Transcript

Thank you very much everybody, we're ready to start and welcome everybody to this planning committee today. First of all if we can deal with apologies and substitutes. Yes, we've received apologies today from Councillor Hutchinson and Councillor Kimber and substituting today we have Councillor Brondell and Councillor Ahmed. Thank you, now we have apologies from both our chair and our deputy chair, the absent chair proposed me as chair in his place, so is committee content with that? Well, can I propose myself? I'll propose myself then. Can you then vote please? Thank you, thank you very much. Members interests to remind members of the need to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other interests they might have in relation to the items included on this agenda. I'm seeing any hands raised, if there is something that crops up as we go through please let us know. Item four, sorry three, admission of the public, it's not recommended that the public be excluded from this meeting for the consideration of any of the items of business on this agenda. Item four, you should all I think have seen the minutes of the planning committee meeting held on the 16th of April 2024, can we agree those as a correct record to be signed by the chair? Seconded? Is that sufficient info, can we vote in favour? And then item five, withdrawn applications. Thank you chair, the application number five on the agenda to be heard at 315 the 24/00121/var Parkinson Community Primary School that has been withdrawn for legal reasons. Thank you, so that takes us on to the planning application list and the first item on the agenda, do I read the number out or does somebody else read it out? So it's 21/00642/full, land rear of 1 to 11 the Woodlands, Palace House Road, Hebden Bridge. It's a residential development of two dwellings. And before I go any further in relation to this application, I want to first of all say that I have an open mind on this, I have not formed any conclusions to the application but I think it's only right that I state that I know the objector Simon Gough. OK, so if we can now hear from the officer, Gillian Bolton. Thank you chair, just before I start there's an update to members, since the agenda went to print we've received a number of photographs from the residents of the Woodlands which have been annotated with concerns. A number of the photographs show surface water runoff from the hillside after heavy rain down to properties below at the Woodlands and on to Palace House Road. Concerns have been raised that the new development and the proposed attenuation tanks will not cope with the sudden downpour. The existing sewer is small in size and it is unclear if there is capacity for the new dwellings. No details of other services have been included. Photographs are also included of the access track and concerns over construction traffic and the surfacing materials along with the lack of a footpath have been raised. Wildlife concerns have also been highlighted. In summary, the proposed concerns have already been taken into consideration as part of the assessment and nothing new has been raised. Conditions for further drainage details and surfacing would be conditioned if approved. An ecological and biodiversity assessment has been carried out on the site and Yorkshire waters have raised no objection to the proposal. We've received 32 letters of objection with multiple objections from some households and Councillor Dave Young has objected also. The recommendation from the parish council is for refusal and the key issues are set out below. The application is brought before planning committee at the request of Councillor Dave Young. The sensitive nature of the proposal and as there is a standing consultee objection which is contrary to the officer recommendation in line with the council's scheme of delegation. So here we can see the site outlined in red with the access to the site. The site is located south of Hebdinbridge and to the rear of the woodlands which is accessed off Palacehouse Road. It is approximately 300 metres away from Hebdinbridge railway station. It currently comprises of an area of vacant grassland beyond which is dense belt of trees at Croness Wood which is not designated as a local wildlife site but is noted as replanted ancient woodland and is subject to a group tree preservation order. There is existing residential development surrounding the site to the north east and west and the site is accessed off Footpath HR 13 1107 and Bridal Way 13 1281. The proposal is for two detached properties both with garages but due to the topography of the land the north elevation which faces the woodlands has a three storey appearance with the south elevation facing Old Chamber Road which is the access road having a two storey appearance. So here is the aerial photograph of the site and we can see the properties of the woodlands here. So here we can see the site layout for the two houses and also the access track again. You will note that there is a small area here where the proposed bins will be taken out. A passing place is also located here and also here. Here we have the drainage details. The proposal is to use attenuation crates and a piped discharge will not be through infiltration. Connection is proposed to the existing combined sewer in Palace House Road. Here we can see the elevation facing Old Chamber Road with a two storey appearance. The height of the properties with the garages and again here the elevation facing the woodlands which is a three storey appearance due to the topography of the land. The houses are handed. Here we've just got the east elevation which shows some of the measurements in terms of the height of the properties. So this is from the baseline habitats, the area and the measurements with the post development overlay on which is contained within the report that's been carried out on the site. The proposal with planting and mitigation in terms of the net gain will be to remove areas of species that are non-native and invasive in order to create the biodiversity net gain on site. The area within the pink and the red, that is what will be proposed for the courage of each of the properties. The areas identified as P1, P3, P13 surrounding the property are part of the BNG but are not part of the courage of the properties. I'll move on to the photographs. Just before I start I'd just like to say a previous identical application in terms of the design of the houses was submitted under application 13-00005 and was recommended for approval originally and was to be determined by planning committee on the 22nd of October 2013. However it was deferred at the request of the highways officer as further information was required. The decision was appealed for non-determination and the planning inspector dismissed the appeal on the 28th of January 2014 as they felt further drainage information was required at the time. However, they didn't consider at the time that the access to the site was an issue. They stated in their appeal decision that I therefore conclude that by reason of the limited scale of the development and the proposed spaces for vehicles to pass along old chamber road, the scheme would not lead to hazardous reversing manoeuvres to the detriment of highway or pedestrian safety. And as a result, there is no conflict with the replacement Coaldedale unitary development plan which states that accesses should ensure the safe and free flow of traffic and this policy is broadly consistent with the national policy framework. And by ensuring the safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved, there is also no conflict with national guidance. The council's highway officer objects to the proposal on the grounds of unsustainable location, substandard access and unacceptable impact on the safety and amenity of the users of the right of way. However, for the reason I've just read out, the local planet authority considered that it's not something we could look to recommend refusal on given the inspector's previous decision. I'll move on to the photographs now. So here you can see just in the corner there, we're looking at where the bins will be presented. So just be a small levelled area just so that the bins could be wheeled down in order for the bin men to collect them rather than having to access the track. And this is the junction with Old Chamber Road and Wood Top Road with one of the spinnies on the corner there with the curved wall. So a view west of Old Chamber Road and then again the junction of Old Chamber Road and Wood Top Road looking northwest towards the railway station. So this is an area proposed for passing place opposite number six, the spinner. So as you can see, it's already kind of been levelled out and details of surfacing along with the track and the bin presentation area would be conditioned if recommended for approval. So again, the access track looking west and the various footpaths. We can see Stonehaven there. So here we have the site looking northwest with properties at the woodlands and Stonehaven in the distance and properties at the woodlands again but looking north and east. And this footpath 13, 11, 7, view east and south. And again, site looking northwest with the solar panels there looking towards Stonehaven. So this is the access footpath Old Chamber Road and the footpath taking you further up is 13, 12, 2. This is looking northeast. So the key issues are set out below and the recommendation is to permit with conditions. Thank you, chair. So do members have any questions for the officer? No? I do have a question. I don't know whether it will be for legal advice. What is the status of a previous decision by an inspector? Is a further inspector bound by that in law or is it more subtle than that? Chair, if it was to be looked at by a new inspector, he or she would not be bound by the view that was expressed by the inspector who dealt with the original appeal. It would be regarded as persuasive but inevitably with the lapse of time and development of policies, anybody looking at this afresh as a new inspector would look at the whole entirety of the application. The highway aspect being part of it. So the short answer is it wouldn't be binding but it would be persuasive. So if there are no other questions? Thank you, chair. This development was rejected by the planning inspector in 2014 because in his words, the proposal would increase the likelihood of harmful localized flooding from surface water runoff. Ten years later with climate change and the frequency of storms, this risk has increased. The new houses now are in the front line of runoff. Our properties have been flooded by flash floods four times since 2001 and the environment agency scheme for Erringdon does not include any measures to protect the site. The new houses will flood. Our particular concerns are the increased risk of flooding from flash floods carrying soil and water slurry down onto our properties, blocking our drains during the construction period for which there's no protection measures identified. The volumes of runoff from roofs and drives are likely to exceed the capacity of the attenuation system. It's designed for a one in a hundred year storm with 30% climate uplift. But just last week, upland areas of Yorkshire received this amount in one hour and with climate change, worse is to come. The drainage calculations don't account for house owners creating new patios, which will increase the impermeable area and the runoff volumes. And the continued operation of the proposed attenuation system relies on householders carrying out 16 separate maintenance tasks on a system from which they gain little benefit. There's no mechanism to ensure ongoing maintenance and when it fails, our houses will be flooded because they're 10 metres below and they rely on drains connected to soakaways, not onto the main system. They can't cope with extra runoff. The recent hand drawn amendment to the layout shows the attenuation tanks and drains constructed within the ecological buffer zone. They must be within the curtilage for maintenance. We also contest the developers legal right to enter our land to lay a sewer and planning permission should not be granted until a viable route for the sewer is proven. Planning committee should protect our properties and reject this application on flood risk and if it decides not to reject the decision, it should be deferred until the plans calculations are correct and there are adequate conditions to protect us. The committee should note highway's strong objection in 2021. Nothing significant has changed in the design and there are no reasonable grounds for highway's serious safety concerns to have been contradicted in this report. As you'll have seen, the access is a steep narrow path. It can't be widened sufficiently for vehicles and to pass walkers safely. There's no verge for pedestrians to escape, only walls on one side and steep embankments on the other and yet evidence shows that drivers frequently don't wait for pedestrians on narrow tracks but force them to stand back. There's no barrier to prevent vehicles coming off the track and crashing down into the spiny properties, just a shallow concrete curb that affords no protection. Water that floods down the track, ice and snow, will add to the risk of a vehicle sliding off the track. And finally on this, the developer doesn't own the access track and any assertion that he has the right to alter or improve the track will be contested. The site is designed as a wildlife habitat network and it's used by badgers and at least six other wild mammal species along with three red list, eight amber list and 21 other bird species. The extensive list of conditions is necessary to protect biodiversity but how can there be any confidence that these conditions will be adhered to during the development and in perpetuity. The drainage design as I've mentioned shows the attenuation tanks and drains constructed within the outside the curtilage and within the scrub buffer zone resulting in significant adverse impacts in breach of policy GN2. So in summary, to conclude, I've addressed briefly the flood risk, highway and ecological reasons why this application will have a significant adverse impact on the adjoining 24 properties, wildlife and the public. If members approve the scheme, only the landowner will benefit whilst we will face all of the risks and the cost of litigating to protect our properties. