Transcript

Transcript

So, welcome to those in attendance at this remote meeting of the local review body of the Harvey City Council. Please note that this meeting will be recorded and published online for public access after the meeting. You are also reminded to note that we have members of the public oppressors serving today's proceedings. And as those who are observing today's meeting to keep their microphones and cameras switched off direct. And members of the local review body with their cameras on but meet their microphone not speaking. As the local review body contains quasi-international business members are reminded that it should not leave the meeting during consideration of any of these reviews. This meeting has been convened in response to the three requests for review of the decision taken by the appointed officer under the Council's scheme of delegation. Members of the local review body have before the copies of the review documents as listed in the notice column in the meeting. I pass to Miss McBain, assistant clerk outlined in the procedure to be followed in the conduct of these reviews and to take a roll call of all three members. Miss McBain. Thank you Chair. Please just indicate your present. So, Chairperson? I'm here. Councillor Copeland. Present. Councillor McDonough. Present. Thank you. I'll just go through the procedure. So members have the procedure note which was circulated with the meeting papers and is intended to set out the wider framework within which the review process operates. I would like to draw the L.R.B.'s attention to the following. The first task for the review body is to come to a decision on whether the review documents contain sufficient information for the case to be determined without further procedure and by that it is meant without further information or representations that the regulations governing the local review process require that all matters which the applicant intends to raise in the review must be set out in a company, the notice of review, that the focus of the review should be on the basis of what was before the appointed officer when a decision was made and only in exceptional circumstances will new or additional matters be permitted to be taken into account. The circumstances in which additional matters can be taken into account are set out in the legislation and will be addressed by the L.R.B.'s adviser when we are relevant. The review should take the form of a structured discussion, led by the Chairperson, to consider the matter set out in the notice of the review before you and I would conclude by drawing your attention in particular to points 10 to 12 of the procedure note. Thank you. Thank you very much. So, turn the consideration of the first review in respect of the decision to refuse the application for the direction of a replacement dwelling house with integrative garage, associated site works and hard surfacing and parking at 32 Hillview Crescent, Aberdeen, planning reference 230825. We will now hear from planning adviser in attendance with Lucy Green, who will provide us with a brief description of the application proposal and a reminder of the reasons why the application was refused. I would point out that Miss Green attends today's meeting to provide us with a necessary professional planning guidance because she has not been involved in the early consideration of the application under review. Miss Green will not, however, be able to express any view on the merits of the proposed development and in effect her role will be a neutral one involving the provision of factual information and guidance only. Miss Green. Thank you, Chair. I actually have the application for Green pasture as the first variation of condition four, I think. That's not a second. I think, did we need to hear that at point in the other day? So, we've got section 42, the variation of condition four is the first one to be considered. Consider, did I put that wrong in your speech, Chair? Quite possible, yes. Give me a second. I'll just go back into my favourites again. I need more screens at home, that's what the reason is. Hopefully, modern Gulf Low is because I've met a couple of times this morning, so far. Yes, so the first of you is definitely working in past Chair Lucy. Okay, shall I share my presentation? Yes, that's really a presentation for that one. Okay, that's the presentation, Chair. Yes, I'm sharing the wrong screen. Okay, so this is application reference 231289 S42, a request review against an application refused under delegated powers for the variation of condition four, which was the time limit on application 221571 and the review has been submitted with all the necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer. The applicant indicated on the notice of review that there are no new matters raised in the review submissions and in terms of procedure by which the review will be conducted, the applicant has expressed the view that the review should not proceed, should proceed on the basis of the information submitted. So I will continue to provide some background to the case before handing back to you convene if a member is to discuss the case and ask any questions. So this is the Location Plan, the site approximately three and a half kilometres north-western Kuta, accessed from a private road which serves nearby houses and off a minor road. That's the road between Kuta and Elritt, and this is the site plan showing the site of the mobile home just here and this is a soak away for foul drainage and just to add that the land rises towards the north to a sort of hill crest around the location of the site. This is just taken from Google Maps and showing the site here. Next under here is the house that's being built at the moment and is referenced in the submissions and stables that you're also referenced. And that's the site