and is designed to support the adopted local plan. It meets important goals for housing, employment and environmental improvement. There are no statutory objections and based on the NPPF and adopted local plan, it's recommended for approval, subject to condition, and any concerns can be addressed by reserve matters application. Thank you again. Thank you. Now, Mo do you want to reiterate what the connection is between the two and why we're taking them both as a sort of single item? So, just for clarity, both sides are dependent on each other so the proposal at Middlebrook seeks to replace the lost commercial space at Willowbrook and that will be tied together under section 106. And also the Middlebrook triggers affordable housing requirements of 40%. These are the six homes to be delivered at Willowbrook, hence the connection. So these two cases would be tied together in a single section 106 legal agreement. So, it would appear that you can't have one with the other. Thank you. Members. Councillor Bassett. Thank you, Chairman. I know both these sites incredibly well. And unfortunately I think you've got it the wrong way round. To be honest, at the top of the hill there is where Spillers places are. And they're nice little businesses up there. There's no problem. You've got plenty of land up there to expand, build new units and migrate them across and back. And up that road there is a lot of current industrial so therefore you're not really building anything out of the way that, shall we say, would be in conflict. Coming down to the other site at Willowbrook, I have severe problems on the access from Old Nazing Road there - or out of Green Lanes - because I've seen videos of long vehicles trying to get out of there and they just cannot do it. They end up left right back forward just to try and get round the corner. And I did see one where, shall we say, it was a close run thing with a car trying to come down the road because of visibility and access. And that is a narrow road for the possibility of two lorries going one each way. But the land at the end there would be ideal because it's in a major, what I would call residential area, to put all the residential there and move the industrial up to where it is already there and established and there is land. And also I'm going to throw in a bit of history there. One of the houses at the top tried to put in an application for two extra houses because he had a big field, and this council turned around and said no because it will harm the view of the Green Belt and the impact of the Green Belt. And that suddenly we're going to allow quite a few, I think it's age 16, our family homes to be put there where previously they said was unsuitable and would harm the Green Belt. We have industrial there and that site can be used to expand that industrial and I'd be much more inclined to support this if they were the other way round. Thank you. Councillor Lucas. Thank you and it's a little bit complicated for someone that's not completely familiar with both sites as to what's going where and why it's what. But I sympathise with the applicant. I sympathise with the fact that there is a local plan with a designation. I really do sympathise with that situation and I also hugely sympathise with the residents that this is going to impact. So this is a difficult one to consider. Obviously, there's a lot of policies involved with the allocation in the local plan. There's a lot of implications to consider. So I don't think this is going to be a simple decision either way, so I'm interested to see what other members proposals are going to be. But Councillor Bassett seems to have a sensible solution, but I don't know how that looks. I understand that the applicant has worked with officers in excess of two years and I do completely understand that they have done what they can. And it seems that they have tried their best to make both of these sites work. Thank you. Councillor Lloyd. Thank you, Chairman. Willowbrook, I believe it was said that there's units in that there that are all dilapidated and need refurbishing or replace, which I'm assuming that's what's happening. And that it's an old haulage yard. Well, with it being an old haulage yard, I should imagine there'd be plenty of lorries up and down, but maybe because it's a bit dilapidated. I mean, to me it doesn't look too bad at all. I'm not in that area and with Richard saying about - sorry, moving it from one to the other. Well, the other space doesn't look big enough for that. And I suppose then you could say, well, we stick them all there and then the residents in the other place won't want all of them. At the moment there's some of each looking at it. So I'm not really sure. The buildings look quite large, but then we've just done something similar in Waltham Abbey where they've replaced them all. They are a bit bigger, but probably more economical and there's smaller businesses in them and more businesses, so I'm a bit undecided. Is that right, that it's all business stuff now and they're just replacing them? So the existing business units at Middlebrook would be relocated - they'll be demolished and you'll have the market dwellings, but the floor space that's lost will be relocated to Willowbrook with high quality modern business units. But they're not units that they're now just the old age places now? Yeah, that's correct. There's no buildings, modern business units at the moment, on the Willowbrook site. Councillor Pugsley. Thank you. I basically agree with Councillor Bassett. I've literally walked down the road yesterday evening, both Green Lane, I looked at the buildings up at the top of Hoe Lane. It's really industrial up there. There is excess space where you could increase the industry if you needed to. With Willowbrook, it's a very narrow road. Old Nazig Road is a very awkward angle. I've also seen the videos. I also had a closed chafe myself yesterday