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Do members have any questions for Mr. Gough? Councillor Brindale. It's a question more to officers to clarify something you said. On the question of the tanks being situated outside the curtilage, what are the legalities around that? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, so the attenuation tanks are situated outside the area denoted as curtilage but they are within the red line. So the conditions relating to, it's condition two, the drainage detail condition and that condition requires that the details approved shall be implemented prior to the first operation of the development and retained thereafter. And that applies to all the land within the red line so they would be required by that condition to retain that attenuation tank thereafter. In terms of whether it's within their curtilage or not, it would still be within the red line of the application but the reason the curtilage is defined as small is to make sure the larger line does not encroach upon in terms of formal garden for the BNG and also any permitted development rights of the property would not be able to be extended into that area. Thank you. Can I just ask on the back of that, would that include the via approved? Is that necessary? So we've consulted with Yorkshire Water and many times people don't have the public sewer on their land and they've shown it as a dashed line to how they're going to connect and they have to go through the various drainage hierarchy. And Yorkshire Water services have commented that they have no objection to it, subject to further details later on. It's not something that we would always have up front but they have been consulted and the information that's been provided at this stage is sufficient for them not to object. Thank you, Chair. It's just a quick question. I visited the site, as you know, this morning with everybody and I was very struck by the condition of the road and the width which I do understand cannot be widened because it would encroach on the green belt. Could you explain how the surface would be improved to allow vehicular access without causing any more problems with drainage? In other words, if it's not going to be solid tarmac, how can that be dealt with? So we've put a condition on regarding surfacing for the various areas including the passing places. It would be for the applicant agent to submit the details to discharge that condition and for us to consult the relevant people, i.e. highways and also drainage, as to whether that would be a sufficient surfacing material and how that would, you know, if that would impact on anything. But we definitely condition that out to make sure that we've got a suitable material before any works could commence on that. Thank you. Yeah, it's number nine. Yeah, condition nine. Thank you, Chair. Another question for the officer. Is there any plan for this lane and the access to ever be adopted, you know, to be put in a state where somebody could apply to have the development adopted? The reason I ask that question, I'm aware, everybody's aware of the problem that we're having with unadopted places that's been raised in this committee. And after a number of years, it becomes virtually impossible to get new residents to agree to do anything, so they remain unadopted. I'm concerned, just looking at this and the state of this track, that just, you know, if it were permitted, what on earth would it look like in a couple of years if there's not a metal surface on it? So is there any consideration being given to this track and whether it's suitable for allowing developments? I may refer to my highways colleague in a moment, but adaptability or not of the road surface isn't necessarily something that we would consider in planning terms. Obviously, we are concerned about the surfacing works, and that's why we've added condition nine on in relation to the treatment of that. And that condition does also state at the end to be retained thereafter, so there would be an expectation that that surfacing would be retained. But as to the legality of then whether that's the owners or whether it comes to adoption, I think is a separate process. And as to adoption, it's something that would need to be done in consultation with our asset manager, and, you know, the detail of that policy position is not something that I'm an expert in. But I believe that there would usually need to be something of an intrinsic utility for, you know, a wider purpose to that stretch of highway for an adoption to be considered and given that this is, you know, an exclusive relationship to just a couple of properties. I think it would be highly unlikely that a road track lane of this nature would be proposed and successful in any attempt towards adoption. Thanks, just rereading the condition nine there, it just really talks about the surfacing, basically boils down to before you do it, you need to show us and for us to approve it, but it doesn't say anything about, you know, placing drains on the road surface to, you know, to sort of catch, you know, any water that comes down from above and, you know, in the green spaces. Is there still scope to add a condition along those lines? If members were minded to approve the application and wanted some amended wording to make sure that drainage details were included in that condition, that would be absolutely fine. I could do that, no problem. Sorry, there were no more questions from members for the objector. Thank you, Mr Gough. I forgot to turn my microphone on, that was all. So we have no Councillor here and of course he is no longer a Councillor. And so if I can call, I think, is it the agent Marilyn Burchard? Ladies and gentlemen, the first part I'd like to make is in respect of what the solicitor said about the weight to be given to a previous appeal decision. You're quite right, the weight is limited if policies have changed or the situation has changed or circumstances have changed, but in this case policies are the same. The application is exactly the same as was submitted previously. At that time, as the officer said, the application was recommended for approval, but in the appeal that followed, the inspector approved the principle of development, the house types, the design, most importantly, the highways arrangements. They were all accepted and the concerns that committee had at that time about the highways issues weren't supported. The only concern with the proposal was whether the required surface water attenuation scheme would actually physically fit onto the site. And without this additional information before him, the inspector decided to dismiss it. Fair enough. The submission has comprehensively addressed the surface water situation here. The foremost drainage consultant in the district has designed a robust scheme for us, and that's been approved by the Environment Agency, Calderdale Council as the lead local flood authority, Caldervale's drainage team, and the environment. No, Yorkshire water, that's the fourth one, yeah. So, we fully understand the objectors concerns. This hillside is notorious for flooding. It's a serious issue. There's no doubt about it that the water from this hillside requires management. The objectors have submitted a lot of photos of the flooding in the locality. Anyone local knows about this. It's a common problem, but ultimately, it's the responsibility of Calderdale Council to resolve this. And this morning, we once again visited the environment agents who were working with Calderdale, finalizing the details of this and Indian hillside flood alleviation scheme, which is time to start this summer, and is set to deal with this, but it's a separate issue. Our proposal has been discussed at length with the Environment Agency throughout the planning of their scheme, and they have no issues with it. However, in taking account of these wider issues outside the site, our design is a fully engineered system which discharges surface water with attenuation crates, not soakaways, and Yorkshire water have agreed the outfall at an attenuated rate of one metre per second, which is much reduced from the current greenfield runoff rates to about five litres per second. In addition to factoring climate change allowances, we've also incorporated an additional 50% of extra storage capacity over and above what's normally required. The scheme's robust, and it goes the extra mile, and as I've said before, has the approval of all the relevant bodies. Much of the rest of the objection has been focused on potential danger to footpath users. Objects has claimed this is only a footpath, but actually, it's the historic access track to both this site and to the rest of the woods. So the Lum's egg business used this road as their access, and the surface was fully setted until the gas board decided to put a gas pipe in this road. But those sets covered the full width of the road, and the full width of the road is available for use. The access is also required to manage the wider woodland, so this has already been confirmed that trees can be put back to maintain that access. This is a critical part of the appeal decision, that the council's highways officers has raised concerns, but they're all aspects that have been already dealt with and found acceptable to the inspector. The case officers' planning balance rightly concludes that the highways officers' concerns were all dealt with in the previous appeal, and the sole issue is about the surface water drainage that would fit on the site and the absence of information about it at that time. So now that that's been resolved, and there's a presumption in favor of sustainable development, and this is a sustainable location, now that the drainage proposals have been agreed, it can be approved. I would also say that if people want additional confirmation on surfacing conditions about operations of the actual construction phase, we're happy with all of those things, if you want to add any of those into the recommendation to approve. Thank you. Thank you. The members have questions. Just a question, if I may. You mentioned about the access road there being set. Are these concrete sets, then? No, they're original cobbles. Oh, the original cobbles. And you mentioned about the gas board excavating it. Did they replace the cobbles? No, they didn't. The gas pipe runs down the middle of the road, and further up, that's the lower portion, which is concrete surface, but higher up where the sets were, they didn't replace those, and that's currently a lot of the reason why the road is washed out, because the water sort of gravitated to the centre, and it's just washed out. I think there are still some sets right at the edges, but most of it is just the crusher run that I think they filled the trench in with. Any further questions? Councillor Carey. Thanks. Just to hear a verbal countering of what the Highways Officer for the Council said, because I find what he said very persuasive. Yes, so the highway, personally I find what the Highways Officer for the Council said about this very persuasive, so while you're there, just to give you some verbal arguments to counter. The Highways Officer has previously been uncomfortable with the changes that are being proposed. His concern is about the potential danger to pedestrians, because currently that is a very narrow track, but in reality the width of the actual track is considerably wider than the usable bit that you can see in these photographs. But all of these things were raised before. They're all the same things that were argued in the appeal, and the appeal inspector took the view that it's just two houses, that there would be improvements, there would be additional space available for cars to pass pedestrians at slow speed. It's not a bridleway, so we're not talking about cyclists or horse riders, and in this proposal there are two passing places that also allow space for people to be able to stand out of the road if a car is coming up, or alternatively for a car to stop and allow pedestrians to pass. And it is a balancing act, there's no two ways about it, but it's not different to lots and lots of roads in the Calderdale area, which are single track, and where pedestrians are using those roads. But I think the conclusion of the inspector that this isn't a significant danger, no significant danger is apparent from this, is what carries the weight. Councillor Lee. Thank you. At the beginning of your presentation you mentioned that 50% more, what was it, just tell me again please. Sorry, I thought my voice was loud enough. The attenuation crates are designed to provide sufficient water for the site for an outfall of 1%, 1 litre per second. In addition to that there's