outlined in red with the temporary accommodation soak away and then the wider site of 2.3 hectares which includes the stables of the house and the construction. And this is elevations of the existing mobile home that's on site and it's just over 12 metres by just over 6 metres in depth and 3.6 metres high and it's been on site since May 2021 and that was the floor. So as I mentioned, this is an application to vary condition for on a previous application. And that previous application, 221571 was for a change of use of the land for the erection of a temporary Chalet mobile home and it was subject to a number of conditions of which this was one of them. So this obviously includes a time limit for the mobile home remaining on site and that time limit was October 2023 after which the mobile home would need to be removed and the site restored to form parts of the cartilage of the dwelling house. There were other conditions also on that application and those were that the Chalet should be occupied by an employee of the stud farm that there would only be one mobile home committed, covered the materials and so the length of time as noted in condition 4. So this application seeks to vary that condition so that it would be extended to the 31st of July this year to allow for completion of the house and removal of the mobile home. Things for refusal of the application were that the continued use of the land for the sighting, use of the temporary mobile home were not designed with due consideration for the context and would therefore have an adverse impact on the surrounding Greenbelt and it notes that there were two earlier permissions which allowed the retention of the building for a period of 30 months at the time of this decision notice and that it was considered a further period could not be justified in this instance and that proposal would be contrary to Greenbelt Policy 8 and NPF 4 and also Greenbelt Policy and Design Policy in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. So the applicants case can be summarised as follows, it refers to the long planning history of the site which is detailed and full in the report of handling and the agenda and it states that the mobile home is needed for the supervision of the stud farm, it states that the mobile home is in a garden area of the house or what will become part of the garden area of the house and highlight the ease of moving the mobile home very quickly once it's no longer required. They state that the development of the stud business and the stables and the house have commenced and they provide some photographs of the house that without supervision horses cannot be brought to sight and that they state that within this application a very strict approach was taken whereas other planning authorities have policies for temporary accommodation. They state that the continued use of the mobile home would comply with Greenbelt Policy as it's small scale and silary to what exists and there's no increase in intensity of activity and that's within the boundary of existing activity and they also provide supporting letters from another stud business and a local vet. They're just moving on to representations and consultations, no objections from the roads team or environmental health in terms of waste, the refuse arrangements would remain as existing. There was no consultation response received from the community council, there were two neutral representations and two further comments that were also neutral and those were on the basis that the mobile home would be accepted until the summer but that no further extension should be allowed thereafter. So at this point I'll hand back to you chair for members to cite how to proceed. Thank you very much Miss Green, so we now need to consider whether we have sufficient information in front of us today to take a decision on the application. Members remind if you do not feel you have enough information to take a decision today with a lesser of other information we provided, hearings to be arranged are a site to visit to be undertaken. At this moment with information we have so far I'll include the limits of the papers, I'm happy to go ahead at the moment, we'll go round the room and catch the copeland. Agreed, I have a couple of questions. That's fine, I'm curious on my dollars. I would agree with you, yeah. Thank you very much. We'll pass back to Miss Green at the moment and catch the copeland but we'll take your questions towards here if that's okay or the questions pertinent to the moment. I can tell you that the first one is the first one is the house currently occupied or as it still being built. And it's still being built the house. Thank you, that's fine, thank you. Okay, so as members if you like we have sufficient information we'll now pass back to Miss Green who will take us through the relevant policies and the considerations for this review. Miss Green. So the relevant policies and considerations are the Green Belt policies in both National Planning Framework and the local development plan and also design policy in the local development plan. So in terms of Green Belt policy and NPF4, it directs development to urban areas so that unsustainable growth is prevented but more relevant to this particular case. It emphasizes the impact on the character landscape, natural setting and identity of settlements. So the character of the Green Belt is protected and enhanced. As I mentioned, the two relevant policies from the local plan and the next slide I've just got the text of the Green Belt policy in the local plan. So it states that development within the Green Belt will not be supported other than with certain exceptions. If I just run through those exceptions briefly, associated with agriculture, woodland or forest trees, the first one related to leisure or recreation in an unnatural