Transcript

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Hello, apologies for the delay in getting started. But just technical issues to sort out, but that's all done now. So I just want to say, good evening and welcome to this evening's meeting of the service and neighborhood committee, Glenmore House. And particularly warm welcome to those members of the public with us tonight. I'm Councillor Tom Reeve, and I'm chairing the meeting tonight. In the event of an emergency, and the sounding of an alarm, the emergency evacuation procedure is to leave the hole by the fire exit. One behind you, and congregate in the parking lot, car park. Anyone requiring assistance should remain in their seats, and you'll be assisted from the building. Anybody who wishes to follow the agenda from their tablet or smartphone can do so by going to the Council's website and try following the links to your Council and Council meeting calendar. So this meeting is being filmed for live broadcast on the Council's YouTube channel. And an archive version will be available to view on the channel after the meeting finishes. And the broadcast will be suspended during any adjournments and proceedings. And if the committee resolves to consider information as exempt business. And members are reminded that microphones must be switched on spoken into clearly for the broadcast, please. And please can everyone present in the meeting also ensure that your mobile phones are switched off or in silent mode for the duration of the meeting, please. So I'd like to start by inviting members to introduce themselves. And I suppose I'll start with Jackie over here, please.

That's it, very loud. Hi, good evening everyone. My name is Jackie Davis and I represent Beridin's ward. Hi, Liz Green from Marks and Seething Wells Ward. Hello, I'm Diane White from also from St Marks and Seething Wells Ward. Jorgen, Jorgen, Adam from Seething Wells and St Marks, St Marks and Seething Wells. Good evening, I'm Councillor Aussan Holt, and I represent Serpent and Hill Ward. I'm also portfolio holder for economic development and leisure. I'm Deputy Leader. Here is Councillor for Alexander Ward and also portfolio holder of climate action and sustainable transport. Councillor Peter Herling, also representing Alexander Ward. Andrew Wardridge, just a common Torworth Councillor. Thank you, I'm also Councillor Portola Ward. Marianne Gontav is also for Talworth. Good evening, my name is Anita Sharper, Councillor Barrelan's ward, good evening. Okay, thank you very much Councillors. So, I just need to say that the committee and members of the public are reminded that the Mayor of London in London Assembly elections will take place on the 2nd of May. And for this election, the pre-election period commenced on the 19th of March. Well, normal decision making can continue in committee meetings held as part of the ordinary business of the council. Care should be taken to avoid the perception that meetings are being used as platforms for candidates or parties standing for election or for public debate on controversial subjects featuring in party political campaigns. But I ask everybody to bear this in mind when speaking this evening. Now, before moving on to the agenda items, I'd just like to make a brief announcement on the Torworth area healthy streets scheme. After the committee approved a list of minor improvements to the streets using the healthy streets tools for implementation at its special meeting on the 13th of March. I can confirm that the minor improvements will be implemented with no change. I'm happy to hear from residents who have suggestions they'd like to have considered by the highways team for placement of the slow markings painted on the roads. So, moving on to item one, we have public questions. We have a period of no more than 30 minutes for questions on matters relevant to the committee. And we'd like to encourage questions to be submitted in advance. So the officers have an opportunity to answer them, although that's not absolutely necessary. So we have five residents have indicated they wish to ask a question tonight. And I'll invite each to ask one question and you'll be given the opportunity to ask a supplementary question if appropriate. And any subsequent questions you may have will be considered only after all of the residents have had the opportunity to ask their first questions if time allows. And to allow all residents the opportunity to ask at least one question, please keep your question under two minutes and be as concise as possible. If you wish to preface the question with a statement, please be brief and to the point. And Herman will inform you when 30 seconds are left and when time is up. So I'd like to start with Liz Mitchell, please. Yeah, I'm chatting with you to say something. Oh, oh, bear with me a second. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Right, okay, right, thank you very much. So, further to consultation with my colleagues, I just wanted to say that would just retract the previous statement until we sort out the issue regarding the minor improvements to streets in the Toeworth area. So we'll revisit this and give an update to the committee at the next meeting. So moving swiftly along, so we're moving on to public questions, and I'd like to call on Liz Mitchell, please. Good evening, Councillors. The last server to neighborhood committee meeting, this committee said you would be willing to take suggestions for local traffic mitigations which were agreed at the March meeting which Councillor Revers just referred to. You stressed the hot tight time frames considering the financial year. On that evening of the meeting on the 21st of March, I emailed Councillors asking what measures did not require consultation to this day. I've still haven't got a response. On the 27th of March, so six days after the meeting, we sent RBK highways and Councillors six pages of comprehensive suggestions for both Toeworth Road and Thornhill Road. On the 8th of April, I emailed RBK highways and Councillors asking for confirmation of receipt of our suggestions. I then again on the 10th of April, so that's eight working days after I sent the suggestions. I finally got acknowledgement from both the RBK highways and from Councillor Reeve. The response I got was saying that you were working to, and I quote, tight time frames, but we'll deal with our suggestions in due course. This is somewhat contradictory. Can you please explain? Okay. Well, thanks for the list of suggested improvements. At six pages, it was quite extensive. In reply to your question, I refer you to the history of local engagement attached to the committee report on the 13th of March and the resolution at the same committee that was clearly and unambiguously laid out what we were going to be doing. The works to be done were outlined in annex five and the officers are working away on those. So I won't get into a debate about the language that may have been used in various emails, but I'll just add that other suggestions may be considered in future improvement programs. So, you know, in reference to your six pages of suggestions, thank you. You've just said at the beginning of this meeting that it will be now next meeting where we actually hear something about what's going to happen after, well, over two years. My question is how much longer should we wait? It would be good to get some guidance from you about how long we should wait, especially considering these tight time frames. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you. We don't have exact dates, but the items in annex five will be delivered as soon as possible. And as I said, officers are working on those. Thank you. Catherine Yates, a resident to Tolworth Road. Last Wednesday, ward councillors were emailed regarding an incident that took place on Tolworth Road on the 17th of April, where one of the neighbours, one of her children was obviously it was nearly knocked down by a speeding car. And as a result of that, that resident can't be here tonight, and she's asked me to put this question forward as a result of that. So, she said residents at Tolworth Road and Thornhill feel that they have been let down by you as our representatives, residents feel deeply frustrated, angry and disrespected by the recent comments made by councillors, particularly around the idea that we were kind of holding out for something better. I think that was Councillor MANDERS, may have misquoted that, but I'm sure I did. That feels like the same thing to me. Disrespected by recent comments made by councillors, so how are you going to restore confidence and trust, improve relationships and why should we trust you? Well, thank you very much for your question. I'm very sorry to hear about the incident that you referred to. That matters of speeding or serious concern to everybody, and I know I hate the incidents of speeding that I witnessed at various places throughout the borough. And we'd obviously like to do everything we can, but mostly incidents like that are matters for the police. Enforcement of speeding is a matter for the police, and we will work with the police as much as possible to address the issue. I just say in response to the question, as noted in previous reports, in previous answers, we've engaged in extensive consultation with residents. And I consider that this committee and your ward councillors in particular have done everything possible in listening to residents and discharging their duties. Thank you. I have one supplemental. I guess following on from that, it was, how is the council going to keep pedestrians and residents safe from the rat runners and the high volume vehicles that utilized all the road and Thornhill Road and the surrounding roads? Okay, well, I would say, technically speaking, that's not a supplementary question as it introduces a new subject. But I would just say on that question, since you have notified us in advance. Yes, you have had the question. Yes, basically, the answer is that we previously discussed this at committee at length about what we can and cannot do about through traffic in the neighbourhood. And we've explained why it's not possible at this time, but that we are actively engaged as much as possible with TFL on this matter. So thank you very much. Sorry, next question, please. So at the last serve to neighbour committee on the 21st of March, Council Amanda said that RBK highways meet with TFL on a case by case basis. However, later in the meeting was said that discussions were ongoing. So which is it? RBK highways meeting with TFL to have continual discussions about the A3 full as way north junction and our through traffic issue or have they met at all on this case. Okay, thank you very much for the question and would Councillor MANDERS like to reply? Yes, thank you, Chair, but I'm going to reply to this question as I'm named in it. Officers meet transport for London on an ongoing basis and Councillors meet transport for London on a case by case basis. Kingston Highways officers met TFL yesterday where this matter was discussed. The conclusion was that following the completion of the tour around about works, subject of course to any snagging, there will be a wait before there's a further survey work in relation to the A3 junction with foot as way north. This is to give time for traffic patterns to settle down the timings and phasing of traffic lights to be sorted and further traffic modelling to be done. And this chair is very much on the lines of what I've said previously committee. It was agreed with TFL that they will meet with how his officers in the summer to review their assessment of capacity at the random and also the modelling that they've produced. And then subject to those discussions would carry out a survey work in the autumn. And this will be done on full as way north and the A3. Okay. Did you have a supplementary question? Yeah, I do. So obviously you did heaps of data analysis. We had the O&D survey in February of last year. You've done numerous monitoring strips. It clearly proves the through traffic issue. So what I want to know is, has the issue been shared with TFL and what was their response? Thank you. Sorry, Chair. I struggled to hear that question. But I think there's also was a question to me, I believe, about contacting Transport for London because some of the residents here, Green Liz Mitchell said that she wanted to meet representatives of TFL. And I wrote to Liz Mitchell and others about that on the 12th of April. And I wrote again today. I've written the TFL to let them know that you wish to meet them. And of course, you may also contact TFL through the customer service. Can I just ask the question I asked, please? Yes, please. So my question about the data that you have that proves our through traffic issue, has that been shared with TFL and what was their response? Are you talking about data that the council has gathered or data that you as residents have gathered? My understanding is that TFL are quite aware of the background to this issue. It's been mentioned on a number of time by officers. I'll have to check about which sets of data. And perhaps you can tell me which ones you're particularly referring to. But I can check that with officers after the meeting. Thank you, Mr Oakes. And our next question, please. Is it on? At the last neighbourhood committee meeting, there was talk about getting our roads monitored using devices known as Vivacity. When and where were these being installed and will the data be accessible to the public throughout the year of operation? What additional information do you hope to learn from this data that hasn't been captured in existing surveys? Please confirm that decisions on mitigations will be data driven. Thank you. [INAUDIBLE] Right. Thank you very much for your question. Vivacity sensors are an advanced form of CCTV sensor that is able to distinguish between different modes of transportation. So you can tell a car from a pedestrian from a bicycle, etc. And this will enable the Council to do some more detailed surveys and over time of the change in modes of transportation that are being used by people travelling in the area. As to where those are going to go, I don't know and I don't. So I would have to ask officers, there will be only a couple of them. So they'll have to be placed strategically to capture the useful information. And as for your other, I think I've answered your question already. What we expect to learn, I think what I think what highways officers expect to learn is the shift in modes of transportation that witnessed over time, so over periods of months, perhaps. I hope that answers your question. Can you confirm the data will be released publicly? I mean, I believe there's a very similar system called Telval, which actually produces statistics live on websites. And in recent months, there's been one installed in Pine Walk in Burylands, and I've been watching the statistics on that. And that's obviously been installed by a private member of the public. I mean, the beauty of such capturing devices of information is that the information is broadcast to everybody. Okay, well, thanks. There's quite a lot there. As for the sharing of the data, I don't know. I'm sorry, Councilor Mander can answer that. I was very interested in what you've said, and we'll look into it, we'll discuss it with officers, and we'll see whether it's technically possible or also any data protection issues as well. But we'll look at it, and thank you for the suggestion. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Can I ask Graham Hare to come forward, please? Welcome, and please ask your question. Thank you. Yeah, good evening, everybody. Just in case you've forgotten me since last time, I represent 2000 residents in Barrelins, who have signed a petition for the removal of the King Charles Road barrier, the displacing traffic through the area. I was due to present in November and then again, February, but we've been waiting, as you know, for the highways report to be completed so that can you form the discussion and debate that I anticipate would take place. So really, I would like to know the progress of this much delayed and now, I guess, world famous highways report, whether a date has been set for me to properly present my petition and data to the committee, and whether actually a decision has been reached on which committee will here and debate the petition. I was informed by a strategic leadership at the start of April that no such decision has actually yet been taken. And I would note that it's still my expectation that this petition will be heard and discussed at a future S&C meeting, since it is the S&C that has been involved in all discussion to date, and that has taken all decisions to date relating to the barrier on King Charles Road. If that's not the case, then I'd like a full explanation as to why this has been taken away from the S&C. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your question. The report has been postponed pending completion of a tour around about to allow the highways team to do a further survey of hotspots in the area, which will then inform a further updated report for the benefit of councillors and residents. This will ensure that we all have the best available data. And as to we won't know which committee it will go to until we see the highways report, and we understand whether it has borough wide strategic implications. And as you can appreciate, removal of the barrier has an impact beyond just our neighbourhood. So we have to, that is what has to be taken into consideration. So thank you. Can I ask a supplementary question on that? Yes, of course. I mentioned, so do I understand that another, that you said another survey with hotspots in the area is going to be organised? Is that what I understood that? Yes, that's your, so that's your supplementary question. Yes, that is part one or two. But do you know when that will take place, please, because this has been delayed and delayed as we're aware. Right, I think as I've said earlier, we have, or as Councillor Mendez said earlier, it was, we have to see, we have to wait for things to settle down towards roundabout. And, you know, to make sure that traffic patterns have settled into the routine that they will have going forward. So does that mean we don't know when? We anticipate that they will be finished with this process in the summer. Summer? So the surveys of the hotspots should be completed in the summer? We would have to be finished after they've finished their work with the tour of the roundabout. That's done. We'll come back to, we will update everybody in due course once we've established that. But thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I do have one more related to what you said, if I may, please. So the committee put in the barrier. Right, okay, please go ahead. So this committee decided to put the barrier in. But did you say that removing the barrier somehow becomes a wider issue, because it's a very, very local issue? Right. I can, it is, it potentially becomes a strategic issue because it would, it would be going against our, our policy. Party policy. Sorry. Party policy. No, well, against our, our policy, our Kingston, Kingston policy, which was part of the manifesto that we were elected on for greener and safer neighbourhoods. So if we removed it, it would, it would be going, it would, it would be going contrary to a policy that was adopted by the entire Council. That's counted. Thank you. Okay. So thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, everybody. Well, thank you very much. I believe that's the end of the questions so we can move on to the next item on the agenda. Which is, I don't realise they, they have further questions. Oh, sorry. You have, you, okay. Thank you, pardon? You have further questions? Yes. Okay. Sorry. I was. How many minutes? I was not notified of them. Yes, we have 10 minutes. We have 10 minutes left. Okay. So would you like to go ahead and ask your question, please? Sorry. Just one hand. Yes. You, you mentioned the hotspots. I'm assuming that Toeworth Road and Thornhill Road will be included in that hotspot analysis. Yes or no? Councillor MANDERS, as a portfolio holder, please. Okay. Well, the last series of questions were about basically the King Charles Road modal filter. And as directly there are some, obviously some roads directly near there. And we want to re-survey those to see whether traffic movements have changed due to the works on the Toeworth roundabouts. Because clearly we've had almost two years, I think now I've worked on the Toeworth roundabout. Can you let me finish, please? And so that's the reason why we're going to be measuring those particular roads again to see whether traffic has changed substantially. But this is an initiative done by Kingston Council. This is not to do with TFL. It's TFL, as I've said on several occasions before, has effectively controlled over the A3 and also the junctions of it. This is not directly related to TFL. This is related to things settling down after the TFL roundabout has been finished. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor MANDERS. Did you have a supplementary question to that? I didn't actually get an answer to that, which was yes or no, Will Thornhill Road and Toeworth Road be included in that hotspot analysis. And the reason I'm asking is because we've been told that nothing can be happening in our roads because of the Toeworth roundabout. And that is why we've had no actions whatsoever. So it doesn't make sense for our roads to be excluded from any hotspot analysis because you've already admitted that our roads have been impacted by it. So why aren't you measuring it again? I've got to say we've got to be the most measured roads in the whole country, this, right? I think Councillor MANDERS explained it quite well that these are two separate matters. The Barrellans and the King Trolls Road as one issue and then we have the Toeworth area as separate. There are separate matters at separate stages, but if there is a need for hotspot analysis in Toeworth, I'm sure that highways will bring that to our attention. And we will pass it on to you when we hear about it. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Sorry, and Councillor MANDERS would like to add it. Yes, thank you, Chair, just to come back. When it comes to Toeworth Road and Thornhill Road and the junction in Fullersway North of the A3, it's TFL's request that we wait basically with the process there until after Toeworth roundabout has settled down and also all the effects of development and so on round there. And clearly that's because they are involved with traffic planning about what uses the number of vehicles that uses Toeworth roundabout. So those decisions are related directly to that and what TFL wants because it controls the A3 and the Toeworth roundabout. Coming onto King Charles Road's modal filter, that's a local decision and so this is only purely a common sense measure to make sure that there's no changes in traffic caused by basically the roundabout being ready to take regular traffic in the way that it hasn't been for the last couple of years. Our previous last count was done in the period when the Toeworth roundabout was quite restricted. Now it's going to be available, as we know. So then there's an opportunity for us to measure again those particular roads. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor MENDERS. This is another question. Yeah, so in response to the previous questioner on the Bearlands King Charles Road scheme, you spoke about the bollard on King Charles Road not being removed, removing that bollard be contrary to the manifesto that you were elected upon. So my question basically is why therefore did you agree to remove the bollard in Toeworth Road and not go ahead with the bus gate? How can it be contrary to policy in one space and not another? Thank you. The bollard in Toeworth Road was there under an experimental traffic management order. And after reviewing it, it was decided to remove it because it wasn't doing what it was expected to do. Whereas the one in King Charles Road was made permanent because of this committee of the time judge that it was doing what it was supposed to do. Thank you. OK, so my second to that is that you half implemented a scheme, a half-baked scheme. My push back to that is that as we all know, the bollard in Toeworth Road was part of a bigger plan for the area which you didn't go ahead with. You have this whole cleaner, greener Kingston manifesto that you all stood on and people voted for you on. So why are different principles being applied decisions that you make in Toeworth as opposed to the ones that you apply in Berenance? I think just to really to echo what the chair of the committee has said is that Toeworth Road in the end was an experimental measure. And the decision was made by the committee, pulled forward by the board councillors and others on the committee that it had failed in its objective and therefore then it was taken out. As the chair has said, King Charles Road modal filter was made permanent by the previous committee to this before the election. And there is a whole world of difference between an experiment which you see what the results are and then you make a decision on and something where after experiment has taken place if you've decided to make it permanent. Clearly, removing is against policy. So that's the reason why there is a difference between those two decisions. Thank you, Councillor Menders. At least I have time. There are a few minutes left. Perfect. So would Councillors agree that it can't be stated that that bollard in Toeworth Road failed because he didn't implement the whole scheme originally planned? How can you say part of a scheme failed when he didn't implement the whole thing? The experimental traffic management order was judged on the basis of what was implemented and on the basis of what was implemented it didn't work and therefore it was removed. I don't know that it could be much clearer than that. That's what the committee chose to implement at the time for reasons, you know, for the reasons that they had at the time. And then following the examination of the data as part of the experimental, you know, the testing time period, it was decided that it hadn't achieved its objectives and that it was further decided that further mitigations were not in the interest of the, you know, there was no appetite to continue, you know, to with further mitigations and so they decided to remove it. Is it not true though that the bollard was originally agreed and approved alongside a bus skate in Thornhill Road? You then didn't go ahead with the bus skate and therefore it was always going to fail because your council report always said that if you put a bollard in one place and leave the other road untouched, it would cause a rise in traffic. My question is like, was it always set up to fail? It was never going to work and you should admit that. The, all I can say is that the committee at the time made the committees at the time made the decisions that they did and then we reviewed and then it was reviewed subsequently and it was decided that the experimental traffic management order had not worked. So I think, but I believe councilor Waldridge would like to come in on that point. Hi, Alex, Liz. We have had on tour with constant engagement, constant engagement since I've been a councillor here in May 2022. Can I interrupt you just a moment and just to say that question time is up. So if you could wrap your comments up quite quickly now, we'd appreciate that. I think the committee would appreciate that as we have quite a full agenda tonight. Okay, in short, thank you chair, in short, in Kingston, generally, we have unmanageable traffic, we have rat running, road safety concerns, deterring air quality, and we get it. But it's just completely, it's London, it's London, this is it. And unfortunately, the roads, and it's like I live on Rayburn Avenue. You live on the road, which is parallel to the A3. Weeks, some of our roads get more traffic. It's very difficult, but we are now in a time of unmanageable traffic. And it's not just about toll worth. It's Kingston, generally, and London, and it's all things depressing. Thank you chair. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you for your questions today. And moving on to item two petitions. There's no notice of intention to submit a petition tonight. We have apologies for absence to Hermann. Do we have any apologies? Thank you chair. Apologies for absence received from Councillor Amir Khan. Okay, thank you, Hermann. So members, the next item, members are asked to declare any disposable pecuniary interests or other non-registable or non-registable interest relevant items on the agenda. So do members have any declarations of interest tonight? Councillor Green, then White, and then Councillor Yoganathan, please. And Councillor Paul. Thank you. My declaration of interest is on the first planning item, a one, the former pump house, Portsmouth Road, Serberton. I wrote a letter of objection on behalf of all three of us as ward Councillors objecting to this application. And at the bottom of the letter did state that we are predetermined on any application on this site because of the work that we have done over the years. So I am registered to speak as a ward councillor to object to it, but I will then be leaving the room after having spoken and not take, not only not take part in the debate, not be in the room for the debate. Thank you, Councillor Green. Councillor White. Thank you very much. I willingly signed that objection so I will be leaving the room as well. Thank you, Councillor White. Councillor Yoganathan. Yeah, it's exactly the same reason because we are from the same ward and we certainly signed the things, so it's best for us to move it away from us. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Yoganathan and Councillor Holt. Thank you. So for me, it's in the interest of openness and transparency. I'd like to declare that I was one of the Councillors that was on the Seething Wells All-Party Working Group. The Working Group was formed in accordance with the Council's remit and has already completed its work and will be noted later in this agenda. I have not formed a predetermined opinion on the planning application for the former pump house in Agenda Item 6, which is in isolation. I do have some views on the whole site and for that reason will not take part in the debate and decision on the application. Thank you, Councillor Holt and Councillor Shapper, please. Thank you, Chair, yes. Again, for Item A1, in the interest of just being open and transparent, I'd like to declare that I was one of the six Councillor members of the Council's Seething Wells All-Party Working Group and the Working Group was formed in accordance with the Council resolution that that work has already completed, although the work of the Working Group has been completed. I haven't formed a predetermined opinion on the planning application for the former pump house in Agenda Item 6. I will take part in the debate and decision on the application. Although, as I echo my colleagues, the only slight difference is I will be asking my questions during the course of the asking officers' questions. But as I say, I have not predetermined, I have not formed a predetermined opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Shapper. Councillor Thailand. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I am in the Seething Wells Action Group, Facebook Group as a member, and I have made comments in the parts. And I feel that I may be prejudiced sitting on this application. So I won't make any comments or vote on it. Thank you. We'll leave the room on. Okay, thank you, Councillor Thailand. Will you be leaving the room and not participating in the discussion? Okay, thank you. Councillors interjecting. Okay, right. Just to say, that means five Councillors will be leaving the room, but we still have seven Councillors remaining, which is sufficient for a quorum to proceed with the meeting on that item. Moving on to item five, the minutes. So we have the minutes of meetings held on the 22nd, 13th of March, 22nd of February, 13th of March, 21st of March, have been circulated to members. Do members agree to confirm those minutes as a correct record? Thank you, Councillors. I shall sign those later. Right, and so now moving on to item six, planning applications. So before moving on to this item, I'd just like to announce some housekeeping arrangements. So regarding public participation this evening, there is a registration scheme for residents and applicants wishing to participate in the planning applications that are considered by this committee. Members of the public who have registered to speak will be invited to come forward to the table in front of the public gallery at the appropriate point. Second, members of the public are reminded that the planning application process is constrained by the need to have regard to current planning policy at national, regional, and local levels, as well as all other material planning considerations, including case law precedents. The decision-making process is often described as quasi-judicial because local planning authorities have to act reasonably within the bounds of planning law and the above considerations and are not free to determine planning applications simply because of the weight of public opinion. For purposes of debate, the officer recommendation will be moved prior to consideration of the matter by members. And this does not indicate that members are predisposed to a decision one way or another. So we now turn to the first planning application. I ask just for clarification, those of us that have declared that we will leave the room, could we have, from democratic services, do we move to the public gallery before the present day? I believe we can hear the public part of it, the public presentations part. Do we sit in the public gallery for that? Do you wish us to remain in our seats for that? Just making sure that we follow the correct procedure. Thank you, Councillor Green, and Herman. Thank you, Chair. Just to respond to it in terms of our arrangement, so the chair will double check, we will ask again with all members. Do we have any further decorations? And then we will invite all members who have decided to withdraw from the decision to move to the public gallery because some of the members do enjoy the right to speak under the planning protocol for that part of the meeting. And then, because some of them will also be questioned by members of the committee, so the five members are welcome to stay in the public gallery for that part of the meeting. But after the planning officer has finished his conclusion, before the chair moved the motion, I will advise all five members who decide to withdraw to be leaving the room at that point of time. Actually, I would now also wish to say that Councillor Hays is also in this category, so you're welcome to, because you're registered to speak as a Councillor, so you can stay here until our planning officer has made his conclusion. And before the chair moved the motion, then I will advise the six of you to be leaving the room at that point of time. And of course, I will get you back when we have finished. I hope this is useful. Okay, I hope that's clear. Yeah, yeah, basically. I'll always listen to Herman. Right. Okay, bear with me a second. So before we move on, so the first item is going to be the former pump house, the application regarding the former pump house Portsmouth Road. And before we proceed, I just want to double check if any members have any other declarations on this applications in accordance with planning protocol. Just a last chance to raise your hands. And just to remind everybody that we understand that this is an issue that's been discussed very often over the years. It's a list of strong feelings, but Councillors will listen to the material planning considerations and the relevant planning regulations and make a decision on the basis of that. Okay, so it's made with who are who are recusing themselves could now move to the public gallery, please. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Councillors. So I just want to say in accordance with the revised planning committee procedure rules, formal and personal site visits conducted should be recorded in the minutes to say that a site visit took place. In respect to this application, I just like to say I visited the site with an officer on the 23rd of April. Do members have any other declarations on site visits conducted in respect of this application? Okay, I don't see any hands. So then we'll proceed with the application planning application to be determined by the committee. And then is 23 stroke 01636 dash FUL, the former pump house on Portsmouth Road, Serbaton, which involves the conversion and change of use of the former pump house building and associated associated land to class E subsection G subsection one office use and silvery works, including landscaping. And you can find this at pages A3 to A43 of the agenda. In addition, there are two sets of late materials published in advance of the meeting and they've been placed on members desks. Do members need time to read the late materials first? Okay, thank you. So apart from planning officers, we have five speakers on this item, including three registered objectors, award counselor who submitted a call and request an objection to the application and a counselor who is submitted a request to address the committee 24 hours prior to commencement of the meeting, who wishes to speak in objection to the application. The agent of the applicant has informed us that the applicant does not intend to speak. So I'd like to invite Toby Phantom, lead officer development management to make a presentation to introduce the item. Toby. No, I cannot. Okay, thank you. Okay, so you've seen that. Okay, so here is the red line around the application site, which includes the pump house, which is the building in light grey within that area and running to the south is Portsmouth Road. This shows you slightly wider context, the blue line indicates area, which is in the same ownership as the applicant, but it's not part of the site for this application. This one just shows the totality of that blue area, obviously to the northwest is a river Thames. This just shows you some of the photographs of the existing site in its current condition to see through gates, which secure that into the hard standing and then the building there from a number of different angles. And we, as far as we understand, it's been vacant for about 30 years. And the other ones on the right show you the sort of relationship to the filter beds. And here's an aerial view of that site. And some face grass of the interior. So there's many designations on this site, which are listed there. I will take you through those in subsequent plans. So the site is within a site of importance for nature conservation. It's also designated metropolitan open land. This shows a number of constraints on this. So the pump house itself is the green dot, which is a locally listed building. And the railings, the front and the Portsmouth Road are also locally listed. And the blue area indicates that it's in the riverside south conservation area. And the pink, there's two different types of pink. It falls into both of these. One is the archaeological priority area and then also the strategic area of special character. It has a public transport accessibility level of three, which is good. And the flood zone two washes over parts of this site. So the application is to convert, I suppose, to bring back into use really the former pump house. And associated land to a class, EGI, which is an office use. It would include the provision of a Umezzanine floor, which in total would provide a floor area of 237 square metres. And there are some minor external iterations to the building of Tanscape Merit. The three parking spaces, the four cycle parking spaces proposed and landscaping, which has evolved throughout the application. Part to sort of take into account the ecology officer's comments. This shows you the proposed site plan. We'll see a bit more detail with the landscaping actually. It's existing plan of the building. And then these are proposed floor plans. The one on the left is the ground floor plan. And then the one on the right is the first floor. Just worth noting, sort of cutouts around each of those windows. Just to sort of reduce the appearance from outside of being something that cuts across the windows. And certainly there's no -- that doesn't do it from an external point of view. We'll come on tonight in a second. So here we have the existing elevations of the building. And the proposed elevations. It does include, I think, three additional roof lights. There's minor changes to windows, but it doesn't change very much. This shows the existing proposed section. So it is a bigger impact on the building. And you can see, I suppose, there -- where the windows are, there's -- the floor doesn't -- it would be set away from the windows, but sort of cuts through that window. Okay, so the -- it's a sort of landscape strategy plan. It includes landscaping, tree planting. The hard surfacing would be permeable resin bound surface, which includes a path which accesses to the rear. And then there's sort of the north-western end as a seating area with block paving. This is all related to the office use of the site -- proposed office use of the site. Over to the right, you can see three parking spaces behind the building is cycle parking. And there's a refuse vehicle turnaround. Over to the sort of south-western side of the site. And this just shows that some of the tree planting in particular. And the details of the variety of the planting proposed. So just in terms of the sort of issues, this application raises. And this is all sort of set out in the conclusion of the committee report. But in terms of the openness of the metropolitan open land, there's -- it doesn't impact on the openness. It just results in a change of use, which is supported by metropolitan open land policy. It creates an active employment use, albeit that is sort of fragmented from the wider site. It preserves the non-designated heritage assets. And it provides an ecology enhancement. And therefore the application is recommended for approval. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you very much, Toby. So can I invite the following registered objectors who have not been formally notified of the application through a letter of notification, but have replied to the consultation to come forward to the public speaking desk there. And apologies if I get any names wrong. And she already, Tylie Ling and Phil Renton, please. So thank you very much. You're reminded that you have a total of up to five minutes to address the committee with your comments. Herman will let you know when there is one minute remaining and when your time is up. So please begin when you're ready. Ready, thank you. Good evening. This application goes against the Council's own planning policies, designations, and those are the mayor of London's assembly. The site is designated metropolitan open land and has a site of importance for nature conservation. I present this list of the following policies, plans, and strategies this application is in direct conflict with. RBK's local plan and call strategy, the draft local plan policy section, KN3, KN6, DM5, DM6, and DM12. London mayor's assembly policy chapter 7.17 sections A and B, the vision for the neighbourhood in Sabaton in the quarter strategy and RBK's Thames policy. All say that the Council will protect MOLs and sinks, will protect and increase biodiversity, will look after fragile habitats, and will maintain and promote heritage sites for the public it represents. For this application, there's been no demonstration of very special circumstances. There's no dire need for another office block and parking in the borough. Moreover, the addition of outdoor areas, parking, lighting, and infrastructure will compromise the openness of the land and adversely affect biodiversity and the fragile open mosaic habitat. This application cannot be seen in isolation. It is one small element of a larger proposal currently being discussed with RBK. While the proposals for the whole development of the site are unknown and undecided, allowing any sort of building goes against the Council's own local plan policies and we urge you to reject it. As Councillors, you have an obligation to your constituents, and before any decisions are taken to thoroughly review the 81 objections received, including those submitted by the Seething Wales Action Group, the Kingston Society, and the London branch of the Campaign for Rural England. It is a unique site within the borough, acknowledged in the Step 3 Waterworks Report by English Heritage, and more recently, by our own RBK Place Committee, who in September 2023 unanimously approved and adopted the nine recommendations of the Seething Wales Working Group, which some of the Councillors are part of. This included applying to historic England for a statutory listing of the Pump House, another locally listed historic asset on the site. And to further pursue opportunities for restoration and improvement of habitats for biodiversity and to create landscape enhancements. The planning application is a very small area, not 0.15 hectares out of seven hectares, but it cannot be approved in isolation without due consideration of the potential impact of the whole site. To give you an example, the landscaping proposal introduced species, plant species, not of local providence and non-native, which in time will have a negative impact on the biodiversity and the open mosaic habitat structure. And vehicle activity will impact on the listed subterranean structures adjacent to the Pump House, within that on the adjacent of that red line area, which have been absolutely mentioned in the offices report of those structures and the ground. I respectfully suggest that this application, along with the 36 supporting documents, gives an inaccurate and false impression to any reader who doesn't understand and appreciate the history, heritage and biodiversity of Seething Wales. And in its current mode is not fit for purpose. I urge the rejection. As an alternative approach, we recommend an additional Section 215 order is submitted to the owners to address specifically the ISO and improve the visual impact that is the Pump House in its current state of decline. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. My name is Alison Fuhr. I've been a member of the London Backgroup since the 1980s, and I am the current trainer, training people for their back roost visitor licenses. I have been monitoring back roost at Seething Wales since 1997, when I founded the Dorebentans maternity colony. Twenty years of monitoring visits include ten years of batty boat trips and monitoring from the Portsmouth Road and barge walk, hours of recordings and infrared and thermal camera footage. Our data submitted to Giggle does not end in 2020 as per the applicant surveys. The consultants state that no roostator was provided by Giggle, but this is disingenuous, as Giggle are not allowed to do so, and that is made clear in their TNCs. Consultants claim to have contacted LBG, but we have no evidence of that. I contacted them to discuss their poor use of data. The bat group attest the Pump House is a winter bat roost with additional uses. Previous roosting activity would normally assess a building as high potential for bats, equating to three surveys, not one may survey. Time is up. Bats do not have to. It's up. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Could I ask you to return to your seats? And can I invite Councillor Liz Green to come forward please? So she is, as a ward Councillor, she submitted a call in request and wishes to speak in objection. So as you know, you have five minutes in her and I'll let you know when it's up. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello, Councillors, nice to see you from this side of the room. So we submitted an objection on behalf of the three ward Councillors. Many of you will know how controversial this site has been and what we've heard from some of the SWAG members about what it has been working towards on the working group that we have. We have met with the owners as requested by the working group and the SWAG co-chairs have also met with the owners. So things are moving forward in terms of communication much more than they were a few years ago. But I still object to this application. The main reason that I object is that you can't take this part in isolation from the rest of the site. The reason that you can't do it is it will involve more people and people in wildlife generally don't mix that well. Obviously we do have it, but wildlife on this site doesn't mix well with people. You also need some kind of safety measures. I have no idea what's going on with the lighting in there. But you also need to have safety measures. I know that the owners have recently been removing the water from the site, but it has have the potential of deep water, which is not safe for people. So I think that you can't take it in isolation because they will have access to the remainder of the site and therefore it needs to be considered in the whole. And what I think has not been demonstrated in this application is the impact on biodiversity on the whole site given additional people movement vehicles that is currently there. I know that in the late material the officers have a new condition 23 has been suggested to you, which talks about boundary treatment of the red line area, which should be designed to prevent general access to the wider site, which would be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. But I am reading as fences. Fences cause problems to the wildlife. There are birds on the site. Birds and fences, again, don't mix very well. I don't know whether that is possible. I don't think you can get over my objection by a condition. And obviously a requirement of planning is that if you can get over an objection, you shouldn't refuse. You should actually condition it if that is possible. I don't believe this condition does get over the objection because it can't actually -- putting fences in is not necessarily a good solution. The -- what I did also want to raise, though, is -- I've just been mentioned by some swag members who have just seen the late material, that they were told they couldn't put something in as late material. However, there is something in from the applicant. So if you can just address that point when you come to your discussion, that would be great so that the swag members can hear it even if I can't. I do want to mention, if the committee is minded to approve this, there are some conditions that need improving, and I have sent these suggestions to the chair in advance. But particularly the conditions -- conditions three, it needs to be clearer on what are the methodologies for the cleaning of the brickwork, and I'm very concerned about the splitting of the windows and how that might be visually. I recognize there's a setback, but I still think that it could be visible. And so those three bullet points, one, three and four, of condition three, I believe need strengthening. This is only if you do want to permit it, by the way. I don't actually want you to permit it, but if you do. Condition six refers to the railings and says that there's no work to plan to the railings. I think we need to remind everyone there is the sexual one. One, two minutes. Thank you. The two, one, five, notice, and they should get on with that. There is an error in condition 20 because that refers to a class use of EG, not EG1. EG1 is office operation and administration functions. G2 is actually research and development and G3 is industrial processes. They have only applied for E, class E, subsection D, subsection one. So if you do permit it, that needs to be corrected. We now do have hours of operation, which, if you permit, you must include that condition, but add to it that external lighting must be turned off outside of those hours because of the nocturnal activities that are on the site. And I'd like to see the general hours of construction added as a condition, because that's not in there at the moment. I can't remember off the top of my head what they are. It's usually about eight till six, Monday to Friday and eight till one. Time's up. Thank you very much for your consideration, Councillors. Thank you very much, Councillor. And can I now invite Councillor Roger Hayes, who is a Councillor who's submitted a request to adjust the committee 24 hours prior to the commencement of the meeting and wishes to speak in objection to the application. So you know, you have five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I've circulated my thoughts and detailed grounds for refusal for your consideration, but there's more than five minutes worth of verbalisation there, so I'm just going to give you the highlights if I may. It's coming up now on 30 years that I've been campaigning for a long-term future for the Seething Wells filter beds as a heritage-laid nature reserve and publicly accessible riverside open space. May I also compliment you on your sololumia for this evening, except most entertaining. Much of that campaigning, though, has not been as an elected Councillor, but as a member of the Friends of Seething Wells, and there are a number of ways in which the phosphor vision for a heritage-led open space development could be achieved. However, any solution must ensure that all the key elements of this important site within the riverside south conservation area are preserved and enhanced, whilst fully meeting the requirements of the site's metropolitan open land designation and the need to enhance the existing and potential biodiversity of the site in light of its existing nature conservation designations. For that vision, which you will indeed be discussing later on your agenda this evening, to be successful, there are four principal reasons why you should refuse the planning application before you this evening. My starting point is the fact that the proposal is for offices, a use generally considered not to be acceptable on metropolitan open land. That means that there is a presumption that a reason for refusal on this grounds would be a reasonable conclusion to reach, and therefore, if a refusal for that reason was to go to appeal and the appeal was successful, I don't think that costs could possibly be awarded against the Council, so I just want to give you that comfort, because I know people often worry that if things go to appeal, it's going to be costly in this situation. I can't see that that's a possibility. The Planning Officers report on page A32 in paragraphs 135 and 136 makes references to the negative aspects of the development and the fact that fragmentation of the site and the separation of the pump house from the rest of the filter beds will prejudice an alternative and comprehensive use for the whole filter bed site. With regards to the emerging local plan, it's relevant to note that the technical background study and evaluation of the site for metropolitan open land designation confirmed the significant contribution may die the overall filter bed site to the strategic objectives of MOL. It's clear that the introduction of an office use, unrelated to the proposals of MOL, together with the related car parking and activities surrounding the building would significantly undermine the purposes of its MOL designation. Community groups and individuals have been working with the Council through the Seething Wells Member Steering Group, as you've already heard, bring about the solutions that the Friends of Seething Wells, Swag and other local community groups support. Support has been offered to the River Thames Scheme project, which is being progressed by the Environment Agency. With local authority support, including RBK, for the filter bed site to be allocated. Thank you for the filter beds to be allocated as a site for enhanced biodiversity, and further consideration of that is currently still taking place. So for all of those reasons, there are four reasons, which are four grounds for refusal, which I would like you to consider. As I say, you've got those in detail in front of you, but just very quickly. The first one is about MOL designation. The second is about the severance of the building and its immediate surroundings from the rest of the site. The third is about contrary to policy, S1, the Serbaton neighbourhood of the Council's core strategy, and the three subsections of that, and the fourth and final one, is the Riverside South Conservation Area appraisal, and the fact that it says the character of the area of as whole is a special architectural and historical interest, et cetera. Thank you. So I hope you'll consider that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hayes. Okay. So do any members of the committee have questions of clarification to the objectors? Please raise your hands if you have questions of clarification for the objectors. Anybody? Okay. I see one hand. Could I so, Councillor-- [INAUDIBLE] Okay. So could I ask the objectors all five to return to the table? I just want to ask my colleagues. We have five minutes for this section, so just in terms of being able to plan the time allocation, I just like to ask. I just like to ask if there's anybody else who's likely to want to come in with a question for the objectors. Okay. Okay. I have two. Any advances on two now? Okay. I see a third hand going up. Okay. Thank you very much. Just had two. Right. Yeah. Okay. So could I start with a quick question from Councillor Schaper, please? Thank you, Chair. I hope one's just a really simple question is, looking at the application as it stands now with the boundary line, the red boundary line, is it more of an issue that there is a boundary line in itself rather than the building? In other words, if it was -- do you see it as both or one or the other, as more of -- or better or worse of an issue? In other words, is it about the building being reclassified, or is it -- do you see it together with the -- what's called -- is it the terminology right? Is it ancillary, the surrounding area? Okay. Because we're looking at this, obviously, as a whole. Can I go ahead and let them answer the question? Yeah. That would be interesting to know. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. I think they've got the question. Do -- does anybody wish to address this question, please? I will. Okay. Okay. So for me, it's about the class use. Because it's about people on sites. At the moment, the only people that attend are the people that are doing maintenance, I say, carefully, but works on site, shall we say. So therefore, they are presumably trained in various aspects. This, if it was a general office block, would be people who just come into work in an office. So -- and they would then want to wander around, or you contain them in some way. You've got to lock them in the office because that wouldn't be legal. So they've got to have somewhere they can walk out of. And therefore, you've got the problem of they could walk on the rest of the site. So it's the class use. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor. I think that answers that question. So Councillor Davies. Yeah. Can I just ask more about the bats? Did you say that bats have been found in this building? There have been over the years. It was -- it was a winter wrist, but my point was really to say that the work to determine the status of the wrist has not been sufficient and hasn't followed the guidelines. So they did one survey last May, May the 24th, 2023, and they determined that there were no bats using the building, which is totally insufficient over the years. We found the bats that used the building for a number of uses, but particularly as a winter wrist. We don't have that kind of evidence of sites anywhere else in the borough. We have very little information about winter use of buildings by bats, and this site is -- it ticks every box. Thank you. Your last sentence, you said bats do not, and then we cut you off. So I was just really interested to know what bats do not do, and that I can guess. Can we come? In your speech, your last sentence, you said bats do not, and then we stopped you, and I just wondered what they don't do. Well, actually, the only thing that I didn't really get to say was that the officer's report didn't talk about any of the listed structures. So within a few meters of the pumping house is the rake of the Chelsea tunnel, and that wasn't mentioned as a listed structure. Sorry to cut you off again, but we were running out of time, and I have one more Councillor who wants to ask everyone to ask a question, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying. That's about multiple uses, almost right. That's right. Can I pass to Councillor Gonzalez, please? We have about a minute left. Thank you. My question is to Liz. So as you mentioned, when you were talking about defence, you said there is not a good solution that it doesn't address. Yeah. That defence doesn't address objections. Can you just expand the left? Okay. So in planning terms... One minute. In planning terms, you are required as a planning committee to approve something if the problem can be addressed by a condition. I'm saying that the condition that is being recommended as the additional condition on the late material can't address the problem of people wandering around because it could introduce a new condition, a new problem of fences, because to address the idea of nobody walking around, you've got to fence people in. I can't think of another way. You've got to fence them in some way, and that would introduce a new problem of birds flying in defences, potentially. So I don't think that addresses the problem, and they need to be able to demonstrate the impact on the wider site before this could be granted planning permission. Does that make sense for you now? Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Well, we're just coming to the end of our five minutes. So thank you very much to the objectives for coming up to answer questions. I will now turn to Toby Felton to present the material planning considerations and address where necessary any issues raised during public speaking. So this is not the time for Councillors to ask questions of the officer. It's just a chance for him to address those points. So... No. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I suppose I don't have too much to say, really, other than in terms of the additional conditions which were suggested by Councillor Green. We have reviewed those, and yes, those would seem reasonable. Those could be added if members were minded to approve. In terms of... I suppose one another point, just in terms of the metropolitan open land, the Green Belt policy, which the London Plan says that metropolitan open land should be considered in the same way as Green Belt does allow for the change of use of buildings and as long as it doesn't impact on openness to the site. So that's... Our view is it doesn't, but obviously that's for you to consider. And yeah, I don't have any other further comments on that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. So we are now going to ask those Councillors to... Who are absenting themselves from the discussion to leave the room? Right, okay. Thank you very much. So as previously outlined, I'm now going to move the recommendations set out on page A4, which is the application to be approved subject to conditions. So do I have a seconder for that? Happy to second. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Now I will open the matter for debate. So if you're members, please raise your hand if you have any questions for the officers. We have time for comments, but just to questions, clarification of planning issues, et cetera. So I see Councillor Herlinger and Councillor Davies, Councillor Schaper, Councillor Mander's. Is there anybody I've missed? Okay, so starting with Councillor Herlinger, please. Your questions for the officer? Thank you. On sort of points 50 to 52, you look at policy E1. The way I read policy E1 is that it's saying that new office development should be focused in town centres. And it then further goes on to say about that development should include low cost and affordable work space. So I'm assuming that sort of office development, which is outside the town centres, really should have lower cost and affordable work space. And I'm wondering whether we should put a condition where the office is considered putting a condition on this application to try and ensure that we did actually have work space that was lower cost and affordable. Yes, in terms of, let's just get that policy. So yes, it is one of the requirements. My view on that is that it would generally apply to sort of larger scale offices. This is just one sort of office unit effectively. So I wouldn't consider that this would be something that we would be looking for in this case. I take your point that generally we would be looking to put these in these top uses in town centres. But if you had a small office, in a town centre, you wouldn't be expecting it to provide affordable as part of that. But certainly the larger ones you might, such as a sort of tower type use. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Councillor Davis. Got a couple of questions. The first one is one of the people who wrote in favour of this application commented that it might give access to the river or better access the river, but it doesn't, there's no access behind it at all. No, yes, there's not, no. So this just provides access for the office workers and I guess people will see them. And my second question really is about the planting of the flowers and so on. Can we condition that they should be, if we approve it, that they should be native or sympathetic to the site and not just random flowers that might do all sorts of pollination or create pollination problems? Yes, absolutely. And there are conditions which relate to this and certainly, and I think the scheme has evolved with input from our ecology officer, but certainly we want to absolutely control that. Thank you, Councillor Davis. Thank you, Chair. So I have very untidy writing, so bear with me. So my question relates really, I wanted just to tease out, if I may, the MOL, the MOL land policy directives and just a point of clarity really. Two, say, three questions really into one. One is what makes this application a very special circumstance in terms of looking at it as a whole because you use that word as a whole. And I wanted to clarify, when you say it as a whole, you mean within the boundary line. Because very early on, in one of the paragraphs, I think it's on A15, it talks about this as a whole. And I wanted just to clarify that that refers to the whole of this planning application, not the whole of the site, in terms of MOL policy. I'll see if I can locate the paragraph, but it does talk about the, in that sense, as the whole, as in WHOLE. My second question is, what I'm finding a need clarity on is paragraph 42. It talks about new buildings. So if I logically work through the points made about MOL and what the purpose is it serves. My question relates to what's the policy reasoning behind the word openness, because clearly in this report, if it is talking about the whole being what you'd considered within the confines of the red line, the boundary line. Openness in itself talks about conditions, so condition 23. So my question is, what's the policy reasoning behind openness? How to preserve openness? Because I hadn't quite got that from the report. And the third question is, if I just rattle through the questions is, if this application is specific, about the special circumstances that underpin whether you can use new developments within MOL and as the report sort of sets out a logical flow. My question is, therefore, what was the thinking behind including in this application approving the addition of the what you call ancillary works around the heritage building. In other words, if it was about preserving heritage on MOL land or on this application within the boundary line, how have you designated that as existing development? In other words, this talk specifically about new buildings being on green belt being inappropriate, however there are exceptions. And it lists about e-material changes in the use of land and also not inappropriate providing they preserve its openness and they don't conflict with the purposes of including land within it. But my question is, what was the thinking behind under MOL policy for this particular application that the ancillary was included as existing development. Because clearly there are huge restrictions on MOL land for new builds, new development, but this is an existing building that's being renovated as part of this proposal. So how did the land around the building be designated as existing rather than as new development. So then my three questions, thank you as part of MOL policy. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So I suppose just to sort of look at this, obviously we're using an existing building here. Now there is a, the policy talks about that being accepted. If we were introducing new buildings, then obviously those could and probably would have an impact on the building. An impact on openness because there would be, whether it be an open part of the site, it would then cease to be open because it would be built on and there would be a volume of building there. So we're not talking about that. And if we were, then, then that's when we would be looking well. And what would be the very special circumstances to allow development within metropolitan open land, which had an impact on the openness. Now, sometimes there are cases which you can do that, but that isn't something we need to consider here really because the building is staying at the same same volume. There aren't any substantial structures or anything which really impacts on the open. In fact, I suppose arguably there's more sort of greenery there, which replaces what is a hard surfaced area. So, I think that's kind of how it relates to much policy open land. Wasn't the, well, the point about your heritage, was that the other point? It was more about the question about that under MOL policy about keeping openness. That is obviously the listed building, which is part of this application, as you say, which hasn't been extended. But my question is, under MOL policy, how do you view the area surrounding the building as designated existing development? Because under this application, I would assume that is classed as in the same category as the building. In other words, it hasn't been given special significance, or has it? Because the building has been given special figures, but not the surrounding area around it. So, yes, we're looking at the whole site and because there are no buildings going on the site, then the openness of that site would not change. That's the argument we're putting forward, because, yes, all you're doing is putting planting where there's hard surfsings. So, and you're redoing the hard surfsings. So, and the building isn't changing in its volume, it's changing internally. Just as a matter of point is, it's a building of tasking merit, which isn't a listed building. It's what we would refer to as non-designated heritage assets. So, it's a sort of level down from a listed building. A listed building would have controls over the internal of the building, but this is a building of tasking merit. So, therefore, what goes on in the building is not as important as it would be in a listed building. Sorry, Chair. It's probably me. I'm not being very articulate. What I'm trying to get at is the area outside the building, not the building itself. The question was about, because we've talked about the boundary by conditions. So, my question is, in terms of openness, how does that align itself with the MOL policy on openness? Because, obviously, there is a condition within this report, and therefore, what's the relationship between the boundary by condition, and the significance of that in addition to the heritage building? Because the heritage building is a listed building, but not the area outside the building. The landscaping. So, my question is, how does the boundary change? How would the boundary, would that still align with, or how does it align with MOL policy on openness, bearing in mind that there, it has to be by conditioning clothes? Thank you. Yeah, okay. So, if we're talking about around that red line, for instance, we're talking about putting a boundary around there to stop access. Then, yes, potentially, there is an issue of openness depends on how that was done. Obviously, if it was a high, close-boarded fence with no views through, then that would have a greater impact on openness than railings, where you would get views through as you do currently. So, yes, certainly, there is potential for that to have some impact on the openness. Yeah. Thank you, Councillor Shaffer. Councillor MANDERS. Thank you, Chair. It's very interesting to hear the case by the residents and also, I, Councillor Hayes and Councillor Green. Both Councillors have been extremely experienced when it comes to planning, and I always listen very, very carefully when they speak. They're very precise in what they say, and they're very well researched. So, my question, really, to the officers is that there are a number of points that were made by Councillor Hayes and Councillor Green on planning grounds, why we should, they believe we should turn this down. So, I wonder why the officers' comments are on them. And I made a note of, and it is also in the late material as well, just a paraphrase. It could be considered to be not acceptable because it's on metropolitan open land. A fragmentation of the site and severance of the two parts of the site. There are also, in the emerging local plans, there are grounds as well for refusing it, and it's also against the river strategy, and I think also the core strategy as well. So, I wonder if we can have the officers' comments, any on those grounds for refusal. Thank you, Councillor MANDERS. Toby? OK. Yeah, you can hear me. Yeah. OK, so, in terms of metropolitan open land, so, I guess, obviously, the first thing, obviously, as officers, we've recommended this for approval. So, we think overall the balance warrants an approval, but we have highlighted within the report that it is separated from the other sort of parts of the site. I guess, certainly, it's something which you could give more weight than we have to conclude that this wasn't acceptable. The metropolitan open land, well, we have talked about that, and I suppose, arguably, the point raised in our discussion just now, and I can't agree in terms of the fences, and securing the site from the remainder of the site, obviously, otherwise, yes, you can access all of the site, and if there are anyone who could gain access to the site could. So, yes, I guess there is, certainly, an unknown in terms of how that could be done, and that there isn't anything that's been put forward. So, obviously, that could be considered. Just in terms of the policies that we're assessing this again, it would be the Council's core strategy, which is 2012, albeit, there is a new local plan being prepared. But the new local plan could be a material consideration, depending on how far down the route that's gone. But then, otherwise, it's the London Plan, which is more recent 2021, and then the National Planning Policy Framework is also a material consideration from late last year. Does that answer your questions or anything else you'd need me to consider? That's fine, Chair. Thank you. I think, to paraphrase the officer, there are grounds, then, for us to refuse this, along the lines have been thought by Council that he's Councillor Green. Okay, and right. Okay, well, I have a couple of questions as well. So, Councillor Green mentioned an issue to do with SWAG, the late material from SWAG. She said she pointed to the late material that had been supplied by the applicant, and then said that she had been told that SWAG was told that they couldn't submit late material. And I was just wondering if you could clarify that matter for us. Yeah, my understanding is that late material can be submitted, I think it has to be submitted for a certain time before the committee meeting, so that it can be sort of checked for sort of accuracy and summarized. And I believe that might be two days before, so I don't know if that was the issue, but generally we would accept late material from all sides. Yeah, not aware of. Yes, sorry, you were going to add, Toby. I personally wasn't aware of any late material being rejected, and certainly the case officer would have been sort of kept informed this thing and they would have let me know. Okay, right, so as far as you're aware, the applicants were submitted late material in time, and if there was any late material submitted by any by SWAG, it didn't arrive in time for the deadline, if that is in fact, but we don't have any. We don't have further information on this. No, it depends on what's been proven. I mean, we do, we will look at stuff that's safe till the very end, but it just depends on what it is that's, but if it's extra comments, well, we will always try to summarize those. And that's why the late material comes out quite late on a few hours ago today to allow people that opportunity to kind of, but I certainly wasn't aware of it. Okay, no, that's fine, we'll leave that there for now. So referring to the applicants late material, could you just clarify for me, I just want to make sure I understand this, that the applicant was, what was the essential change that the applicant was indicating that they might agree to? Yes, I'm just just getting the arm now. Can I help you out there? Is it just the addition of bat box has been integrated into the structure of the building and the ecological enhancement plan? Yeah, and I think it relates to how updated condition five you go, so the, so I think it's updated condition five. I think is that the one that referring to which does, yes, talk about an inclusion, the provision of a bat box, it also talks about the works should not compromise the ecology of the wider sink and the adjacent open mosaic habitat. Which has been shortened to OMH, which probably should be lengthened to open mosaic habitat. So it was just that, it was, I don't think it was necessary full agreement on that, but I think it was, we need, because it's a pre-commencement condition, we require the agreement of the applicant to impose that. They were happy to do that and they would provide further information later on down the line if approval were answered. Okay, and could you just briefly explain to me what open mosaic habitat is, please? I think all I really know about is that what we're saying is that the existing site isn't designated as open mosaic habitat. The wider site is, and understanding of open mosaic habitat is sort of the various elements that make up a habitat. And it's, I think the point really is that even if the site currently doesn't have any open mosaic habitat, it could impact on adjoining areas which clearly are open mosaic habitat. Sorry, I'm just trying to follow that. So, are you saying that basically, when you said the site is not open mosaic, but the wider site is, are you referring to the site in the red lines is not open mosaic habitat, but the area that was in, I think it was the blue lines. The blue lines is open mosaic habitat. And that would include the area that's included in the red lines. Yes, so it's the blue line which is, if you go back to an