climate change, which is 30% in this calculation, and then in addition to that there's a further 50%, which gives a fully robust scheme, because as we all know the climate change is a moving thing. The current 100 year flood is what's calculated, but as the object has pointed out, sometimes we do get something higher than that, and that's why the 50% has been included to make it robust. What I'm interested in finding out here, you've said in your introduction this is a notorious area for flooding. It is. So before we embark on anything, we know we've got a problem here. I'm just wondering what proper modelling has been performed to justify that 50% more will be adequate. For example, the modelling might have said 29% would be adequate. It could have said 81% would be inadequate. It just depends who's feeding it in, what the model is, and where that has been made available to people on this committee and officers, because by the sound of it, 50% sounds like a number that's potentially come out of the air as being something that might be enough. So could you give me some details, please? I think maybe, first of all, all the information for this calculation and the whole of the scheme is in the application. It's submitted as information on the drawings and documents that have already been submitted. That's what's gone to the relevant people who have been tasked with considering whether it's acceptable or not. Secondly, the 50% isn't part of a calculation, as I understand it. The calculation is the runoff rate attenuated to 1 litre per second plus the climate change. That's the size of the tank that is required by the authorities. We have added 50%. That's not part of a calculation. That's our anticipated improvement to make it robust. Thank you. Could I just clarify? The 50% is an opinion. The 50% is an opinion by somebody that that will be adequate. It doesn't feature in any calculations that we can look at. No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the size of the tank plus climate change is adequate. That's all we need to provide. That's all we need to provide. That would be adequate. That would be signed off by all the relevant authorities. We decided to add 50% for robustness. It's an opinion. That part of it is an opinion. There's a legal position, which is it's one, and you've gone for 1.5. That is considered to be OK in view of all of the knowledge that we have about climate change. I have to say, I haven't done these calculations. I'd like to know who did. I can tell you exactly who did. Mark Hibbert did those. He is, in my view, the leading drainage designer in this area. He knows this area inside out. He's the person who asked to do this. I'm taking that as this individual has decided. He might be an expert. I don't know him. He's decided that 50% is enough. I think the fact that, no, I'm still perhaps not explaining this properly. The amount of water attenuated to one metre per second plus 30% for climate change, that is enough. On its own, that is enough. The 50% is what we have decided to offer. We didn't need to do that. We didn't need to do that. I suppose the final comment there is that there are four agencies involved in checking all this stuff. All four of them have accepted it. I feel confident that this is right. May I make a comment at this stage? I'm not sure of the legal position. You can make a comment if it's relevant. Well, in my experience, in recent years, I've been on the Goldendale Flood Committee and all of that stuff. I've heard of the figure one in 100 years being frequently still used for calculations of things, including this by the sound of it. When my real world experience in Goldendale has been, in a number of instances, the same condition arising several times in the last five or six years. So that what was once considered once in 100 years is now pretty much not, is considered not to be adequate by people. I don't think it's adequate because of my own experience with Goldendale having to deal with it. So, whilst the rule might say in this notorious flood area that 30% is considered okay for climate change, I've got big doubts about whether that, based on once in 100 years, will be adequate to deal with the potential problems that we know that already exist in this notorious area for flooding. Thank you, Chair. I think that exactly the point that you've just made may be why Mark Hibbert has decided to add some more in. I think that's why he may have decided to add 50% because he is of the same opinion as you, that the one in 100 year requirement may not be quite as infrequent as that after all. Councillor Kenny? Thanks, Chair. So, from what I gather what you're saying about the drainage is that after the things done, there will be less chance of the properties below flooding because it will be enough infrastructure there to take the water and put it underneath all the stuff. So, whether that's true or not, I'd like you to comment on the objectors point where during the construction period, the risk of muddy water, how are you going to stop that from happening? Because a layman can tell that he's telling the truth that it's going to be more risky. Yeah, I think that's a very strong point and it's something that we would be quite concerned about. I am not a builder, but I would expect that anyone building these houses would be required to submit to the council some sort of construction and implementation scheme to avoid that very thing. It's a common condition about construction operations that they don't allow mud onto the road, that they don't work unsociable hours, that they limit the idling of machinery, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The construction management condition would be completely acceptable and I think that that can easily be devised to avoid the potential for runoff. In fact, we're doing a similar sort of a scheme in Bradford where they've got exactly that type of condition, so that's not a problem. Any condition that you want to devise to do that will be acceptable. Just turning to officers then. Is there anything in this that explains what the builders effectively would need to do to prevent this risk from happening and what would happen if whatever they put in place failed? What would be the consequences? Yes, we can condition what's called a construction management plan and that would be required before construction works to commence to set out exactly those points that you're suggesting there. So what they would do during the construction to mitigate any event and how they would be expected to maintain that throughout the life of the construction and what the requirements of those are. It's not necessarily normal practice to put conditions of that nature on very small scale developments, which is why they're not on the application as it's brought forward to members. But if members feel that the particular circumstances of this case would require a construction management plan, then it would pass the six tests of a condition to be able to add that. That's not a problem. So do members have any more questions? Councillor Brunell and then Councillor Ahmed. Thank you. During your original presentation towards the end you mentioned being happy for conditions to be added. I know we've just mentioned that one there. Was the other point you were saying around what we've got as condition two around drainage works and highways, was that what you were saying you were happy to have some more? Sorry. One of the concerns was about potential for drainage issues to arise from this resurface of the road. So as far as I'm concerned, that would be a part of the specification of the road would include drainage matters. So, yes, a conditional on those lines would be fine. So any further questions, members? So I do just have one question. If we could just go back to the pictures of the access road and that one in particular. So you suggested that it's currently a very narrow track, but there's potential to be very much wider. Can you explain to me how you would make that part of the track in the right hand photograph very much wider, bearing in mind that the red line, where the red line for the development is and the banking on the other side and the wall on one side? What I was referring to is that the width of the road is between the wall on the right hand side and there is in part on the left hand side, there are the remains of an original wall. This width is a single carriageway. It's not wider than that. It is just a single carriageway, but the owner of the access track, you can lawfully widen it to its original width so that he can access the woods for works in the woods. So you won't get more than a single carriageway, but a single carriageway is available. Sorry, so I can barely see. Are you suggesting that the bank could actually be dug away? Are you suggesting that the bank in fact could be dug out there? Yeah, the owner has got the right to dig it back to its original width. I don't think it will be much more than, if you sort of look at that banking, if you see sort of halfway down there's a line of leaves. I think that's probably it. There are portions of the wall still in place and of course there are plans which survey the position of the original wall. So he would be able to reinstate that track to get access to his woods for maintenance purposes. Thank you. So if there's no further questions then, so are there any comments that members wish to make at this stage? Or proposals? Councillor Lee? It looks as if, on that right hand picture, it looks as if whatever you did with this, it's going to always be sloping down or else it's going to be a major sort of construction to level that as it's a lane as it were. It's always going to be sloping in the direction of the hill. I think the officers are nodding there. Otherwise you're going to have to move huge amounts of material out of there which would be very expensive. So if that's going to stay somewhat like on that picture and it's only one vehicle width, it looks as if on the right there, traction would be very difficult and if not properly maintained in the future, progressively less and less difficult. And four wheel drive cars are reasonably good at handling this sort of terrain, but two wheel drive cars look like they could potentially get very stuck in it, especially on that right hand picture when it would appear there's a track that's viable on one side and then a hump in the middle. And on the downside, it's falling away. So I have real reservations about this, the access arrangements, which is why I asked if, you know, whether in the plans were any plans to put some metal on this on this road to make it more decent. That's why I asked that question. And I've got great concerns about the access, which the acute flooding for which this part of the world is notorious for will only exacerbate the problems as we go forward. Yes, Councillor Lee, thank you for that comment. I would just remind everyone that there is a condition proposed for the planning permission in relation to ensuring that the surface has been approved. And it is intended that the road be surfaced and approved by the planning authority that was dealt with. So does anyone, including South Councillor Lee, have a proposal in relation to this application? Listening to what's being said now by everybody, I'm quite happy to move officers recommendations to allow this scheme to go forward. I'd only be happy to second if some of those conditions we previously discussed were included. I don't know if Councillor Curtin would include those. I'd be quite happy with that. Can I just clarify that? So you would require that condition nine be amended to include the drainage. So what I've jotted down, I'm happy to expand it further, you know, to go away and expand it further. Prior to any surfacing works commencing and notwithstanding any details shown on the approved plans, details of the surfacing, my insertion, and drainage for the entire length of the access between the dwellings and Woodtop Road, the passing places, turning and parking areas and bin store area shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surfacing and drainage shall be completed in accordance with the details so approved prior to the first occupation of the dwellings and shall be so returned thereafter. Yes, happy with that chair. And then the second and additional condition, which I won't have the full wording for now, but if members are happy to allow officers to go away and produce that wording would be before any construction works commence construction management plan and then with detailing what that needs to contain within the condition and that would be an additional condition. Happy with that chair. Thank you for your second on that basis, Councillor Brondell. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Can I see a show of hands? Councillor Cairns. On the second bit, just a question on the management plan that you're talking about. Would that also include, you know, like if the things that the management plan were designed to prevent happening, if that actually happened, what would what would happen after that, for example, would there be help for, you know, the residents below the site? Could that be woven into the condition that we're talking about there? If I can assist with that, I mean, it's already been acknowledged in both by the objectors and by the applicant that flooding takes place at that site. At the moment, the construction management plan as a condition would be designed to ensure that the work that was carried out did not add to that problem. It wouldn't be appropriate to require it to fully alleviate the problem with flooding on that site because it would only have to manage the added construction work that was taking place. But the management plan that has been referred to would have to be properly worded to ensure that there were steps to be taken if there were problems arising from the work that was being undertaken to construct these properties and limited to that. Can I now move to the vote then on Councillor Curtin's proposal? All those in favour? All those against? So the proposal is permitted. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. The second item on the agenda, which is 23 stroke 00696 stroke full and it's a new dwelling house with associated access parking and landscaping on land opposite St Giles Close Hove edge brick house. Sorry, the officer would like to present. Thank you. Before we start, there's been an objection received after the publication of the agenda and it relates to the reopening of a quarry and it says I have already put in an objection up to the site, but wanted to add that changes in the area may be a factor. The site behind the area has now been reopened as a quarry. This means that all this green area after 25 years will be destroyed about three fields, trees, plants and wildlife. Patches of green areas in the area are now more important than ever. Planning should take note of what the changes in the area and consider the residents. So the application site is a parcel of land measuring 0.36 hectares. It's located to the south of St Giles House, which is a grade two listed property, grade two star listed property. It consists of pasture enclosed by a dry stone wall and mature trees on the boundary, as can be seen on the map. Historical maps indicate the land was originally part of a large area, but it was divided by a new road, St Giles Road, now public right of way footpath 133. That was constructed sometime between 1855 and 1894. The land has been retained in its current layout since that time. The site is bordered by dry stone walls and mature trees. Access to the site is currently via a metal gate located on Lower Finkel Street opposite Newton Park. Planning permission is sought for a single dwelling and associated access parking and landscaping. The development has been amended since the initial submission, with the dwelling now being smaller on plan to lessen its impact on the grade two star, Giles House to the north. The application has been brought to committee because it was requested by Councillor Robinson, of all Councillor for Heberholm and Lightcliffe, citing material planning reasons. In terms of history, an outline application for residential development for four dwellings was refused at planning committee in 2019, and it was dismissed at appeal on 10th of November 2020. This application, however, is for one dwelling, not for four dwellings. There was a meeting with the Historical England, and in that meeting it was discussed that there could be a potential for development on this site. And that's more or less led to the submission of this current application. So turning to the plans, the dwelling is at this far corner, and it's currently where the stables are located on the paddock. It's a three to four bedroom house, the access is from Finkel Street through the access gate, and that's going to be left natural and used a grid system like a grass-crete kind of system. A lot of the vegetation is to be retained on the boundary as well. The garden is to the far end for the dwelling, leaving the remaining of the land all natural. There's three parking spaces for the dwelling as well, and there's an enclosed garden there. The dwelling has actually been set lower down from the footpath as well, so it's set down into the ground, which I think you'll see on the plans. Yes, so the north elevation, that shows the top of the wall, and it shows the dwelling would be set down. That's the north elevation, so that's the one that faces Giles' house. Then there's the west elevation. The materials are natural stone and timber cladding. The roof is a sedum roof. There's a small balcony on the east elevation, and the solar panels on the roof as well on the south elevation. So I've finished the floor of hands. It's a two-story, one-story dwelling with the majority of the accommodation on the ground floor, but a living room and terrace on the first floor. The arrangement of the rooms has been slightly changed because there's an allotment which borders the site, and Environmental Health wanted an acoustic barrier on that border due to any noise from the allotment. So there's a bedroom window has been moved from that elevation to the elevation of the north. Those are the sections through. So this is turning to the landscaping plan. You can see that there's been considerable efforts made to retain all the vegetation, but also to increase that by planting hedges, wildlife meadows, additional planting shrubs to attract all sorts of manner of wildlife. There's also bird boxes and bat boxes proposed and areas to attract hedgehogs and insects and invertebrates. And it's worth saying that in terms of the BNG, the biodiversity net gain, the requirement is to provide 10%. This scheme would provide 124% in terms of benefits. So it's well and beyond what would be the sort of the standard. This is the access from Lower Finkel Street. That would be slightly widened on the right-hand side, but the dry stone wall would be slightly lowered, but it would be retained, so it would be made good once it had been widened. So this is coming out of the site now with Finkel Street bending around there just to show the visibility display when highways have not raised any concerns about the visibility display. Hopefully they're happy that that would be adequate. This is now looking inside the entrance of the site. So this is Lower Greenhouse, which is grid 2 listed to the south of the site. That's Lower Greenhouse again. That's looking back inside the site towards the access. And then that's the far end where the stables are now. That's where the dwelling would be located, more or less on the siting of the current stables. It shows the public footpath on the left, and it shows the stables inside the site on the right. So that's where the dwelling would be located at the far end. And then this is Giles House, which is grid 2 star listed. That's the far end again where the stable is just on the left-hand side. And the boundaries will be retained, so all the dry stone walls would be retained. This is now looking from the grounds of Giles House towards the site. You can just make it out there where the cursor is. And then this is the allotment further to the west. And there would be an acoustic barrier on that edge there to protect any potential noise from the allotment. The site is currently unallocated, but it is in a predominantly residential area. In terms of impacts on heritage assets, our conservation officer has stated that there would be some minor impact on Giles House. And it wouldn't be substantial, it would be minor. So any harm needs to be balanced against any public benefits of the scheme. And the public benefits in this instance are the enhanced wildlife enhancements, the biodiversity net gain, the solar panels, the bat boxes and the bird boxes that would overrule the slight minor impact on the grid 2 star. So the recommendation is to permit with conditions.

Thank you. Do members have any questions for the officer? Thank you. Just to our highways officer, are you quite happy there with the access right on this bend? Because it is quite a very obtuse bend. And, you know, I know that traffic does come down Finkill Street at quite some speed there. Yeah. We don't have a concern about the nature of the bend. Just referring back to some of the wording from previous comments. Whilst the proposed access is located on the bend, drivers approaching that corner have restricted forward visibility which requires that they slow down on the approach to the bend which actually works to the benefit of it being a safe point of access. Particularly as the proposed access is on the outside of the bend where there would be significant visibility for emerging drivers. Are there any more questions from members? Councillor Kearney. Thank you, chair. Just through you to the highways officer. It was myself that took the photographs there in 2001. That's me standing on the very left-hand side of the hard surface there. So that would be a passenger. For me that would be like a passenger on the vehicle's view. A driver wouldn't be able to see the oncoming traffic. But looking at the plans, there's enough scope there, you know, there's enough of a red line to the left of the, you know, where the access is. You know, so that could be changed to make it so that somebody driving a vehicle when they're coming out would be able to see as far as, because there's another bend that comes round. So see like at the far end of the road that's going away from you on the left, further round there, there's a bend that actually comes round to the left as they're driving. You only need to take, you know, a couple of steps to the left and then you can see all the way to that other bend. As I say, looking at the plans, is that sort of, am I going too far with that coming or, I mean, if it was going to get done, it would be worth talking about it just now. All I can say is that as far as the standards are concerned, it's been deemed as being acceptable that it is in the location that it is. From that, I guess, egress perspective, I wouldn't want to comment further, really, if there's something that wants to be taken further into account, then perhaps others would have a view on it. But from a highways perspective, where it is at the moment is deemed as acceptable. Just to clarify that, obviously, we have to make a decision on the plans that are before us so we couldn't now subsequently ask them to widen it even further. But the fact that they are going to widen it slightly to the left of the access will mean that the driver can be slightly over. But as the highways officer says, from an egress perspective, the visibility is quite good because it's on the outside of the bend, it is acceptable from a highways point of view. Any more questions for the officers, from members? Okay, so I went there this morning, I gather it's a 20 mile an hour limit area. So does that get taken into account when you look at your, or is it, or do the decisions on visibility just apply whatever the speed limit? I believe the key factor is the fact that we've got such a significant bend there. I appreciate that it might seem kind of counterintuitive. But the fact that that bend in and of itself does so much to reduce the ability for any build up of speed is actually a really critical factor here. I'm sure the 20 mile per hour limit helps, but I think the nature of that bend and being on the outside of it is the critical combination of factors. Thank you. I was just going to clarify that if it was a 30 mile an hour or a 40 mile an hour road, not that it would be in a residential area, the visibility splays do have to be, if you're looking at a straight road, they've got to be wider, the faster the speed limit in accordance with manual for streets. But in this case, I don't think it would have a bearing. OK, thank you. So there's no further questions for the officers. And can we have the objector? I don't know. Is it Anne Maccavan or? Well, thank you for giving me some time to explain why I want to object to this. I live at 34 Warren Park, which is exactly opposite the paddock. And I just wanted to mention two or three things to you. The first thing is that we have a large amount of building in the whole region and hip a home area as you're you'll be very aware. And I think that for me, there are fewer and fewer areas of green belt where people can go and walk. And grassy lane is very, very well used. I have a conservatory at the back of my house. And all year round, you just see people using it to walk the dogs, take the children for a walk. They enjoy that area. If you were to go further up that road, that little lane, which is called grassy lane, you would see that there are at the moment allotments and some farming land. It goes on towards the football ground, which is again very well used. And we get lots of people using the football ground and then coming down for a walk. And then we've got now, as you mentioned earlier, we've got the quarry at that end. One of the things that I wanted to say is that not only is it such a lovely area for people to walk in and enjoy, but also I have a great reservation that if you allow this planning commission to happen here, then I'm afraid that the rest of grassy lane, you will be getting planning applications from people who own the allotments and around there. And so that's going to change the nature of that area and we'll lose what is a really lovely facility for everybody. I think one of the things that I wanted you all to think about is that the position of the house, and I appreciate that a lot of time and effort has gone into making sure that this fits with English heritage and everything else, where the paddock is now. If you go towards the road where the access will be, there is actually, it's a very long piece of land. And yes, we may well be looking at planning permission for this part of this piece of land. But to me, I just have grave reservations that that will stay like that and that you won't get other planning applications for that land. And again, I feel that