setting, the third one is a structure of minerals, then G is for development associated with existing activities in the Green Belt within the boundary of that activity, small scale, don't significantly increase the intensity of activity and the proposed built constructions subordinate to what exists. The next one is for essential infrastructure, then there's an exception for renewable energy for a dwelling house to replace another dwelling house for changes of use to historic buildings within the Green Belt or for the conversion of historic buildings. So in terms of design policy, see the Green Belt setting is the important consideration here and the policy seeks to ensure high standards of design for development with a strong and distinctive sense of place as a result of context appraisal and quality of architecture, craft and ship and materials and it recognises that not all development will be of a scale that makes a significant place making impact but recognises that good design and detail out to the attractiveness of the environment. So in terms of evaluation of the application, just a reminder of the primacy of the development plan which is NPF4 and local development plan and the planning act requires all the applications be determined in accordance with development plan and less material considerations indicate otherwise with each application treated or merit. So for this particular application, how would the proposals sit with the Green Belt policy in both NPF4 and the local plan, how would they affect the character of the Green Belt and then considering that policy D1 on design is relevant. So does the proposal comply with the development plan when considered as a whole or rather material considerations indicating otherwise. I'm happy to answer any further questions. Thank you very much, questions members. So just to get the timeline clear in my mind, Ms. Green, the house that is eventually going to be occupied has got planning permission and were there any conditions on that other than the ones we've heard about to say that it had to be done in a particular time. And I know, I suppose my question is that the photographs that we saw, the outside seems to be fairly well advanced, but the inside, it doesn't look like it's been fitted out and I'm no expert on how long these things take but getting in the kitchen or whatever it does. When were those photographs taken, do you know, just see if I can, I suppose my question is, are we aware of the fitting out of that new house has moved on since these were taken. So they'll all be submitted in March and they were in the notice of review from March. I mean, it's not materially matter to be honest in many ways, because it wouldn't be part of the planning consideration, but it was just to understand the timeline of the requests, because I did wonder why if it was supposed to be done by October, the application seemed to come in in December and then was determined in March. So time has been ticking on over all those months and effectively now we are being asked to extend, really for two and a bit months, would that be correct? Yes, till the end of July, and at the end of the July, does somebody go and make sure that it has happened so that it doesn't go on further? I'm just trying to understand what happens at the end of July. Well, the condition would, under this application, the condition would, members were minded, the date of October would change to July, and then that condition would require the removal of the mobile home, would require the removal of the mobile home, the completion of works to restore the land, restoration of the land's use as cartilage to the house that's being built. So our usual checks on that would take place. Fair enough, and I suppose there is a risk that there could be another application at the end of July. I mean, there could be, yes. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. You're okay. The question was regarding Sunday, 1st of July. The Councillor did not come with that. Councillor COOK. Councillor COOK. Okay. Any further questions, members? I don't know if there are any questions for myself. Therefore, in accordance with the procedural note circulated, the local review body will now discuss in the site the manner of which the reviews to proceed. I would highlight that all representations related to the case of being considered and taken into account the termination. I'd be happy to have the extension to decide across the July. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. I'd be happy to have the extension to decide across the July. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. in that sort of prominent, you know, at the top of a slope and so on, I think that, you know, it has to move forward. And I think end of July is acceptable, but anything further than that in line with the representations as well would just be unacceptable and would need to be dealt with swiftly. Absolutely. Yep, therefore I'm happy to sort of go to such suggestions and the screens also highlight sort of conditions on the back there regarding the restoration of the calculation things that are following the completion of on that date. Are we happy with that regard to approve the extension. Great. Agreed. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. So, yeah, we've also discussed conditions on that. So, please note the decision of notice of today's meeting will be issued to applicant or agent and it's forthcoming days, many times members. Okay. I now have the correct documentation here. So, turn the consideration of the second review in respect of the decision to refuse application for detailed plan permission for the change of use of flat the short term let accommodation. So, generally, with a maximum occupancy of four people at first floor left with to Elm Street Aberdeen planning reference to three one one four five again we'll hear from planning advisor and attend Smith Lucy Green, who will take us through the application screen. Thank you. Just share screen. Okay. So, this is a review. In relation to the application at 22 Allen Street for first floor. Flat change of use to a short term let the review was submitted with all the necessary information within the three months. The applicant has indicated on the notice of reviews that they were known in matters raised in the submissions. And in terms of procedure, the applicants express view that the review may continue on the basis of the information submitted or continue to submit to provide some background information before handing back to members to decide how to proceed. The application plan. It's the first floor flat here on Allen Street. It's broom hill road down the bottom there. Then image from Google maps. The property there. It's this one. And a street view image on the left here. That's the first floor here. And then this is showing the rear with stairs that provide access to the first floor. So, this is the layout plan the flat and. Two double bedrooms. In terms of the checklist. The applicant stated that this would be for four people maximum to two bedrooms with two beds. Bed spaces in each on street parking would be available. Stays would be for a three night minimum with no maximum length of stay. It would be a short term let on a permanent basis. And there would be a key box for the keys with check in after 3pm and people leaving by 10am. The property would be cleaned after each day. There are two flats of the shared communal access so this the application flat and one other. There would be no access to the garden. And it's been in use since September 2022. And as I mentioned access would be via the side path down the gable of the building and up the rear stairs to a small hall. Which provides access to the two first floor flats. So reasons for the decision were the impact on the amenity of the neighbor on the other first floor flat with transient guests using the same hall and access. Which would be detrimental to the privacy and sense of security of the flat. Which as I mentioned is access by the side of the building and the stairs at the rear. Noise disturbance with it being an STL compared to a mainstream flat. And that the proposal would be there for country to national planning policy framework for policy 14 on design. And also policies in the local development plan on residential areas that's H1 D1 quality police making and D2 amenity. And that despite the likely local economic benefits the impact on local amenity would outweigh this. And the proposal would also therefore be country to policy 30 on tourism in N. P. F. Fort. The applicants case can be summarized as follows. And the applicant states that they've been operating for more than a year without problem. That there have been no objections that they're aware of from neighbors regarding the shared access or disturbances or on issues of privacy or security. But the door to the short term letters clearly sign posted that guests when they book receive a checking in video which shows them the route to the flat so that produces time that they spend looking for it. In terms of security, they state that the lock lock box number is changed often. That the neighbors have the applicants number so they can call if there are any problems. And that short term that has been mainly used by contractors and there's been no significant noise for them. So relevant policies from N. P. F. And as I've mentioned previously policies, one, two and three relating to climate and nature crises mitigation biodiversity or relevant to all applications. Members should consider the likely magnitude of any impact of those for this particular application. And policy 12 relates to waste disposal. Policies 13 relate to sustainable transport and proximity of the application site to public transport and active travel. And policy 16 on quality homes and I've got on a slide in a moment and policy 30 will also be shown on the next slide. So policy 30 relates to tourism in NTF for and it generally encourages and promotes sustainable tourism. Section is particularly relevant to these short term that applications and it states that development proposals for the reuse existing buildings for short term holiday lets will not be supported where the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on local amenity or the character of the neighborhood or area or the loss of residential accommodation where that loss is not outweighed by local economic benefits. And then policy 16 on quality homes in NTF for that also reiterates the impact on residential amenity. That's mentioned in policy 30. Moving on to local development cloud policies and sites owned within a residential area. So I'll cover policy h1 and more detail on the next slide together with PC to on tourism. Policy D1 on design and relates to sort of amenity and privacy of the occupiers of neighboring premises. Policy are five is waste management for new developments. And as I mentioned in a minute the waste team have no objection to the proposal of the existing on street waste bins would be used. And then policy T to unsustainable transport and parking would be on street parking. And the roads team had commented that the proposed use would not have a different impact on parking to an existing residential use. And then T to on sustainable transport relates to public transport and active travel. We're looking at policy h1, as I mentioned the sites within a residential area. And in those areas proposals for non residential use, which this would be will be supported where they are considered complimentary to residential use. Or where it can be demonstrated that would be no conflict nuisance to the enjoyment existing residential