afternoon coming out. I had a bit of a fright. And I really don't think that Willowbrook is a good place for industry. I think that, ideally, all houses should be down there and the industry should stay where it is. Thank you. Councillor Sherif. Thank you, Chairman. I also agree with Councillor Bassett. I have also seen the videos and they're really quite frightening. I welcome the affordable housing, however, but I'd be interested in seeing what other members have to say about theirs. Sir. We do have further information regarding the commercial trips expected at Willowbrook. So the agent has clarified the only large lorry that would be entering Willowbrook would be a refuse vehicles. In terms of the vehicles serving the business, there will be large vans and cars. And if members do consider this an issue, this can be tied into a condition. So you can't have more, you know, anything larger than a - you can't have lorries entering the site. So that's open to members to control as a condition. Councillor Chris Whitford. Thank you, Chairman. Again, we recognise this is a site that's been coming forward through the local plan process. And I think we have to do that. But we've heard some very reasoned arguments. And my first thought, sorry, is how we got to this place where we've got sites within the local plan, and it doesn't seem to be much of what I class as consensual planning, which is where you talk to one another early on to try and find a way forward, not just officers to developer, but developer with parish, with residents, to try and find out what's the best solution for a location. Now, you know, you look at the old Nasing Road and it's tight, it's really tight down there, and difficult to manoeuvre around at the best of times. In fact, recently a gentleman asked me to get a speed survey done down there, but wasn't there any speed? Because you can't move that quickly. So I can see the problems for the future down there. And we have to bear these things in mind. And there's some good things about what the applicant has brought forward, and you want to achieve good things for any area, and to get the right balances. But to me tonight doesn't feel like the right balance. I accept the need for development on both sides. I agree with Councillor Bassett about the Hoe Lane. Although I have to say, even Hoe Lane has its challenges. I mean, you've got real highways issues there. And I take on board the officer's point about our ability to condition. But I've got to tell you now, if you look at Nasing, one of our biggest problems is we've got lots of weight restrictions, we've got lots of width restrictions. Do they ever get enforced? No. And that's the problem that you would have. Some of these problems you can't condition out. What you've got to do is design them out. And I think the best way forward on this would be, along the lines of what Councillor Bassett said, using one location for the employment land and one location for the residential land. And I agree with the objector on a point as well. And we do have to get this right with all local plan sites. Nobody likes development next door to them. It's always difficult and you'll never get it completely right. It's just the nature of the beast to a degree. But you should do your best to try and alleviate issues where they arise. And lights going into windows, you know, it's difficult. And I know most developers want to try and work together with people to resolve issues. We accept these sites are in the local plan. We went through that local plan process for 12 years. It was hard work and Richard knows it more than anyone. It was a killer of a process to go through. And we know those sites are local plan sites. I would just ask that we give further consideration to how these sites are going to be looked at in the future. If it means we have to refuse the application this evening or the applicant wants to go away and reconsider the make up of these sites, whichever way, we need to make sure we get the right balance for lazy. Thank you. Councillor Lee. Thank you, Chairman. I'm listening to everybody and obviously I'm very happy about this affordable homes. So this applicant has been working with our officers for a couple of years doing this. So why then has that not been looked at that all the residential is in one area and all the units in another? Is there a reason why that couldn't be done if it's all allocated in the local plan? It's for officers to assess the proposal before us. We need to judge the application on the proposal and the planning merits. It's not really for us to suggest how they go. What's before us is what we need to determine. Sorry, can I just clarify one? Are they both allocated employment sites or is one residential one employment? If I turn to this slide over here, part of an allocated employment site is within Middlebrook and part of an employment site is also within Willowbrook. So within the Red Line site of both applications, it does contain employment allocations. As opposed to residential? Yes. Sorry, you go on. Come back. So then does that mean it's not possible and if it was feasible and worked out money wise, obviously because they've got to be able to afford it, would it not then be possible that it was all residential in one and all commercial in the other? But then saying that, you might have the people in the other area don't want all the commercial either. I'm not sure. I mean, we need commercial, we need residential and we certainly need affordable, so I'm certainly not turning down any affordable homes. Councillor Bassat. Sorry, just the thing on the size of vehicles. We have seen other applications where they said the maximum size will be 7.5 tonnes or whatever, but it's not the size of the vehicles on the site, it's the size of vehicles delivering to the site because what you find is for commercial reasons, the bigger the lorry the better and we've