that's a very difficult thing for the residents of Hovec and the people who enjoy this area. I really wanted to speak, you know, mainly about that, because, you know, I don't know, if the owner decides not to sell that land with planning permission, then he may well decide later on to, or may well decide before that house is sold, to look at using another part of that land. But my main concern of all of these is that access road. And I didn't listen to what Councillor Curtin said, and to what the gentleman from highway said about that access. And yes, if you go in half term, and you take a photo, the right time of day, you will see not very many cars parked along there. And you will see a road that you that looks like it's a safe road. Let me tell you that there are daily near misses on that road daily. And 39 weeks of the year, twice a day, we have a primary school at the end of that road, we have another one just further on under high school. Lots of children come out of school, and they use that road. And that road is double parked. And it is extremely dangerous. When I drive along that road, and I drive along it quite often, it is very, very easy, not it's very easy to only just avoid having an accident down there. There have been several where the dry stone wall has been damaged. And there was one only a few months ago. And you know, I really want to stress, I do not want to see children hurt on that piece of road. And I think access is very, very dangerous. Okay, I won't take up any more of your time. But thank you. Thank you. Do members have any questions? Councillor Kearney. Thanks for coming along. My only question is really about the footpath, because you are putting a lot of weight on the effect that we have on people using the footpath. And then you talked about, so I have just called up on Google Earth, you know, just to look beyond where the site is, and just sort of get an idea of where you might be anticipating for the planning permission type thing. But it's just more what you reckon, because the plans don't involve the actual footpath, so what impact would it have on the actual footpath in your view? I think if you grant planning permission for that, then other places along there will also ask for planning permission. And what I'm saying is you are changing the kind of, the role of that little footpath at the moment. I mean, I could sit here and I could tell you of the number of people who bring their children down there so they can listen to the horses, go and see the horses and stop there. It's great, you know, but I'm not here to say don't build opposite my house. That's not why I'm here. I'm looking at what is good for the community, and I do think that changing that is the start of changing the kind of, the whole ethos of that road. Okay, thank you. Councillor Brundell. Am I correct in thinking that the kind of concept is set in precedent for further planning applications as a material consideration? Through you, Chair. No, we can't take what may or may not happen on other sites as a material consideration. In this case, it's got to be each case on its own merits. Any more questions from members? So the other thing I just wanted to ask was, there was also a suggestion that if this house is granted permission, the owner, or if the owner sells, future owners may wish to build further houses within the boundary. So I think, in fact, you can say something about that, can't you? Thank you, Chair. Yes, because the rest of the application site forms part of the biodiversity net gain, which is the public benefit in relation to the proposal. It's down in Condition 8, that's the condition relating to the biodiversity enhancement and management of the site. They have to implement that biodiversity net gain for a minimum of 30 years. So any proposal within that area could not undermine the biodiversity net gains proposed in that site. Thank you. So definitely no more questions from Councillor Lee? Thank you, Chair. This business of not anticipating further action, I know it's a persuasive argument in these cases, but I'm led to understand that that cannot be taken into account by the Planning Committee. We'll look at each application on its merits. I absolutely understand the points that you're making, but I do think that I'm concentrating on this application, not what might happen in the future. But I just wanted to say that I do find it very persuasive, however, but I just wanted you to be aware that that is not something that we can take into account. Thank you. Thank you very much. And so I believe we have the agent, Nick Willock. Good afternoon, committee. My name is Nick Willock, and I'm the agent for this application. Considerable time and effort has gone into this case to ensure the development before you today is high quality and in keeping with the area. Myself, the architects and heritage experts have all worked closely with your planning and conservation officers and Historic England, including through a formal pre-application process when a site meeting took place. We've taken on board and actioned all feedback received in connection with preserving the setting of the adjacent Grade 2 star-listed Giles House. Nevertheless, Historic England have maintained throughout that they support the principle of housing on this site. So it was more a matter of agreeing the scale, layout and design of the dwelling and leaving the majority of the site as open space to the front of Giles House in order to preserve important views. Indeed, a number of design options were put forward at the pre-application stage, and the design concept before you today was the one originally supported by Historic England. A number of exceptional public benefits are also provided in this case above and beyond national planning policy requirements. These include a significant landscape enhancement plan for the entire site to include new native hedgerows, native trees and wildflower meadows; biodiversity net gain, as the officer mentioned, significantly exceeding the normal 10% requirement; biodiversity enhancements in the form of bird bat and hedgehog boxes; and a woodland management scheme to address existing soil compaction, as you saw from the photographs from overgrazing from horses. The thinning of young non-native trees such as sycamores and significant new tree planting. Lastly, an eco-home design which exceeds current planning policy and building regulation requirements. The house will be low energy with good insulation, triple glazed windows and solar panels. All these wider site improvements will collectively enhance the natural setting of the adjacent Giles House. High quality materials are also proposed including coarse natural stone, oak timber cladding, dry stone walls around the site perimeter will be preserved and a natural grass creek driveway is included. It is agreed by our highway officers that the addition of one dwelling would not materially impact on volumes on Lower Finkel Street or create any highway safety concerns generally. We would therefore like to endorse your officer's recommendation to grant permission in this case. Myself and the applicant, Mr Hall, who is also the landowner, are here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Do members have any questions? Councillor Kearney. Thanks. To do with my comments that I made earlier on in the previous section, it would just, as it would with the people doing the development, would they be willing to move the, either move or widen the entranceway exit to the left to increase the visibility for the person exiting, exiting the, you know, the exit so they could see the maximum amount of the right hand lane as they're looking at, looking at it, so that they could see oncoming traffic. We've got an open mind on that. I mean, we think that when you come out to that access, you've got a clear visibility going straight down that street ahead of you and you've got clear visibility to the right. So we're happy with the access and the visibility at the moment. But if the committee is a whole and officers support a slight adjustment, we're happy to do that. Any further questions from members? Okay, so just one thing I wanted to clarify. So we saw a photograph earlier on, in the way this is for officers, but we saw a photograph earlier on of the view from Giles House that I think you'd taken this morning. No, I'm sorry. So, but would it be right to say that, because it's not necessarily apparent from photographs, that the frontage of Giles House doesn't point that way? It points effectively across the picture. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to make a comment and I agree with most things that Mrs McAvan has said that, and I do feel that it will affect the siting of Giles House, and I still think that it will create a problem for highways, especially at busy times with access at that point. So I will not be supporting this application. I will propose that we reject the application on highway grounds and the sitting of Giles House. Thanks. I'd like to, I don't know the correct word to say, but I'd like to propose that we accept it, but include a condition along the lines of what I've been talking about, to have the driver of any vehicle exiting so they can see as much of the lane coming towards them as possible. And to mitigate the concerns about road safety that were made by the World Councillor and the communication that's on there. Thank you. Perhaps the, um, I think it perhaps best if you've said that. Thank you. Through you, Chair. And whilst we could, um, perhaps either amend condition five or put an additional condition in for further details of the access to be included because, um, the access is acceptable in highway terms. I mean, the applicant or agent might be, might be amenable to such a condition, but it wouldn't necessarily pass the six tests required by the MPPF because it wouldn't necessarily, it wouldn't necessarily, it wouldn't be considered necessary because we already have an acceptable access before us. So I think what you're saying in effect is a condition would have no legal standing because it's already an acceptable application in those terms, in highways terms. I mean, it would have a legal standing if we put it on, but it might be considered to be unreasonable and should the applicant then decide to appeal against that condition, we would have very limited defence to put up against that. In the light of that Councillor, do you want to proceed with that condition? I'm sorry, Councillor Kenny. I don't think that's possible. I think that is not the same as being able to undo a condition that you've put on. And I think the difficulty is here. You've heard what the officers have said. It's perfectly acceptable in highways terms. If there's a voluntary agreement afterwards, that's one matter. But I think it's the advice is that it's not appropriate to amend that condition. The application before this committee is the one that specifies the location of the access. I think it was already stated it was moving two or three feet to the left anyway. I think from what was said, the dry stone wall is going to be knocked down a little bit on the left-hand side. So it's moving us slightly to the left in any event, but the highways advice that's given to the committee is that the citing of the access is adequate. I think the applicants indicated that from their perspective, they consider it to be adequate to two. Therefore, the reasonableness of the condition, which would require it to be moved, would not pass the test as Lauren has indicated. The committee should really take this application based on what is before it rather than an assessment that hasn't been made by a highway officer trained to consider splays and visibility. Councillor Kearney? Does anyone have any proposals? Sorry, my mic is playing up. I'm happy to go with officer's recommendations and permit. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So we are now moving on to application 24 stroke, triple zero, four eight stroke full, which is change of use from bed and breakfast guest house, which is used class C one to a six bedroomed house in multiple occupation at three hundred and three Huddersfield road in Halifax. So can we please hear from the officer? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor, and through you, so just as an update to write in the officer's report, we have received representations from the applicant who's made a counter argument to the objections we received from Councillor Mike Barnes and also Councillor Mike Barnes has submitted a statement, which is requested should be read at the committee. And I'll do that at the appropriate moment. Okay, so just for clarification purposes, the application is for house in multiple occupancy, and I'm going to refer that to HMO for ease. HMO also for clarification relates to unrelated people, i.e. not in a family living together in a house. So in this presentation, I'll quickly be going through the site plan, the photographs will show the context of the site, the proposed plans, and I'll be looking at some of the issues in the reports, but I'll be focusing on the objections that have been raised. So this is the site plan. It's not clear here, but it's a semi-detached property built out of stone. It's along the A629, which is this road here. This road to the north leads to the Halifax town centre, which is about 1.2 miles, and the road towards the south leads to Elland, Brickhouse, Huddersfield, and Junction 24 of the M62. And this area, the south, is the Calderdale Royal Hospital. So this is an aerial photograph. You can sort of see there's a cluster of buildings, if you can see my cursor, and it's in the northwest corner of this cluster of buildings. You can see the car park from the Calderdale Royal Hospital, and it's also within the conservation area, and it's in this strip of land, which is east of Huddersfield Road, and it's also called the Huddersfield East Conservation Area. So this is the photograph of the site. It's a building on the right-hand side of the semi-detached. You can see a green placard there. If I just focus in, if you can read, it says Kirkleigh is currently operating as a guesthouse, bread and breakfast. So this is a side elevation. There's a lower basement area, there's a ground floor area, first floor, and a roof accommodation at second floor. And this is the rear elevation of the property. It's been extended by way of a conservatory. So this is one of the plans that have been submitted. It shows there's capacity for a refuge storage area within the back to that area. So these are the existing floor plans. They're essentially the same as the proposed floor plans. It's just that the lower ground floor bedroom, that's going to change into a cycle storage area. So this is the floor plans. This is the bedroom that's going to be converted into an occasional room, which is also to be used for cycle storage. There's another occasional room, which is also to be used for cycle storage, and you've got a utility. And then you've got a shower in the basement, which will be used for bedroom number six at the ground floor level. There's going to be a communal dining room area, and there's a kitchen area here where you can see my cursor, and it spills onto the conservatory at the ground floor. At the first floor, you've got bedroom three, which will have a bathroom on the other side of the house. And then you've got bedroom one and bedroom two, they've got an ensuite shower with toilet and basin. And at the top level in the attic, you've got bedroom four and bedroom five, and they will share a shower room, and you've got a water closet and a water basin in that corner. So in considering this application, we received consultations from highways. They have no objections, subject to refuse and cycle storage areas, which has been provided and shown on plans. Currently, the guest house has three parking permits, and they're going to be retained for the new HMO use. Also in highways have commented that their service shows that car ownership is low for HMO use. The site is also very close to a bus stop, so it's close to public transport, and they've got no objections. West Yorkshire police have commented they've got no principal objections, but they have made comments regarding access, CCTV, locks, mail delivery, management plans and rules. The applicant has addressed these comments, and we're satisfied with the applicant's supporting statement in this respect. Environmental health have commented they've got no objections. They've pointed out a mandatory license is required, and they are satisfied with room sizes, cooking and washing facilities, which they consider to be acceptable. In terms of policy, in the report we've mentioned policy HS7. This directly relates to HMO uses, and there are seven areas which it looks at, and these have been itemized in the report. They're to do with appearance, character of the locality, building, the amenities of neighbouring residents and the intended occupiers. It asks to look at highway consideration regarding public transport and parking and HMOs. The proposal should not disproportionately add to the concentration of HMOs in the area. Like I said, these have been itemized in the report. So in terms of objections, Council Barnes has said that the tenant's intention is to have this HMO for professional doctors and nurses, and we agree with Council Barnes that you can't condition this or enforce this. The recommendation is not based on the applicant's intention to use this for professional doctors and nurses, because the occupation of tenants is not a material planning consideration. One of the objections is regarding lack of amenities. We consider that, officers consider that there is adequate communal areas, bedroom sizes adequate, and the facilities for washing is also acceptable. Council Barnes has expressed concern that for bedroom six, you have to go downstairs for the shower room. In a normal house, going up and down stairs for washing is quite a normal process. It's also been commented that West Yorkshire Police would prefer self-contained apartments. Although they're not objecting this application, we've just got to consider this application has submitted, which is for a HMO. On that basis, we've considered it in terms of respective policies, and officers are happy with it. Finally, Council Barnes has expressed concern regarding the cycling storage at the basement, and how difficult it would be to bring it up to the ground floor for use. The applicant, since writing this report, has submitted some photographs demonstrating that the cycles can be brought up and down those steps. To conclude, officers consider the proposal acceptable in terms of policies, in particular in regard to highway safety and residential amenities. There's not very much mention of cooking facilities in the report. On the plan, the kitchen looks quite small, and with six bedrooms, potentially that could be 12 evening meals, having to get prepared on the same day. Are there any official guidelines on how much in the rare facilities there are in an HMO with a shared kitchen? In terms of the kitchen area, this is the kitchen area, and it spills into the ground floor conservatory area. I received some supporting information from the applicant regarding these areas. This kitchen area is 8.4 square metres, and the conservatory that the kitchen would spill onto is 9.25 square metres. Altogether, that's 17.65 square metres. We consider that to be acceptable. It's a judgement. There's nothing in the policy that says this is how much space you need for an HMO. It really comes down to a judgement. We have policy BT1, which considers in assessing this application in terms of residential amenities for prospective tenants. Like I said, it's a judgement call, and we consider that this space is adequate, and also the washing facilities as well. I think we have a lady here from Environmental Health, so perhaps if at this stage you could go forward. I just want to clarify the points on the sizes. This application will require a mandatory licence, and in our assessment, there is minimum sizes for kitchens, minimum sizes for bedrooms, and there is minimum specification for, depending on the number of people. So for one cooker for every five people, and then you increase on that, there will be also requirements for food storage, so depending on how many people are there, and how the HMO is operated will depend on the room sizes and the facilities which are needed. But that will all be tied into the HMO licence, so that will be specified in that. So that's under Part 2 of the Housing Act. So would this count as somewhere that could potentially have like 12 occupants, and then if so, if it's one cooker per five, does that have to get rounded up as soon as you get beyond a multiple of five? No, it goes up on a sliding scale, so for seven, we'd go for like a six burner, so it depends on, there's no clear set rules, it all depends on the facilities, so in this case, the kitchen facilities are all shared, so they're not in the bedrooms. They do have the additional dining room, which also then is another facility where they could put additional storage in. So the minimum, for this application, the applicant has duly made an application to the council, and that is for seven persons, and that's what we will limit it to. So we will assess the licence for seven persons, even though it's a six bedroom HMO, and the facilities that we will request will rely upon seven persons. That application is just pending, going through the process with Environmental Health at the moment in time. So the original application was for a seven bedroom house in multiple occupancy, and what they proposed was accommodation at the lower basement floor. Officers weren't happy with that, therefore they reduced it to six bedroom house HMO, and that's on the title of the proposal description, so that's what it would be for in terms of planning in front of us. Just to clarify, so if they wanted a seven person HMO, they could do that outside of the planning remit, but that would mean one of the bedrooms would be for a couple. For example, they wouldn't be able to put a bedroom in the basement in planning terms, because that's not what we've accepted in planning terms. Just to confuse you. Sorry, just to add, in relation to the basement room, we're not happy with the basement room either, being used as a bedroom accommodation. The window is too small in our view, so that's why the applicant has changed. Lauren was correct, one of the bedrooms will probably be for a couple, hence seven persons or six bedrooms, but in the licence it will stipulate bedroom one, one person, one household. Bedroom two, if that's going to be used as a double, it will say two persons, one household, so then you don't get two households, two people not related in the same bedroom. But that's all stipulated in the licence. Thank you. Councillor Koenig. I suppose it's really on the satellite gallery, so it's pretty clear what my concerns are, but is that grounds, does that open the door to being against it? So it's really a legal question, I think. I'm not really sure what the question is, Councillor, sorry. So, like the kitchen facilities, it looks like there's different, what your colleague was talking about there, just dealing with the licence type thing. So I'm not sure where I stand in my concerns, whether that allows me to, you know. I think the response you got as far as the kitchen and other facilities required in the HMO licence would, they would have to be adequate and appropriate for occupancy of this property by seven people. The planning applications before you is for a six bedroomed property with one of those bedrooms capable of being occupied and it would be stipulated which bedroom capable of being occupied by two people from the same household. So the planning application would not permit occupation of any other room than those that are identified on this plan. The HMO licence, if the planning application is granted, would then go on and stipulate the specific facilities including cooking and storage that would be appropriate for a property that has been granted planning permission for use as a six bedroomed HMO occupied by seven people. So it's two separate regimes but they'd obviously be linked to some degree by recognising that the licence would not be contrary or be different from what was permitted under the planning regime. I'll just clarify that in this case the kitchen link into the conservatory that's shown there on the ground floor, so that has 17.65 square metres. So in planning policy terms we are satisfied that that's not going to harm the amenities of intended occupiers. The controlling of that is by separate means of legislation but also in terms of how you are going to draw your own conclusions from that. We're not at the debating phase so don't close your mind yet because we've still got to hear from other parties. Councillor Lee. Thank you, Chair. I think my question is going to be the same sort of situation as you described in that I'm assuming the planning remit is absolutely the planning remit and any rules about what you can use these various spaces for comes under this different licence. Because the question that immediately came to mind for me was six months into this somebody wants to have a snack at nine o'clock before the main programme comes on. And there's a temptation, I'm sure, for people to do cooking and other activities that might not lend themselves to these bedrooms around the house. So presumably there's nothing that from a planning perspective we could introduce to restrict the usage of cooking with cookers to the kitchen or something like that. That's correct. There's no mechanism under planning how people are going to have a rotator or arrange when to use the kitchen or the shed, the sort of bathroom, showers. Okay, Councillor Holdsworth. Just got a quick question, really, about parking. I know the point's been made that there are three parking permits, but if you've got seven people and the aspiration, I know it can't be enforced, is that these occupants would be professional, the likelihood may well be that they do have more than one car between all of them. And I know this area really well, and parking is horrendous, and that I think is problematic. So it's just a question about the lack of willingness of highways to consider further permits, and also, am I right in thinking there'll be a charge for each permit? Through you, Chair, we've received highways comments, and absolutely, they've acknowledged that the area does suffer from very high levels of parking demands, basically it's close to the hospital. And what they're saying is that service taken by the councils show that car ownership levels are low for HMA uses. Typically, no more than one resident in a property will have a car, and there are three car parking permits in this. And also, regarding possibility of unregulated car park, it's a strictly controlled parking area with double year lines and permits, so that is self-regulating in terms of excessive car use. Yeah, I absolutely got