amenity. And then policy VC to encourages visitor attractions and facilities that support those and that states that they should be sequentially located in city center. So the relevant consideration for that policy is the location in relation to the city center. And then the city D to which considers amenity of residence in terms of a number of factors that include levels of privacy. And then there's the government's publication on short term that's which shows how short term let's can make an important contribution to the tourist economy with unique experiences through the hosts knowledge. They offer accommodation and places not necessarily served by hotels and hostels, they can be more affordable, and they can cover additional capacity during events, etc. And the research, which showed the common positive impact is the local economic impact associated with tourism. And circular 123 on short term that's makes a few relevant points and refers to policy 30 considerations. It says that they should be balanced against wider policy objectives within the development plan, and also that planning authorities may grant the use for a limited time. Therefore, primacy of the development plan in making decisions with all applications determined in accordance with the development plan unless your considerations indicator otherwise, and each application treated on its merits. So in this particular case. The zoning policy H one, how what impact would the proposal have on residential amenity. The appropriateness of the location for a short term let and the impact on the local economy. And overall, does the proposal comply with development plan when considered as a whole or other material considerations indicating otherwise. And I'm happy to answer any questions. And thank you very much and with screen so just go quickly through, I take all members are happy that we have sufficient information to proceed. Any questions for Miss Green. Yeah, I wanted on the definition of of tourism in this context of particularly if contractors are using, you know, the, the, the short term left. And that is not too, just we might think of it, but it's certainly, you know, it impacts on. Or it's, it could be considered a type of tourism, given that the people don't actually stay, stay locally. What would be the definition of that. Do you have any knowledge. I mean, in terms of planning, we obviously wouldn't be controlling who was staying in the property. So I suppose we just looked at it in terms of the impact on the local economy as that seems to be the relevance in terms of the policies. And can I just ask how the condition around no access to the garden. Is that enforceable if there if there was somebody that turned up that wanted to go and do a bit of somebody thing. I mean, we haven't conditioned that to my knowledge, because it would be very difficult to enforce. I mean, I suppose it's just the same as anybody going into anybody else's garden. Yeah, thank you. Questions I would not as well regard to the, the circular came out and regarding tourism and the application specifically state, how we have contractors. So, again, it's a very difficult one for us to actually condition and say, well, you can only, you can let the contractors, I guess. In terms of coping any questions. I'm happy to have been told everything. I would comment that if it's contract as I suppose that contributed to the local economy and they'll be using all those shocks. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, if there's no further questions in accordance with the procedure and not circulated to look at a review body, what I discussed in the site, the manner in which to review is to proceed and highlight that all representations really in this case are being considered and taken into account. And I would, you know, this has been operating as an STL since November 22. So, this is obviously a bit of a retrospective. But they couldn't have updated their plant accountants and I know that it has been no. I've got to be careful this has been no objections to the property itself and the use of the property. There's been two representations received in terms of the use of the bins, which has been addressed and the parking which has been addressed. I'm happy that the applicant has noted that they have provided their contact details to the rest of the property as well. So, therefore, if there's any issues in there, the people who in the property, the regions can be contacted to sort of sort of issue out. And so, therefore, when it comes to local immunity and the policies have been stated, I'm not convinced on the refusal at this point. How are there by others minded. So, I, you know, in the balancing act that these always come down to, I just didn't feel that it was unacceptable impact, given that it had, it had been an operation and for the other things that you mentioned convener. I think we should put a time restriction on it as we are able to do. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, but yeah, I'd be happy to grant this in this particular case. And it is that, that kind of balance between between the different policies, but in this case, I think, probably go with it. Yeah. Miss Green, the condition of the title of it. Yes, would that be the five year. Yeah. Yeah. Can be attached. Members have with that. Great. Great. Thank you. So, therefore, the application has been overturned. And the decision that was sent out to the agent in the forthcoming days. Thank you very much. So, turn into the consideration of the third review in respect of the decision to refuse the application for detailed plan permission for the direction of a single study extension to the site and rear formation of a dormer to rear and formation of a roof terrace on the rear extension at 63 growth present Aberdeen planning reference 231029 will