had them block roads where they've been delivering to these sites. Again, even the delivery element can be tied into a condition, so we can ask for a service management plan which covers deliveries to and from the site and restrict the vehicles. As this is outline planning anyway, we can't condition any size of anything from it on this, it's only when the actual application is submitted. With this outline application, you can condition the vehicle size at this stage, it's not connected to the layout or the other reserve matters, it's connected to the principal use, so you can condition at this stage. Okay, thank you. By rights I shouldn't actually be accepting questions or statements any further than you've had in your three minutes. If it's to clarify a point, I would like to ask a question. Thank you and I appreciate this is probably not common, but just to say something, we have engaged with residents and we've actually drawn up a residential scheme for Willowbrook. But we were told in our PPA by offices that that would go against policy and be recommended for refusal, so hence we've put forward what we've put forward. Now, I would rather, because we've got a PPA in place, we can continue this engagement with the council. So rather than refuse it, if that's what members of mine are to do, and go down a costly exercise of going to appeal against an allocated site, I would rather this be deferred and we will work with the council. Thank you for that, it's our choice whether we defer this. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. And that's really helpful as a comment. If there was going to be a further meeting between officers and developers, and I know this is unusual and it wouldn't be, we would have to make sure that we were very clearly not to determine anything when we met. I think the ward councillors in particular, that's the three of us sitting on the front here, would like to be involved at some level so we can represent the views of residents that we are receiving. I think that might be helpful to all parties. I'm a great believer in this consensual planning piece. It's just as district councillors we have to stand back to a degree because we need to be part of the decision-making process. But if we were minded to ask for, and officers would need to come back to us, and I know that the planning portfolio holder would tell me off probably for saying this, but I'd very much like to be engaged in some of those discussions so I can help to reflect with Richard and Rhonda the views of the residents and such. But I would welcome that as a deferral position rather than just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thank you. Yes, Mr Beavis, go on. I would just like to say, you know, in this whole process we have engaged with LW Developments. We've found them very amiable to work with in terms of sharing information. We actually appreciate that the site does need to be developed. So we're not saying we don't want anything on the Willowbrook site. We would love the opportunity to work with LW Developments and the council officials. You know, as long as it had the appropriate backing I think between us we could come up with something which would be fantastic for the area and benefit all parties. Okay, thank you. Who's first? Councillor Morris. Councillor Morris, please. Thanks. Thank you. I was interested in the amount of traffic the Willowbrook site would generate and I asked for the transport statement. So it's quite interesting to look at it. It gives estimates of how many movements we can expect. And I also understand from the planning officer that the nature of the site will mean that, you know, large articulated lorries won't be using that site a lot. So I know this all can be disputed but it's probably worth looking at the transport statement to just see what the estimates are of traffic and the nature of traffic and the possibility of introducing a service management plan to try and restrict the hours that are used for deliveries on the site. Thank you, Chairman. I think it's very encouraging that the developers do want to work with the residents. I think that's fantastic. I think what's lacked in this application from what I've read is the fact that the residents have not, nothing's been communicated to them. They've felt left out. They feel that their views have been ignored. So I think this is excellent. And I think that if we can be involved in some of this and if this application is deferred, I would happily support that. Thank you. Councillor Ural. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. I was just going to follow on from what Councillor Whitby had said and I'd be more than happy to defer it pending further discussions. Thank you. Who? Who? Oh, sorry. Councillor Lucas. Thank you, Chairman. This is actually really positive. Just to reiterate, I went and went on all my sympathising earlier, I just want to be sure that I don't think this is the developer's fault and this is not the resident's fault. But actually, I think the Councillor, we have worked, Councillors and officers have worked a lot on the Local Plan, but actually that's where the issues are arising from. The fact that the allocation in the Local Plan, what we have actually adopted, is where the question marks are. So I just want to be sure that with what is going to possibly be proposed next, what has been advised by officers that there will be a refusal, how do we go around that? So... Yeah, but that's what he said. I should have a vote on this. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you, members. Right. The situation is we need to decide on the applications in front of us. We can't defer this and defer it to DDMC because they can only look at what the application is that's in front of us. If we refuse the application, the applicant has obviously got the right of appeal. The way that it stands, we don't want to refuse it but we don't want to accept it in its current form. We can no longer recommend ways forward, so it's a bit of a poser as they say. Councillor Chris Whitbread. Thanks, Chairman. Chairman, earlier on in the evening, I'm sure I heard the applicant saying that they'd had conversations and they were prepared to -- they would rather withdraw the application than have it refused because there's a piece of work to be done and there was a different drawing that was available to them. If we were to defer this application and the applicant was then to have a conversation with officers and decide to withdraw it, would that not solve this problem? If they withdraw the application then that's it. And then resubmit. Thank you. Unfortunately for us to agree to defer on the proviso that the applicant withdraws, we're asking for an agreement that they withdraw it, that we defer it. We can't do that. Councillor Whitbread. What I would suggest we do, I'm not saying that they will, they will want to go away and consider their options, I should imagine, if we defer the application this evening. What members are saying is we're not in a position to agree to this application this evening. We think there are questions that remain to be answered around highways, around issues to do with the impact on residential, we are concerned about the old Nasing Road and how those conditions would work and I think members are deferring to ask for more information on those factors before anything counts and I'm sure that then you will have conversations between developer and residents to try and take this matter forward. At the moment we've reached an impasse. If it just gets refused this evening, the applicant could just go to appeal for an application that has got flaws. If we refuse it, that could be the outcome and if it went to appeal, it could just be passed as is. Therefore, I have a number of queries outstanding. Councillor Bassett made some very good queries, Councillor Lee made some queries around the affordable housing elements. Therefore, I would recommend that we defer this item this evening for further consideration once all those issues can be addressed to us. That then gives all parties the opportunity to have conversations. Councillor Lee. I thought I heard it said that where they want all the residential now, that when they try to get it all residential there, that the officers said it would be turned down. So I don't understand that. As long as we've got the X amount of residential and the X amount of commercial, but they're told what they're asking for now is that that one site is all residential. But apparently when they suggested that and then had all the thing there, they were told that it would be refused. So what is going on? Surely, as long as we've got the right amount of residential and the right amount of things with our affordable housing which to me is really important, I don't see where it is as long as it's over in Naysing and the Naysing people are happy. Thank you. So just for clarity, if members are seeking to defer the item for further information on specific issues, that's susceptible, but if members are seeking to defer the item so the applicants consider the revised different scheme, I'm afraid that wouldn't be permitted. The application before members is what needs to be decided on. If it's not acceptable, members will need to refuse the application. Councillor Chris Whitworth. I'll defer to Councillor Bassai. Councillor Bassai. Thank you. Yes, I think we're saying there should be some development in these areas and we're not saying what it should be. I think it's unfair for us to say at this time. What we're saying is we've got lots of questions that we have asked and defer it for that reason because we want those questions answered, but in the intervening time, it gives a chance for developer, the residents and ourselves to have some discussions and come up with something you might then with that information withdraw, put it in, bearing in mind what's the outcome of those decisions. So it will be deferred for the reasons that we've been saying up here, more information on I think it was affordable housing and about access and roads and all of that, but we would like, which is perfectly legitimate. Yes. Thank you. All right. And then put some time pressures where we can have some discussions. Obviously, those discussions us Councillors cannot express specific views, but we're allowed to ask questions. Okay. Thank you. It appears to me that every site that application we've had that's coming for us that's been allocated site, there's been access issues. We seem to have picked everywhere up the tiniest little line and gone, Oh yeah, that'd be ideal. So, yes, I appreciate. Yes, that needs to be looked at. And Councillor Lucas. I was actually just going to propose a motion, but I don't know if other Councillors wanted to express anything first. I would propose that we defer this item to be considered the next plans west so that there's time for members and officers to engage in conversations based on the complexity of the nature of the issues that have been raised in terms of that, their access, the impact on residents and some of the other, was there anything on the highways concerns? Just for more. So members are seeking further information on access highway safety issues and around vehicle movements to the sites to and from the sites. We're seconded for that, please. Councilor, the Euro. I have a show of hands to accept that motion to defer this. Chairman, that's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any reason to exclude the public and press. There is no reason to exclude the public and press. Thank you ever so much. I therefore close this meeting at 2143. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Thank you. How long will it take to preserve the site, is it? Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]