that, I read that, but my point was this, that clearly, the proximity to the hospital has led the applicant to hope that the residents may be professional people employed in the health service in some capacity. And therefore, it may well be that there is more than one car for a multiple occupancy household in this case. And my question was, presumably there is a charge for these permits, and is it absolutely inconceivable that there would be any more permits made available, should the demand be there? Yeah, I think perhaps the question regarding charging can go to highways, but regarding the permits, highways have commented that it's unlikely, very unlikely, there will be more than three parking permits allowed for that particular property. Right, yes, I did read that, but I was just questioning the assumption that there would only be one likely car owner if the people were professionals, they may have more than one car between seven of them. Thank you. I don't know if the gentleman at the end wants to add anything more from highways. Well, I think the simple answer to the small question you had about permits being charged is yes. I think that's the only additionality that was asked of me really, so yeah. Through you, Chair, I think it's just important to state that in terms of our highways comments and the view of highways officers is that the three permits is adequate for the HMO, and if occupants had any more cars than three, they would have to comply with the parking regulations in that area. Yeah, I think they also noted that of course there would be, when it's operating as a guest house, there would be a higher than average household demand for cars, so there already will have been a frequently changing population of people trying to park for there, so in that sense it may not have changed much. Sorry, so no more questions from members for the officers, so thank you. And then can we, well, we don't have a Councillor here, but I think we have a letter written by Councillor Baines Barnes, sorry, who was unable to attend. Yeah, through you, Chair, so I'll read the statement from Councillor Barnes. Unfortunately, I'm unable to attend today, so I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity for my objections to be read out. My objections are based on inaccurate information being submitted by the applicant, self-imposed and unenforceable conditions in order to circumvent the initial concerns raised by West Yorkshire Police, together with the scale of the proposal. This is pure intensification, profit over reason. The applicant has already reduced the number of rooms from eight to six, and I believe this should be reduced even further with each room having its own shower/toilet facilities. If this was the case, I would have no objections. I will start with bedroom six. Just for clarification, I'll just show you bedroom six. I failed to see how this room has not been provided with the in-built shower facilities. It is larger than bedroom two, but that room has an in-built enclosure. Should not the same apply for bedroom six? Note that the planning report is slightly erroneous in that my objection was in having to go up and down one flight of stairs to use the commercial communal areas. It is about going up and down to use either a shower, bath or toilet. Also, the applicant indicates that all bar room three have only showers, and the tenants in room three can only have one bath. Moving on to bedroom three, this is a small room measuring nine square metres. Once you add in a minimum amount of furniture, how much space is left? And yet, we are expected to believe that the owner will only rent out to professional doctors or nurses. This is a self-imposed and unenforceable condition. I have mentioned inaccuracy in the submission. This relates to the applicant's response to police concerns, stating that only two rooms share a shower and water closet room. The exact number is four, and if my maths is correct, this is double the number the applicant states. The police also asked, inverted commas, it would be highly preferable to divide the dwelling into separate self-constrained apartments, which at least creates a larger living accommodation and creates more defensible spaces for each resident. If this is not an option, then each room should at least have its own kitchen, cooking facilities to reduce the amount of shared facilities and create some level of defensible space for each resident. This has not been done. The answer from the applicant relies purely on the aforementioned self-imposed condition regarding the nature of the tenants. The applicant's implying that doctors and nurses cannot be criminals. Finally, on the subject of access to the lower ground floor, regarding this being used for cycle storage, I completely disagree with the officer. An average bike width ranges from 40 to 60 centimetres with a length of 170 centimetres. The assumption appears to be that the bikes being used will not be electric bikes. These tend to weigh twice as much at around 30 kilos. I am not sure the officer has ever tried to manoeuvre a bike down a set of enclosed stairs with solid walls on either side and around two 90 degree corners. This is not an easy feat on top. The door to the stair at the top opens outwards and into the free space giving no room to manoeuvre. The easiest way would be to wheel a bike into the kitchen area, turn around and head down the stairs. This is not acceptable in a shared facility. Therefore, I urge the committee not to accept the application as proposed, but rather request that the developer reconsider the numbers of bedrooms, each having their own toilet shower facilities. Thank you. I think we now move on to the applicant or agent. Mr Singh. Chair, Councillors, officers, ladies and gentlemen, the Kirkleigh guesthouse has been a staple of the community for over 36 years in its current form and we have actually run it ourselves for the last 20 years. Now, during the COVID-19 pandemic, like many businesses, we struggled to stay afloat but managed to persevere and with assistance. However, upon reopening, we now face new challenges. These being things like skyrocketing business utility rates, food costs, commissions from booking platforms, because that's where everybody goes now. They are a hefty 18%, along with credit card charges, everybody's paying by credit card and you have to pay a fee for that, which we no longer can pass on. Additionally, the unregulated Airbnb accommodation have made it difficult for us to compete with the increasing costs. To address these challenges, we saw alternatives to sustain our business. We already serve the hospital with short to medium term stays for doctors and nurses. Therefore, we know there is a demand for this type of facility. Although we accept that the sentiment of the objector that we're not relying on just that, but that is our prime objective. We decided to change the business model into an HMO rather than the unlicensed and unregulated Airbnb establishment. Prior to the application, we consulted with the environmental health HMO licensing team to ensure that we could and we do already as a guest house meet the requirements. For the change of use, we have verbal support from the accommodation department, HMO licensing and planning department. There is only one objection, so our aim is to address these concerns to secure a favorable decision today. The planning officer has already commented on the response that I had submitted, which is available online. I'm not sure if you've actually seen that, but I can go through them. I've evidenced it as an avid cyclist myself and a Marshall from the Tour de France days. I have a bike and I've evidenced that there is a safe access down into the basement. If you want, I can show you the pictures or you can see them on the application online. Rather than actually going through each point that has already been mentioned, I would like to clarify that yes, the application was for a higher number of occupancy, but with consultation from planning, it has been reduced to six. The occupation will be one per room rather than two, but the application originally because it was for seven and they were done simultaneous to planning and HMO licensing said seven, but the intention is for one. If that is to be changed, then that would be through the HMO licensing team. With regards to the facilities, the kitchen that has been mentioned by council carrier, that it all meets the requirements that are set out by planning and have been set out by HMO licensing. With regards to the parking, currently there is more, with the statement made by highways, yes, the car ownership would be less based upon previous council, I don't know where they got the information from, but it seems right that occupancy, car ownership is less with HMOs, but there is a licensing, we have three car parking licenses that can be used. There would be less traffic and less car parking requirements as HMOs are steady rather than visiting people that are coming onto site. With all that said, the objection has been addressed, all the regulations and requirements have been met, so I would ask that the application is for the change of use, and is respectfully accepted and decision guaranteed today. Thank you. Thank you. Do members have any questions? I don't have any questions, so does anybody have a proposal or any further comment? Yes, there are no further questions for you. Any comments or proposals from members? If no-one else has, I am quite happy with this application, I understand some of the comments addressed around communal space and size of rooms, but to me it seems like the applicant has reduced for it to be acceptable and I would be happy to permit in line with office recommendations. Thank you. I forgot to turn my microphone on, so just for clarification, this is the change of use of dwelling house to HMO for 116 Leicester Lane, Halifax, so if we can hear the officer's report first, please. Thank you, Chair, and through you. I just want to note something about this application. The application description does not limit the number of tenants and bedrooms, because the application, as described, is for change of use of dwelling house to house in multiple occupancy, HMO. So potentially more rooms can be converted into bedrooms and could have multiple tenants in each room, even possibly up to 15. I just wanted to put out a clarification in terms of the description. The officer's recommendation is refusal on the ground of substandard residential amenities for potential occupiers. We have received a representation, a support from Councillor Kahn, and he has asked for this to go to committee if officers were minded to refuse it. In addition, Councillor Lynn has submitted an objection. We have received 22 representations altogether, 18 objections, with a petition of 30 signatories and four letters of support. In this presentation, I'll be going through the site plan, the photos, which shows the context of the site, the proposed plans, and I'll address some of the issues where representations have been submitted. So as you can see from the site plan, it's sort of a mid-terrist property. You've got Lister Lane, as you can see in my cursor. So if you can see this cursor, this is Lister Lane. The site is close to the junction with Francis Street. On this street here is Gibb Street, and just outside the site plan, you've got Hopwood Lane on this side. So this is the aerial plan, and this site is just outside the People's Park Conservation Area, which runs along Lister Lane. It's just outside it. So this is the photograph. This is the front of the 116 Lister Lane. It's a two-story, Ashley-built house with a slate, quite a large dormer there. So this photograph is looking down Lister Lane, and this road, you can see in the background, that's Francis Street. And this photo is taken from Francis Street, looking up along Lister Lane. And this is the back of the property, and this is a closer view of the yard in that property. And this is a photograph taken from Francis Street, looking at Flournan Street, and on the left-hand side is the application site. So a number of plans I've shown on each floor of the existing plans. I'll quickly wince through these, but generally the house is a seven-bedroom house. And these are the existing and proposed basement plans. On the proposed basement plan, it's intended to have communal, utilities, storage areas. Sorry, on these, you've got two store plans on the proposed plan. So this is the plan at ground floor level. You've got a kitchen, which is 11.3 square metres, and you've got a communal lounge and living area, and you've also got a bedroom. A particular concern is this kitchen. Officers consider that eight unrelated people sharing this house, this kitchen is far too small, it's substandard, and officers consider this level of kitchen for eight residents to be unacceptable. Moving on to the first floor plan, this bedroom two, which is 7.9 metres, is considered to be too small. I just want to quickly show you the top floor, then I'll go back to this floor again. So on the top floor, there are four bedrooms, and they're marked out in terms of their sizes. You'll note that there are no washing facilities there. The only washing facility in the whole house for eight residents would be these two rooms. So this is very difficult to see, but you've got a water closet, a bathroom, and a basin, which completely fills the small room. And then you've got a slightly larger room, which has got water closet, basin, and a shower room. And this level of washing