pass back to my screen. He'll take us to the applications as a reminder, my screen will not be able to express any views and merits of the proposed development and her role will be in neutral on involvement provision of and gains only the screen. Thanks. I'll just share my screen. This review is into the refusal of the application for the direction of single story extension to the side and rear formation of a dormer to the rear and formation of roof terrace on the rear extension. And the review has been submitted with all the necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer. Although the applicant has indicated on the notice that there were no new matters raised, however, drawings were submitted that were not in front of the case officer at the time of determination, and therefore new matters. And I'll come back to this later in the slides. In terms of procedure by which the review will be conducted, the applicant has expressed the view that there's the review should not proceed on the basis of the information submitted, and there should be a site visit in order to evaluate the site. See the context and examples within the area. The form also indicates that the client may wish to make further written statement, but I've assumed that that's been added to the form as there's a section in different handwriting. And we haven't received anything further. So I'll provide some background to the case before handing back to members to decide how to proceed. So this is the location plan on the application relates to a single story. Semi detached property on the south side of Grove Crescent within Cornhill. And there's quite a large garden to the rear with a garage up the south end. So an image from Google Street view, show the house there. And you can see the neighboring house there with a rear extension. Zoomed up image there. So it's the application house. And some 3D images. So that's the rear of the property. And the front of the property there side in the rear garden. And that's a streaky image of the front. So the plans has existing. And then, as proposed, showing the proposed dormer. Single story flat roofed extension with a roof terrace on top. And then proposed side extension. And this is the. The boundary with the attached neighbor. And this is the ground floor plan. It's the roof. Terrace. The door map and the side extension. And this is the existing plan. Although this extension on top of the first floor garage is shown on these plans. There are no elevations. And it's also not within the description. So it's the case officer is not considered that element within the application. Existing roof plan. And the ground floor plan as proposed. So that extension single story extension to the rear side extension. This is to the west side. So the existing. And then the proposed extension. Showing the rear. The dormer added and roof terrace with glazed balustrades. And these two extensions would be hold, which would match the house. Again from the south. So the end of the rear extension and then the side extension and the door. And they would be sliding glazed doors in the real elevation of the extension. And the glazed safety balustrade proposed. Or the roof terrace. With double glazed sliding aluminum frame doors at ground floor level. And this is the north elevation, the front of the house. And so you can see that this is the side. Extension with a door and a window. So the reason for a fusal, which is stated in full and report within the agenda. The main points are that together the rear and side extensions, the roof terrace and the doorman would overwhelm the dwelling and resulting in over development and being country. And the main point of this is that there is a wallessy h1 on residential areas. That the projection of the rear extension, which is four and a half meters along the boundary does not occur with the householder guidance, which dates that. The impact on the privacy of neighbors, due to the dorm and the roof terrace, which don't accord with guidance. The daylight and sunlight would have an adverse impact would have an adverse impact on the neighbor, the attached neighbor, that is. And that the design and skill would affect the character and aesthetics of the house and the area. And they would like balance with the joining property at number 61, and would be there for country to policy D one on design. Policy 14 and MPF for on design. Policy 16 on quality homes and the Aberdeen planning guidance householder guide on dormers and extensions. So for the applicants case. They state, well, this is a summary of their case, they state that the area is mixed use and includes residential. The proposals take account of the context, including nearby properties and are in keeping with the surrounding area and certainly no worse in design size scale material and materials. They state that the property would not be adversely compromised by the changes and that the essential characteristics would remain and new parents would be improved. They state that there's a precedent been created by neighboring properties that have been extended. That the proposal would merit a site visit and discussion on site by the lobby. And they have also submitted revised drawings, which as I noted before, those are the subject of new information. So the new the drawings were included in the agenda. And that they show a pitched roof to the rear extension, a different sized dormant. They would actually require a fresh application, because they're sufficiently different from the drawings that have been submitted that have been considered by the case officer, but I'm going to hand over to legal now to run through the test for new information. Thank you, Miss Green. The new matter is any information or evidence that was not before the planning officer, when they made their decision. The legislation