facilities by officers is considered to be substandard for eight unrelated tenants using this house for HMO. So in considering the application, there were consultations received from highways. They have no objections. They consider this to be in a sustainable location with good links to public transport. Wexley, Yorkshire police have commented, they've said that consideration should be given to access CCTV's, locks, mail deliveries, management plan and rules. These have not been addressed by the planning agent. That said, if officers were minded to support this application, further information could have been requested, or these requirements could have been conditioned. So it's not a principle objection. Environmental health have commented they've got no objections, subject to satisfactory waste collection. And on the basement plan, there is provision for cycle storage and waste storage. In this assessment, as in the previous application, policy H7 is relevant, which directly relates to HMOs. There again, there are seven areas which it looks at, and each have been addressed and itemised in the report. They include the appearance and character of the locality in the building, amenities of neighbouring residents and of the intended occupiers, highways consideration regards to public transport and parking, and there should be no disproportional concentration of HMOs in the vicinity. Before I go into representations, while none of the representations, both supporting and objecting, have mentioned residential amenities, it's for this particular reason alone that the application is recommended for refusal. In particular, when I was going through the floor plans, it's one of the bedrooms which is small, the kitchen is substandard, and the level of bathroom/shower facilities is substandard. In terms of objections, as I mentioned before, we received objection from Councillor Lynn and 18 residents and petition of 30 signatories. Their concern is that the application is not in harmony with family-oriented setting. Officers' response is that tenants and their marriage status is not material planning consideration. There's been concern regarding potential behaviour of tenants. This is also not a material planning consideration how future tenants would behave. There's been concern regarding lack of parking. In fact, there is no off-street parking, but officers' view is that there is no material increase in parking demand from a HMO to the current use for a seven-bedroom house. Furthermore, with this application, there is provision for eight-cycle storage. There's been concern regarding the impact of heritage assets. There are no external alterations proposed, so there's no impact on that. There's been concern regarding impact on services. The change from seven bedrooms to eight bedrooms would not, in officers' view, be a significant demand in additional services. Lastly, there was objection on property values. This, as mentioned before, is also not a material planning consideration. There is support from Councillor Kahn and three other residents, altogether four. Their sporting comments said that the creation of affordable housing option, that this is what they will create, extra affordable housing options. This is noted, but officers' view is that this option should not compromise the quality of living accommodation for the future residents. Finally, they've noted that six tenants operating as a HMO would not require planning permission. This is true. If six tenants were to move in to be operating as a HMO, that would not require planning permission. This proposal is for eight bedrooms, and potentially you can have more residents in one of the bedrooms, potentially up to 15. This does require planning permission, and this needs to be assessed. Finally, just to conclude, the issues raised in the representations have been addressed in the presentation and in the officers' report. The representations have not raised matters of residential amenities, but it is because of this specific reason there is insufficient level of residential amenities because of the substantial kitchen, washing facilities, and one of the bedrooms. It is for this reason that the application is contrary to policy, in particular BT1 and HS7. Thank you. Thank you. Do members have any questions for the officer? Councillor Lee. Excuse me, Chair. Would it be possible to show the slide? Yes, can you show the slide which shows the kitchen area, please? So, there's the kitchen and that lounge living/dining area next to it. It seemed, for the number of people, that those facilities were sort of shared facilities for dining, lounging, living. It seemed a very small space for this number of people to do all of those things. I was just checking that that was the case. So, as far as the planning rules go, is that an adequate space, in the officer's opinion, for doing all of those things? Officers would agree with you. We consider this to be substandard. One of the policies, BT1, asks us to look at residential amenities for prospective occupiers, and yes, we agree. We consider this to be substandard. We agree with you that this is substandard for the level of occupants. Did you say substandard? Substandard, yes. Thank you. Any more questions for the officer? No, in that case, thank you, and can I call council for gear? Sorry, can you come forward and use the microphone, please? Hi there. I'd just like to raise a couple of points. Some newly elected council for the park ward, so this comes to my attention as of last week. I'll chat with both applicants, the guys' application, and the residents who live in the area as well. So, the residents in the area that are against the application, they're saying this should not be going through. Also, regarding next door, there's a guy with bipolar mental health issues living next door, and it will create more noise with eight bedsits being there, and the application going for the HMO. So, therefore, I support the residents for their application to approve this today. Of course, I was in a board forum meeting two weeks ago in park ward. One of the concerns for people there was for the HMO, which are getting issued in our area, which are causing more problems with the crime and with misuse of people living there in the areas, and creating more noise, and plus having the traffic issues in the area as well. And this is a big concern from the residents in the area for not to support this. So, therefore, I would like to ask for everyone to look into this properly and consider or see what is the right way of moving forward with this application with the officers. So, these are the concerns of the residents who live in the area, and that's what they're saying, that it should not go through. And they want me to address forward with the noise and the issues of what they've got there. That's my objection. Thank you. I don't know if the officer would like to just come back, particularly on the question of the number of HMOs in the area. As mentioned in the officer's report, we've got no evidence to show how many HMOs there are in the area. So, does anyone else have any questions? Thank you. I understand many of the objections. I just wanted to check on the issue of potential noise and potential disruption of tenants that could be in there. Am I right in thinking we can't really make a decision based on that because there's nothing to say they'd be more disruptive than, say, a family moving into that home? Through you, Chair, that's correct. Inevitably, when you have a residence living in a house, there's noise. It's a residential use in a residential setting. They're compatible uses. So, Councillor, you did mention an issue about crime. We can't say that. It's not a planning consideration of what the tenants are going to, what will happen. And you also did mention traffic issues, and we've discussed that the level of potential use for HMO is not going to be much more than the current use. Thank you. Any more questions for Councillor Seguin from members? No? OK. Thank you very much. So, can Mr Walker, the agent, move forward, please? I've been through the officers report. We're actually applying our principles to apply for the change of use to an HMO comprising of eight rooms with facilities. The facilities, yeah, they probably are a little low, but we were covering that by the under licence where we were prepared. The actual dining room, which you can see on there, we discussed with Environmental Health about making part of that related to the kitchen for storage and also to use part of the basement for storage for refrigerators or fridges or anything like that. We understand that it can be converted into six without planning, but we are wanting to put eight rooms in. Because of the, as it's been described about the number of occupants, then we are prepared to form maybe en suite bathrooms in some of the rooms. It's an open map, really, because the rooms are so large, they could put en suite bathrooms into some of the rooms, but our principle was to obtain planning permission for the change of use initially. And then we can go down the road where everything will be covered under the licence, which is better to be a protected building then than an unprotected one if you've only got six occupants in it. Basically, the support we had was from Environmental Health and from highways. West Yorkshire Police did make their recommendations, which we're happy to take on board. Admittedly, we haven't put them on board on the application in front of you, but these can be conditioned to whatever they want, because obviously that would come under the actual licensing application. With the requirements, we did meet with Environmental Health prior to submitting any planning applications or drawing any plans up. And all the room sizes and requirements were discussed and agreed upon, size-wise, for bedrooms, etc. But any minor requirements or alterations we'd be quite happy to deal with under the licence application. So we'd like to request the application be approved. Thank you. Thank you. Do members have any questions? Yes, Councillor Lee. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for your presentation. I'm a bit confused. It seems that on the one hand, all you wanted to get today was the outline permission to do this, as opposed to what's been presented to us today for approval as a project, as it were. Is that right? Yes, it's the principle of the change of use of the actual property. Yes, I understand. And that everything else is covered on the licence side. I can understand now with the presentation. Yes, there are. So your application today is for the project, as defined in front of us, should be approved. Yes. So if it were approved, that by definition would be approval that you could do it, yes? Well, you've said you've indicated that you could do things. And I think that the facilities that I've seen are very questionable. It's a very basic sort of report here. But you've indicated that you would consider some more bathroom facilities in the property. And I just want you to reiterate that you are willing to do that because it may well be the subject of that sort of condition. It might be acceptable. But for me, as it stands now, there's too many question marks about it. Yes, well, really the actual layouts that are on there now are pretty much as they exist in kitchens and bathrooms, et cetera, et cetera. Had we been made aware that the occupancy levels could have been, class has been a lot higher and the amenity space was low from a planning point of view, then, yes, we could have amended it before it came to committee. Two officers wish to respond. Yes. Just for clarification, as the case officer and the agent, we did have discussions regarding this application. And I did propose that, you know, reduce it to a level of six. And that was rejected. So we have had this discussion. So we're considering what's in front of us because, you know, there wasn't a way forward for amendments that the agent would accept. Any more questions? If I can just ask then, it's an application in principle for the change of use but it actually demonstrates a number of rooms and a number of facilities and, therefore, even though it's simply for the change of use, you cannot consider that without looking at the number of rooms and the facilities that are provided in that application. Yes, I would agree with that assessment. Okay, so there's no more questions. Thank you. So can I ask if there are any further comments from members or any proposals to put forward? Councillor Kearney? I'd like to propose that we accept the officer's recommendations. Seconder? Sorry. Councillor Ahmed? So can I see votes on the proposal to accept the recommendation to refuse? Any amendments? Sorry, Councillor Lee? I propose that we should, I don't know how we could do this, that we should invite the applicants to resubmit this application with all of... I'm sorry, Councillor Lee, I think that's not an amendment. That's not an amendment, but what is an amendment? You can't propose an amendment just to resubmit an application because there's nothing before the committee upon which then to determine that amendment. So it wouldn't be a valid amendment, I'm afraid. I was just trying to make progress. Okay, so I can't do that, so I don't have an amendment. Thank you. In which case I had a proposal and a seconder. Can I see a show of hands on that proposal? And against? So that application is refused. Thank you to those who attended and thank you members and officers for your help during this meeting, which is now closed.