is clear that a party can raise a new matter in an LRB only if the new matter could not have been raised before the decision was made, or that had not been raised before that time was a consequence of exceptional circumstances. It is for the party who wants to raise a new matter in an LRB to explain in their submissions, why the new matter meets the criteria about on provide any support and documents or evidence. If the LRB should then decide whether to accept or reject the new matter. If the LRB accepts the new matter, it will consider it along with the other information and evidence in the review. If the LRB rejects the new matter, it will not take it into account in the review. I will now hand back to the LRB for members to have a discussion on whether they are satisfied that they have been provided with the information to conclude that the above criteria has been made in order for the LRB to take the new matter into account in the determination of the review. Thank you. Thank you very much. Discussion on this members. I'm obviously concerned regarding the substantial material difference from the original application to the additional information that has been provided to us in regards to the elevations. The additional submitted information is completely different to what the case officers originally reviewed. I don't feel comfortable convening this to be honest. I genuinely thought they were half-baked plans and that's what I wrote down on my summary. So I would agree with you totally. Well, I took the view, based on what I was told, that what the applicant was now one thing was totally different, the office on adjudicate. And I kept me from wrong, but we've got two choices yet, either accept the original and make an adjudication of what the officer saw, or I don't know if we can simply just defer this and clarify the matter. I don't know if the applicant was to put in a new application, they can do so. I mean, really, I feel the same as the careful material. I mean, what are we supposed to make a decision on? What was the new stuff that needs to be looked at by officers? I'll take Ms Johnson back in here, but I may think that we need to, and correct me from wrong, dismiss the additional information. Proceed to determine on the information that has been provided and submitted to the case officer, and depending on the outcome of that, the applicant would need to resubmit the new drawings to be reviewed. Would that be correct, Mr Johnson? Yeah, just to clarify, the test in regards to this, the new plan to have been submitted, the testing you need to consider this weather. Either, you know, they're satisfied that they're just the reasoning behind that. You know, have they been able to demonstrate that it could not have been made beforehand, or that it's not been raised as a matter of exceptional circumstances. So, if you're of the view that that test is unsatisfied, then the new matters, the additional plans that's been submitted along with the notice of your review will not be considered as part of the review. So, to say something without that test that was set out in the slide beforehand is made, if not, then the comment you considered as part of this review. Yeah, I would argue that I don't think that this can be considered, I don't think it meets the test. If all and see if this is what the applicant wanted to propose, then they could have submitted that. I think this has been a bit of a knee jerk reaction to the officers recommendations coming back, and to which the applicant has then come back and change that quite substantially the applications and hope that we would accept. And therefore, at the moment, I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting the additional information. I do not feel that it's been a need to test at this point. How are others minded. Agreed. Agreed. Thank you very much, therefore go pass it back to my screen to take us to the rest of the application. Well, at that point, I was due to come back to you to consider whether you wish to, how you wish to proceed. Obviously, the applicant has asked for a site visit. Yeah. I think in terms of where I'm coming from, I'm happy to proceed with the information we've received so far on the original documentation. Agreed. I would agree as well. Thank you. That came a screen. Right. So relevant policies in terms of the consideration of the application. And national planning framework policies, one, two, and three, as we've mentioned before, policy 14 design and policy 16 and quality homes. And as I mentioned previously, the first three policies are overarching relevant to all applications. Decisions should give significant weight to the climate and nature crises, climate mitigation and biodiversity. In relation to the scale of the proposal. Policy 14 relates to design and a similar to policies on design and the local development plan, which I'll cover in a moment. Policy 16. Relates to high quality homes and the impact of proposals on residential amenity. So I've just got a slide showing that policy. The detail section, she, which relates to household development proposals and states that they will be supported where they do not have a detrimental impact on the character of the home and the surrounding area in terms of their size design and materials, and where they do not have a detrimental effect on neighboring properties in terms of their physical impact overshadowing and overlooking. Policies in the local development plan and site lies within an area zoned under policy h one residential areas. And I'll cover that policy on the next slide, then also relevant policy D one design and policy D two on amenity. And that policy covers optimizing views and sunlight levels of amenity for occupiers and neighbors. Privacy daylighting. And then we also have the household guidance, which I'll cover in a moment. The policy h one on residential areas, household development will be approved in principle, where it is doesn't constitute over development. Doesn't have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. There's no loss of open space, and it complies with supplementary guidance, which in this instance is the householder design guide. And that's also used to look at the matters of whether the proposal is over development, and its impact on the neighbors. So I'll just run to the next slide, which covers the householder design guide. And it's general principles, where it states that proposals for extensions and dormers should be architecturally compatible with the original house and surrounding area materials should be complimentary. And extensions and alterations should not overwhelm or dominate the original house, they should be visually subservient in terms of the height mass and scale. And, and then that the other point three, which states that proposals approved prior to the introduction of the planning guidance would not provide justification for going against the guidance. And that factors within the guidance that are relevant here. In terms of dormers and roof extensions, they should respect the scale of the building and should overwhelm the original roof. All meters is considered the maximum length, that they should be a plot coverage. It states that no more than 50% of the rear calculate should be covered. And the just on that one, the report of handling states that plot coverage is 23% in this instance. Also that no more than twice the original house, in terms of its footprint. The proposal should result in no more than twice the original house as a footprint, which the report states this proposal does not exceed that. 75%. So policies on design, D1 is from the local development plan and states that all development must ensure high standards of design. So, there's a distinctive sense of place created and policy 14 has the same six tests as are in the local development plan. Again, designed in terms of the scale of the impact on the original building, creating a sense of place with design and architectural quality. And the choice of materials, both recognize that development at any scale, good design and detailing adds to the attractiveness of the built environment. So evaluation, again, the primacy of the development plan, the national planning framework and the local development plan, with all applications determined in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and considering each application on its merits. So in this instance, the key considerations are the impact on residential amenity of the neighbor. How does it affect, how does the proposal affect the character of the of the house, the original house, the character of the area, and also the amenity of the neighboring properties. Does the proposal comply with the development plan as a whole or all their material considerations indicating otherwise. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much on the screen and I understand members are happy to take questions without the requirement for a site visit, etc, etc. Correct. Thank you very much. Any question. It was something that was mentioned by the applicants, this being a mixed use area, including residential. And I just wanted to create that because my, my understanding and knowledge of the areas that out with perhaps a wider sense with where the hospital is there. This is actually a residential area, is it not. Yes, I assume they must be referring to the proximity of the hospital. Thank you. I've got no questions at this point. I can actually open. No, you're happy. I'm great. Okay. Okay. So, therefore, thank you for the screen. So in accordance with the procedure, no circulated. Look at a view party when I discuss in the side of the manner. In the which this case is to proceed to note that all considerations will be taking the ticket. On consideration of the original plans that were submitted, I minded to uphold officers. Refusal on this. Noting that the dual results in the development and therefore poses does not hear relevant policies. And there is a policy, each one. Further pointing to affect the character and resulting in the unbalance of the symmetry between the other properties around the area. And that the projection does not hear the council guidance and further. To highlight that the proposed dormer and roof terraces not comply with the current with the criteria outlined in the household development guide. With the contains and already planning guidance is where I'm coming from this. Anyone else want to enter? Thank you. I think there were some aspects of this application that were commendable. And I think when we certainly saw the photographs, anything that could be done to improve the site a little bit would be would be welcome, I think, compared to the building and joining it. But I tend to agree with you. I think the balustrade the glazed balustrade would just be intrusive. There is over development. The boundary with length of 4.5 meters. It would be unacceptable. And I think I would agree with you. And we should uphold officers recommendations in terms of NPA for and local development plan. Can I still open. Yes, totally agree. I think it is a true to the neighbors privacy as well. And I don't agree with the officer with this one. Thank you. Thank you very much. Therefore, the local review body has therefore agreed to unanimously uphold the decision of the appointed officer and the application is there for refuse. Please note decision notes from today's meeting of issued to the applicant and agent in the forthcoming days. Remember that brings us to the end of today's L.R.B. Thank you all much for your attendance and thank you much to Miss Green and Miss Johnson for attending as well to provide the guidance. Thank you.