earlier plan, is the much larger part. That has that is considered to be open mosaic habitat. Whereas, yes, this particular part here is hard surfaced and understanding isn't. So, I've slightly lost my train of thought now. You were talking about the blue lines and the red line isn't, but because, but the point of that change the condition is to make sure that what happens on this site considers its wider context. Okay, that's kind of what I was getting to really. The other question just quickly was the provision of fencing around the site. That's a condition that we could add to the application if we choose to approve it, but it's not currently in the plan. Is that correct? So, we have suggested additional condition 23. So, yeah, you wouldn't, you could accept that. You wouldn't have to accept that as with all conditions, but we have suggested that as a condition. Okay, so, I suppose my final question is, is there an irresolvable conflict between the openness, maintaining the openness of the site for nature and biodiversity and closing that closing off the site, putting a fence around it for safety? Is there, can we reconcile those two things in this plan, given, given the site, the red line sites role in open mosaic habitat? I guess any, so, it's currently nothing, nothing is sort of proposed around this site, but I guess the issue that could raise is, well, then this does allow access to the wider site. So, I guess any, anything that would apply with, with condition 23 would need to take account of both of those matters. And I guess it's, it's for the committee to consider whether you think that balance could be achieved. Obviously, Councillor Green suggested that it perhaps can't and that's an issue, but yes, I guess that's certainly something you can consider. Okay, thank you. That's the end of my questions. Do any Councillors have any further questions before we move on to our comments and debate? Okay, Councillor Shapper. I've completely forgot to ask, on the design of the building, are there any functioning windows on the upper floors open that actually open? I just couldn't see it from the plans. Perhaps I didn't pick up on it, but I couldn't see. Are there any functioning opening windows on the upper level where the mezzanine is in the, on the, on the proposal? Let me, let me take, I think I'll just take you to the plans there if I can. I'm trying to operate the wrong computer. So, you can see sort of, well, I suppose yes, on the upper floor actually you've got, you've got quite a bit of the windows available there, albeit they would be quite low down. There's roof lights which are proposed if you silicone on the bottom left elevation. Chair, could I just ask a supplementary question to the officer? Is for health and safety, you wouldn't be expecting those windows to be opened though, would you, with a split floor? Because it looks like the floor's going through the wind, going through the middle of the windows. And if that's a heritage building, there'd be sash windows under, under, you know, grade listed, you'd have to put sash windows in, wouldn't you? The open top and bottom, so you wouldn't be able to open them, would you, on the mezzanine floor? So, I presume they would only be decorative windows? I mean, if they were to be open, obviously you'd need to make sure that somebody couldn't fall out, or from the first floor, I'd say. So, that would be building regulations that would look at those issues. Okay, thank you. Sorry, Chair. Sorry, does that answer your question? Could I just clarify, so what you're saying is that they are openable windows, on the planning, that this is just a point of clarity, that they are functioning windows that can be opened? Yes, I think the windows could be opened. I think what would, what somebody would want to think about is what, whether you would need to put any barriers inside to, and you probably would anyway, because if you remember, there's the cutout around the windows. So, you need to think about making sure that people couldn't fall down that gap between the window and the floor. So, that is, yeah, on that plan you see that the cutouts around the right-hand image, you see the cutouts around the windows. Obviously, there's potential then for the gaps. Yes, you would then normally put, I don't deal with building regulations, but I think it's normally 1.1 metre high to ensure that you couldn't fall down something. And that would also protect you from falling out the window. May I ask, would they be visible? Because you've obviously put conditions as a listed building on the outside, looking from the outside in, so you wouldn't necessarily have barriers on the inside of a window, because you'd presumably see that, wouldn't you, for a listed building? So, it's not a listed building; it's a building of times to get married, so there is that important distinction. So, there's obviously a number of ways you can have sort of railings. I mean, if anyone who has stairs will have, you know, banisters which will then have poles effectively, which will stop you falling. Off of the stairs, so it's that similar kind of concept, really. So, you can have things that would be kind of like railing type things, so you'd still see through them, or you could have something that was glazed. So, there'll be a number of solutions, but because it's not a listed building, wouldn't necessarily be something that we would need to control unless you felt it was important, particularly, I suppose, from the outside, because the inside isn't protected, because it's only a building of times to get married. It was listed building, absolutely, we'd be looking at all of these details, but it isn't, so we would only, we're only consuming the external appearance. Okay, thank you, thank you, Toby. I think we've probably got the gist of that there. Okay, thank you very much, if there are no further questions, we will now move on to comments and debate. So, can members please raise their hands to indicate if they wish to make a comment at this time. So, I see Councillor Davis, Councillor Shefner, anyone else at this point, Councillor Herner. Okay, so Councillor Davis, your comments, please. Yeah, obviously this is a very, very difficult decision that we're having to make tonight. I would love it, personally, if the whole site could be turned into somewhere like the London-Wetland Centre or the Middlesex filter beds. In other words, a purely nature-driven heritage site, and this little building would be the ticket office. It's just obvious, isn't it, you just go through there and there's, but that has many drawbacks. Mainly to do is money, I think, even the Middlesex filter beds don't have enough money to fill themselves with water at the moment. So, I don't really have any, I can't really object to this, as it is just a very little building on a very small site. I take the point that it might be giving a foot in the door to something bigger and more terrible, but I'm still open-minded. I'll carry on listening to the bait, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Schapper. Thank you, Chair. This is a really difficult one, because we're asked to look at this application on its merits, and looking at the building itself. My own personal opinion is I haven't got an issue with the way the building is, hopefully, or would be sympathetically restored from what it looks like at the moment. The two issues I'm wrestling with are the MOL policy on openness, and how you would reconcile going forward the idea that your one-hand recommendations be made, because it somehow isn't going to conflict with MOL policy on openness, but we're asked, obviously, to look at a condition where, just from a practical point of view, you would expect a site that was a business site to have some form of designated boundary, so that's where I find it is conflicting. And I would say that it's the footprint, so that what I'm trying to get at is by the fact that it's got a footprint that sets out a defined boundary line by way of the red line, the boundary line. Therefore, I believe it could be a departure or designation from the wider area, in other words, that just by its very nature, by its footprint, it is set apart from the wider area. And because we don't have any detail or idea going forward about what is designated acceptable for that entire area of the site, it's very difficult to then make an assumption at this stage. Even on its merits of this application, because if you're looking at openness, I would argue, well, this application is looking at a designated footprint within a red boundary line for the purposes of this application. It makes it very difficult if you then have to look at particularly car parking spaces, cycling, safety and all those things that come with an office building. So, you know, it isn't as simple as, well, it's going to be turned into an office, so it's going to look great. So, that's lovely. If this whole site was somewhere off the Serberton Town Centre, I'd say, wow, what an amazing all bells and whistles application, but it's not. It's in a much wider site of biodiversity interest and so on, environmental interest. I am struggling with the idea that it is a sort of standalone application by its nature of having its own boundary line. I can't see how that can be reconciled, but I, you know, as I say, I'm happy to listen to further debate. And just a couple of observations, really, it's such a shame that I didn't actually get the opportunity to, we didn't get the opportunity to ask the applicants any questions today, bearing in mind probably how much effort you've put into this application. And the second thing, it's a shame that there hasn't been some form of rapport with residents on what could have been done on that pump site, bearing in mind all of the sort of history and, you know, that's gone behind this whole site. It is a real shame that we haven't felt that there's been any, say, rapport or dialogue to look at what other options they could have been for that pump site, so, and pump house. So, that's just my own personal observation, but as I say, I'm happy to continue listening to what other colleagues have to say. Thank you very much, Chair. Okay. Thank you very much, Councillor Schupper. Councillor Herlner. Just to say that I sort of totally agreed with all the points that Councillor Green mentioned I would like. I have, have you, as a planning officer, been, got that in writing, all the points that she made? In terms of the conditions? Yes, I mean, she suggested condition 3.13 and 4, on condition 6, the railings, renumbering on condition 20, having a condition about external, external lighting being turned off and ensuring there was no splitting of the windows. All of those points I sort of totally agree with and would move that those put as conditions. That's not necessarily to say that I'm moving that the application should be granted, but on the basis that it may well go, if it was to be refused, it went to appeal. The conditional, the council will be putting the conditions it wanted to put on the site as, as, as, as green did as a sort of, if you don't, if you do go ahead. So I think it's useful that we are absolutely satisfied that all the conditions we think are relevant should be on it. And I think those conditions that she mentioned are all relevant and I would like to move that they've, they're added, added to it. On condition 23, which the officers put through his late observations, Councillor Green was a bit speccedic concerned that that might sort of adversely affect the wildlife. And I wondered whether it could be that condition could be maybe tweeted to reflect that concern. Okay, so you've, you've moved to add those to the application. Is there, is there a second for, is there a second to that? Okay, so Councillor, Councillor Davis seconds that. So as there's been an amendment, we move to discuss the amendment unless Councillors are minded to go to a vote, it would just be on the amendment, adding the amendment to the motion, which has already been put. But it does not, by voting for the amendment, it doesn't mean that you're voting for the motion, you can vote either way on the motion when that, when it comes time to vote on that. So on the basis of that, does anybody wish to make any comments? Councillor Worldridge. My comment is a general comment. Okay, is it related to the amendment that has been put forward by Councillor Herringer to add those conditions? No, but my hand up was before that. Right now we're considering, because an amendment has been made, we consider the amendment and then we come back to the conversation that we're having before. The debate regarding the main motion. So if I could ask you to hold on to that. That's understood. Just hold on to that. Just hold on to my colleague for getting in before me. Thank you, Peter. Okay, right, if that's the way it works. Okay. So. [INAUDIBLE] Right, so just a quick question for our planning officer. Do you have any, having heard the proposed amendment to the motion? Do you have any relevant comments to make on that or are those acceptable from a planning perspective to add to the motion? Okay, so yes, absolutely. We've reviewed those suggested conditions. Councillor GRUN, happy for those to be added on. I think the one thing that Councillor Herring was looking at was in terms of condition 23 or suggested condition. And obviously what that talks about is a price to commit some background work, details of boundary treatment. Designed to prevent general access to the wider site. That's to be approved, Smith's improved by the planning authority. I wonder whether it would be worth also adding in about impact on design to reduce impact on wildlife. Into that as part of the reason for the condition, but also within the main wording of that condition. So I think that would be reasonable. Okay, okay. And I'm getting the, yeah, okay. The seconder also concur with the addition of that. Yes, okay. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] Okay, that's clarified then. Okay, so we, right, so those 23 and 24 were already part of the original motion. So what we're adding just in the amendment is the points that were brought up that were suggested by Councillor Green in her presentation. So does anybody wish to make any further comments on this or should we just vote on the amendment? Sorry, Councillor Gonzalez. So there were a couple of other comments. Can you hear me? There were two other comments from Councillor Green. One about condition 20 and the class E comment. I mentioned about that being an error. And it was, there was an error there on that paragraph. I'll have you, okay, and then 22 which was about the external lighting. I mentioned that as well. Okay, thank you, thank you for bringing that up. Right, okay, so if there are no other comments, just devote on the amendment, just the amendment to the motion. Is that unanimous or do we need to take a vote? You agreed? Okay, I hear unanimous, okay, fantastic. Thank you. So the motion is amended as such. And now Councillor Woolridge, I believe you wish to make some comments, some general comments about the application. Yeah, these are just a general as a Councillor having listened to my colleagues, some who are here and some who are not here. And my comment really is with regard to this proposal. So tell me if I'm going wrong here because I'm not a planning specialist. I don't want to fall foul of anything. The proposal to refurbish what was the former pump house, in my opinion, and a lot of others' opinion, is too narrow. It's focusing only on the immediate area. That little diagon box there. In a lot of people's opinion, this approach overlooks the chance to include the project in a wider plan for the overall seething wells filter beds. We risk missing out on more beneficial uses for the wider community. I think a lot of opinion here is that we need a more comprehensive plan that aligns any development with the area's long-term heritage and sustainability. And there I could discuss the metropolitan open land, details with regard to diversity, the office, metropolitan open land, et cetera. But really, we really do need to consider the long-term heritage and sustainability of the site. Approval should come with conditions that enforce those broader goals. That's why I wanted to put a comment in before then. But I said my piece. Thank you very much, Chair. Okay. Thank you very much. Do any councils which make any further comments? I would just put in my comments at this point. As much -- this is a very difficult application. The site has been derelict for 30 plus years. There have been countless arguments and different visions about what should happen to the site, some from the applicants and some from the community. And the site has fallen into considerable disrepair. It's not a great advertisement for Kingston driving in, if you're coming in from Surrey, to come in and see the pump house sitting there in a very sad-looking state. And so it would be lovely to see something happen with that site. However, I'm just not convinced that I think there are a lot of significant problems that I still have with this application. From a heritage point of view, you know, the mezzanine floor bisecting the windows. I know they're set back by, you know, sort of little cutouts around the windows. But I think I would have liked to see possibly that set back the entire floor, set back, you know, several -- at least several meters from the windows. So that it wasn't -- it didn't dominate those windows and create effectively, visually cut them in half. So I don't think from that point of view, I could support the application as it stands. And I also just feel that there is an irresolvable conflict, as I kind of indicated in my earlier question, between the openness of the site for nature and closing off of the site for safety purposes. You know, if you were going to create fencing that's adequate to keep people from strain from, you know, out of that red line area into the wider site, potentially, you know, impacting the biodiversity of the site, potentially having, you know, safety issues. And also, you know, there are even potential crime issues there as well, as mentioned in condition 23, the proposed condition -- the condition 23 here. So I think on balance, I don't think that I can support this particular application. I think it's, as some of my other colleagues have said, it is very piecemeal, you know, as Councillor Wilder mentioned, you know, and several others. It's just basically not looking at the whole site as a -- in the round. So as a consequence, I don't think that I could support it as it stands. And if there are -- I'll just ask if there are any other comments from my colleagues before we go to vote on this. I'm not being difficult. I'm just now minded to support this application simply because I don't think we can really ask anybody to do something to the pump house without expecting some kind of return from it. I might be being very naive there. But if we could ask them to, you know, clean up the brickwork, make it look lovely so that it's not an eyesore coming into Kingston, that would be great. But I just don't know if we can do that, can we? Right. This was mentioned -- I'm sorry. I do appreciate their strong feelings from the audience, but because we have a -- this is a quasi-judicial process, we need to be fairly strict on the interactions that we have. We just had that Councillor Green did mention that it would be possible to apply, I believe it was a section 215 notice, as was applied to the site owners with regard to the railings, which are -- which we're in desperate need of repainting. And I don't know if that -- actually, to be honest, I don't know if that's been completely finished or not. Toby, has that been -- has it worked and finished, or is it still outstanding? My understanding is it hasn't been finished. Okay. It's a work in progress. I know that some of it -- I could see when I was down there that some of it had been done, but if it's still a work in progress, it'll take your word for it. So the -- that's another -- possibly -- that's probably not material to this application, but we can't -- that the railings, but we can -- we can consider applying a section 215 notice for the -- for the pump house itself, as Councillor Green explained. Are there any further comments from my colleagues? Okay. So -- so we have the motion. We now move to vote on the matter. And so it's -- it's the application as amended by Councillor Herlinger as amendment. To add those conditions. And could I have a show of hands for everyone who's in favor of the application? If you're in favor of the application, please raise your hands. Okay. Those against -- okay. That looks unanimous, but I'll just ask, are there any abstentions? Just for the sake of completeness. Okay. Thank you. So that's agreed. So I apologize, I misspoke that that's not part of the official record. Right. So we -- so we have refused the application. We have refused approval. We have refused approval. We have refused approval. We have refused approval. Okay. So can I just -- sorry, we -- there's a right. Procedural issue that we -- right. There's more to this, which is that we have indicated that we wish to refuse the application. We must -- we must now detail the grounds for refusal with the help of our planning officer. So we need to basically agree on the reasons for refusal. And I believe Councillor Herlinger wanted to come in on this point. I think sort of -- as a vote indicated, we refused to give approval. So that, obviously, by definition, was indicated that the committee is sort of minded to refuse. I think sort of the discussion so far sort of highlighted that the fragmentation of the site and the disturbance that this development would cause to the remainder of the site are probably the most substantial reasons to put forward in a notice of refusal. The planning officer may well wish to comment on the comments that were made by Councillors Green and Hayes on other method -- other policies that were put forward. Councillor MANDERS. Thank you, Chair. There is a paper submitted by Councillor Hayes, which sets out grounds for refusal of the application. There's quite an extensive list there. It's on the second page of the document is submitted. I would have thought that it would be a very good basis for the listing of the grounds for refusal subject to the officers going through it and eliminating anything which should come out of it. But otherwise, I would have thought we have there in some detail about what those grounds are. Thank you, Councillor MANDERS. That's a very good point. So Toby, you can take those notes from Councillor Hays, in which he lists his four reasons. I believe also we had a grounds for refusal from Councillor Green that was listed in an email that you received as well as me. So I think those will take. I think those, are we agreed, are sufficient grounds for refusing this is for Toby to comment? Yes, I suppose, well, I guess looking at the four reasons for refusal suggested by Councillor Hayes, I suppose the first one talks about the office and associated car parking sort of impacting on the metropolitan open land, we have discussed that point. I don't know where, I suppose it's up to you, I suppose what you want to refuse on. I guess the change of use as such is a contrary to metropolitan open land policy. And I know one of the things which has come out a number of times is the provision of the fencing and what impact that might have because we don't 100% know. That's what Councillor Green mentioned. So there could be something in terms of that impact on metropolitan land, but whether it's the use and the car parking, you know, I wouldn't necessarily follow that. You've talked about the collision. The reason for the two is based on the existing buildings surrounding the rest of the field to bed site. And that talks about site and nature conservation interest. And then we decide south conservation. Now you've talked about those things and we've highlighted that a bit within our report so that wouldn't necessarily be too much of a problem. And the lack of it being contrary to PODCS 1 in relation to, yes, basically working with the site partners to provide for nature conservation, nature conservation, et cetera, extension so I walk all those things. I think what you're saying is that this would potentially get in the way and certainly doesn't provide some of these things. And that could form a reason fusile and just try to understand the fourth one. So that's sort of similar in a way but from a sort of heritage point of view. And I think if I remember rightly that the counts are green. It's just as well I suppose in terms of obviously if people can access rest of site well then there's an issue there. If they can't there's the issue with the boundary treatment. You know, one of those, so yeah, counts are green referred to, you know, being able to access potentially unsafe deep water but then the fence is causes that issue. So yeah, I guess it's probably being particularly careful with one and then the other ones could form the basis if you thought that was the way you want to go. I'm not sure if you mentioned it already but it was about the form of words that we had earlier about the preservation of openness because we were mentioning about the boundary line fencing being in conflict with the MOL policy on preserving openness and also perhaps a reference to the paragraph 42 in the report about the NPPF. So it's just tying it in, ensuring we can tie it in with, I think you neatly summed it up earlier chair about the, I can't remember how you worded it, some irreconcilable conflict, not being able to be resolved on the issue of the preservation of openness if there was going to be a fencing or boundary around the perimeter of the plan on the red line. So I think it was just trying to make that point about the whole point of the MOL was in exceptional circumstances this being allowed but we're saying that it's in conflict with MOL policy. Okay, thank you. Thank you chair. Did you have a comment, Councillor? Yes, Chair, I think some of that is covered in Councillor Haze's grounds for refusal. So I think... Explicit for the purposes of that, obviously we could, obviously as you said, ask officers to work on that but making it more explicit that it's in reference to the, I think as the chair pointed out, the conflict with preserving openness with the existing application that we're looking at in terms of its boundary line of this application within the wider, within the wider site. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I mean, it's implied in point two of Councillor Haze's list of grounds for refusal. And so we could make it explicit but the intention is there if it's even a mean in point two. Okay, thanks. I think in my comment was really just trying to draw out the fact that that did exist. That's what I was hearing from the conversation, that conflict did exist. Okay, so are there anything else we need to add to this? This is basically, so we are proposing that we will ask officers to use the grounds for refusal that have been outlined by Councillors Haze and Green in their respective messages to the committee as the grounds for refusal. Let's get to amendment, Bill, the officers. Okay, right. So. Okay. So, right, I'm advised by our democratic services officer that we need to go through each individual grounds for refusal and have a vote for or against each one. So if you refer to the paper from Councillor Haze, number one, the proposed office use and associated car parking is not compatible with the designation of the land as metropolitan open land in the London plan and the Kingston core strategy and the emerging Kingston local plan. So I would let you take the rest as a red, all those who support that as a grounds for refusal, I could please indicate by raising your hands. Okay, that looks unanimous to me. Number two, the proposed development severs the existing building and its immediate surroundings from the rest of the former Seething Wells Filterbed sites, which would prejudice the development of the application site as a visitor and interpretation centre for the Seething Wells Filterbed sites overall, nature conservation interest and historic interest. So all those who would support that as a grounds for refusal, that looks unanimous to me. Thank you. The proposal, number three, the proposal would accordingly be contrary to policy S1 of the Council's core strategy, which says the Council will work in partnership with various stakeholders to reduce flood risk and make the site safer community use will take an account of nature conservation interest. The Council will work with partners to provide for nature conservation, leisure and nature conservation, and an extension of the Riverside Walk of the former Thames Water Filterbeds. The Council will enhance and protect Servicine's architecture and local identity by safeguarding and improving features that contribute to the character of the Servicine neighbourhood. I'll let you take the rest as a red. So all those in sporting point three, I think again, that's unanimous. And the Riverside South Conservation Area Praisal dating from 2002 and prepared an association with the designation of the Conservation Area on behalf of the Council by CAPC Studios concluded that the character of the area as a whole is a special architectural and historic interest on account of among other things, the industrial public health heritage, which is represented in the buildings and structures that see the well's water works. And I'll let you take the rest as red, but it's basically focusing on the heritage, which includes the building on the site. All those who would support that, again, I take that as unanimous, right. And then we had Councillor Green in her public comments for a second. I think it is quite difficult on a technical level to agree these precise recommendations. I think as we haven't got it in writing in front of us for all the read, while Councillor Green's comments were probably very worthy, and if we could work it out, then we should add them. However, we haven't got them in writing, and you're going to have to sit there and try and interpret your notes on what she said. So my question, do we need to add in Councillor Green's comments into this as a condition or not of the condition, as the reason for refusal, or can we get by with Councillor Hayes's comments and grounds? What is the sense of the committee? Are we happy with the comments from Councillor Hayes? There was a part of Councillor Green's comments about the design of the mezzanine in terms of the windows, I mean that is a design feature that would you consider that to be worthy to be included at this stage? I think that's a very good point, and I think it's also a point I made in my comments. Yes, I think it is a very good point, but I think we heard from the officers, if it was a listed building that it would be, as it were, we could go into the internal design of the building as proposed by the developer, but as it's a building of a confiscate merit, we don't have that particular power to do that. So my view would be not to put it in on that reason. I'm compelled to have a stronger case for the issue about the openness, about the issue we've discussed about the boundary. Thank you. I think we've covered that off. So that forms the basis as the outline of our reasons for refusal. Others will amend accordingly. Okay. According to that, okay. So, right, I'm advised, so we need to thereby move that we refuse the application on the grounds that we've just established, whether we just voted on one through four, do I have a second for that? Yeah, I'll have you a second, sir. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Herringer. Is that unanimous, or do we need to go to a vote on this? Agreed. Agreed? Okay. I'll take that as unanimous then. Thank you very much, Councillors. Do we need a short break and we'll -- and we need to bring other colleagues in if they haven't. Well, I'm having fun with it. Yes, okay. We adjourned for five minutes. Okay. All right., thank you. All right. All right., thank you. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right, thank you. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. Where do you think it went wrong with regard to us, the council, not being aware that you didn't have a first floor extension, second floor extension? In the committee report. Page 54. Paragraph 18. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question. If you could just remind me of the objection on the – because there's an existing – you know, we talked about the 6-meter at the back, but there's an existing planning app that it's about, what, 10 cent – less than 10 centimetres, long greater than the existing one. So my question is, what about the roofline? Because the roofline looks really good. The roofline looks much higher on this plan. I'm looking at the line of the chimney line. And is that – you didn't mention the roof height, or I wasn't quite sure whether you'd mention if you could just clarify, because I'm looking on the plan. Is there an issue with – because I'm looking at the front and back of the building is higher as well. So thank you. In the supplementary information, I've provided a diagram which showed – I took the architect's drawing, an over of the existing drawing, and superimposed onto it the new one. And I think quite clearly showed the difference in the ceiling heights and the overbearing nature of the development. Could you just – do you mind just clarifying – I've got that photo here. Yes. So this is obviously your conservatory now, looking across – yes, up into 91. Although the terms being used in conservatory, as the Councillor has probably noticed, it is a living room. It's brick walled with a glass roof. And because of that, we're able to use it all year round. So it's not – what can we say? A conventional conservatory. And that's why I was concerned about the overbearing and loss of privacy. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. That's a five minutes time for you. Thank you. Right. So thank you very much for that. So do any members of the committee have questions or clarification for the applicant? Please raise your hand if you do. Yes. So could I ask the applicant – yeah. Okay. To come forward. And again, we only have five minutes. So Councillor Green. Thank you. I've just pulled up on screen the consent, the granted permission. And I'm interested in the roof line. Yeah. And it appears to me – and this is what I just want you to confirm – yeah. That the roof line of the consent permission is 9.8 metres roughly. Yeah. And that's the same for being asked for here. Correct. Yeah. They're both identical. So yeah, the approved and the resubmission is exactly at the same height. Yeah. It's unchanged. Point to note is that both the neighbours have three floors. So their roof line is actually higher than the house even after our extension. It's the same. So it's – yeah. I'm comparing the granted permission with the – yeah. It's exactly the same. So the major change between the granted permission and this application is the first floor rear extension, which doesn't exist in the granted permission. Correct. I appreciate your step back, but it exists in this application. That's the major difference. Yes. That's the major difference. Yes. That's the major apart from the removal of the dormers or the rough version. The dorm – removal of the dormers. Yes. And it seems to poke out a little bit more at the front from what I can work out. No, that's exactly the same as well. That's the same, is it? Yeah. Yeah. There's no changes to the front apart from a small change to the porch. The remaining rear ground floor is pretty much the same. The first floor addition is the only significant change on this extension, on this proposal. The removal of the previous application had front facing dormers and rear facing dormers. All right. So they've all been completely removed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Holt. Thank you. I just wanted to ask a question about the windows on the first floor. Elevation seems to be the back of the one that's causing some – or the major change. I was wondering because it looks like that is a bathroom that you've got there. Would you be putting opaque glass? Yeah. That's mentioned on the plans. Okay. So when we've got any side facing windows, we've got notes on the side of these plans that say any side facing windows that we propose to put in would have opaque, frosted glass to preserve privacy. Because obviously our client would also like privacy as well. So we want to make it blank or give it some sort of texture just so that you can't directly look into each of those properties. Okay. No, that's fine. It's quite small. Yeah. It's even got it on the computer trying to get it higher and it is still quite small. But I just wanted to check that you would be planning to put that it's going to be opaque on those windows. And the one that's the other one that the on the first floor next to that – all of them will be all of them. Perfect. Thank you. Are there any more questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Right. So, right. So we'll now move to Toby. We'll now present the material planning considerations and address where necessary any issues raised during public speaking. So over to you, Toby. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Just a point. I think on the previous permission, I think it got approved for rear dormers, but I'm not sure it got permission for front dormers, but it had front roof lights. I think it was pretty much the same. So I suppose just in terms of the objects are talked about breaching the extension guidelines of being 6 metres. So our guidelines basically talk about where you've got extensions. You can go between sort of 3 to 4 metres depending on the type of property. But once adjoining neighbours have extended which they have in the case of 89 because there's a high boundary wall and the exceptionally behind. And obviously the rear, the building line of number 93 was already further back. So actually they're looking to broadly line up with the existing extensions. Our guidelines would actually allow something on single story to go beyond that to go further and the adjoining building lines in line with the additional 3 to 3 and half metres. So just to clarify that point, the reference to the late to the first floor rear extension. We've corrected that in late material. I should have mentioned that in my presentation. So I think the point was there really that the number 93 extends further back than number 91 and it shouldn't have referred to number 89 at all. So a quite significant error I agree but we wasn't sort of part of the way we assessed it. We were looking really at how this impacts on the neighbour. And I suppose the other sort of point really in terms of light or we've talked about light actually so probably don't need to mention that but happy to have any questions. Then in terms of I suppose whether this would be an overbearing, have an overbearing impact. Well, obviously in terms of it being adjacent to any garden areas, it's not. And generally that's where you would find that overbearing impact. The neighbouring property 89 has extensions albeit. It has a glazed roof. So I think what you would experience safe from within that space is the first floor extension would be 2.5 metres away from the boundary. And it would have an extra height of about 2.4 I think it says over there. 2.4 on top of the single story. And that would extend for 3.6 metres. So actually I think in much of the conservatory you probably wouldn't even be particularly aware of it. That's not to say that if you stood at the far side you wouldn't be able to see it but you certainly wouldn't be able to see all of it. So in terms of the actual impact it probably wouldn't be very significant. And I guess ultimately that's what we have to assess really is what the impacts are on the neighbours. So thank you, Chair. Okay, so thank you very much, Toby. So I'll now move the recommendation as set out on page A46 which is the application B application to be approved and subjected to conditions. So do I have a seconder for? Happy to second. Yes, thank you Vice Chair. Now we'll open the matter for debate. So first of all we have questions for the officers. Does anybody have any questions for the officer? I see Councillor Green. Councillor Davies. Okay, Councillor Green please. Thank you. First of all Toby, could you just take us back to the, I'm interested in the roof lines and unfortunately the Google one has got a tree right in the way. I'm on the Google street seat. So the two properties, 89, 91, you've got a view from the front. Yeah, you can see, you can't. Yeah, you can just about see it. So that's 93 though, isn't it? That's 90. All the trees get in the way. Do you know what the height of the roof of 89 is? I would have asked the resident but I doubt he knows the height of his roof completely because why would he? We don't. What's the comparison? I mean just, you know, okay. Certainly in terms of the property to the right, so number 93 is significantly taller than 91 is currently and it looks to be about the same height of what's proposed and what's been grunted. It's the other way that the trees are getting in the way. Yes, getting in the way of saying that. Let me just, if we go back to... Oh, that one's quite good actually because that's 90, the bottom left. Yes. Oh, that's 93 on the right hand side of 90, 89 on the left, isn't it? That's the front. Yes, that's the front. So yes, you can see... Just about. Just about, absolutely, the trees do get in the way and because we're attaining one tree, that will still continue to get in the way. Yeah, photographs. The second question is, the objecter spoke about the potential of noise escaping from a cinema room, a playroom. Kids are not known to be particularly quiet to ones playing depending on their age. Would it seem reasonable to you as a planning officer for a condition to ensure noise does not escape from that new roof that is being created by the loft extension effectively? I know we have standard conditions. Please don't ask me what the decibel levels are in the conditions, but they're measured to not be probably insulated to make sure the noise doesn't escape out into the rest of the environment. Absolutely. So I suppose if we look at the roof plan and the front and rear elevations, you can see that there are some roof lights, which are quite high levels, actually. Any noise while those were opened would be some escape of noise, but actually as it's internal, it wouldn't be suddenly like somebody in the garden. Obviously, it would be built to a good standard from a sustainability point of view and therefore noise break. Just trying to make sure that it mitigates against any potential problems. Yeah, we can't entirely stop problems, but ultimately this would be built to a good standard, which would, yeah, I don't think there wouldn't be anything more we could add really to. Because it would have to be building control standards. Absolutely. We wouldn't be adding anything new to it with that. No, absolutely. But the way it's been designed actually is with high level windows actually, then the sound would tend to go upwards rather than if it was lower level, but it's obviously common to have all types of things in properties. That building standards requirement would cover. Thank you. Yes, absolutely. Right. Thank you, and I'm sorry, who was... There's a David here. Yeah, sorry. It's getting late. Councillor DAVIS. Thank you. I can't let a whole meeting go by without mentioning bicycles. I'm sorry. I was under the impression that if somebody got rid of a garage space, they were sort of duty bound to replace it with something in the conditions. I can't find anything in this application for bicycle storage to future proof this extension. We certainly would always put it on if there was no side access to the rear garden, but actually there is so bikes could go down the side. But we could add that condition on this side. No, I don't want to. I just thought that we always did, so I'm not going to make it a condition. So yeah, definitely. If you lose a side access, then we make sure that provision is made somewhere. Right. Do any other Councillors wish to ask a question? No? Okay. So we then go on to comments. Does Councillors wish to make comment as part of the debate? Councillor DAVIS. I just want to speak from personal experience of living next to people who have a lot of extensions. When they happen, you feel very insecure. You think you're going to lose your light. My neighbours put on their garage for two weeks. It was fabulous, and then they put this thing up. And when the scaffolding arrived for the loft extension, I really hope they don't watch this. I was in tears, and I was going to move house, and I was really angry. And then they came round and said, Look, we didn't know they were coming today. I'm so sorry. And I immediately said, Okay, fine. I've been no problem at all. And all their buildings have been done, and I just love my neighbours. And I just hope that you'll be able to, if we do approve this, I hope you'll be able to get on with it already. Nothing is ever as bad in the end as it seems in the planning stage. That's my experience. Councillor Hult. Okay. Councillor Hult, and then Councillor Green. Okay. Thank you. I'm kind of looking through this a bit and listen to the comments that have been made. I noticed that the conservation area committee didn't make any comment on it. I probably, and I'm also taking a look at how this already had the planning application. I personally don't really like the way it is, and I think the way that you've extended it to the side, I don't particularly like that sort of look. But it is better than the extension that's there at the moment, so that is better. But that is purely my own views on it. I know that you're trying to get the symmetry. I know that you've obviously changed the front door, but personally it's -- I don't -- but that's not a planning reason to -- that's just my own personal thing. So that's really where I am on this. I think we've already had a planning application that you've indicated that's not that much different from that apart from the points that you've made, a very small difference, and the reasons why you've changed it. I was pleased to hear that you did have the opaque windows. I couldn't see it in the information, so that was good to see as well. So I think overall, for me, there was sort of things that I was looking for. What did the conservation area think, board think, and they weren't -- didn't have any problems with it. And so that's -- and also, I think it does improve the overall look of the sort of mix-mash of extensions. But I would say I still don't like the entranceway apologies for that. Okay, so thank you, Councillor Holt and Councillor Green. Thanks. I quite like the look of that. It is subjective, what's proposed at the front. I prefer that to what's there, but I also actually do think it could look quite nice. But again, that's not really the planning consideration. I really welcome the removal of the rear dormers, because I think that doesn't suit. For me, it comes down to -- and I brought up on screen as I commented -- what is permitted currently and could be built out. And the main difference -- so roof height's front extension pretty much -- or the two-story extension at the front and going along the side is pretty much as it is already granted permission. It comes down to the first floor at the rear. That's the bit that's new, predominantly. Because it does seem quite an overextension to me, having that at first floor. However, it meets the 45-degree angles that's demonstrated on here by being set back. I don't think that refusing planning permission would be a defensible decision at appeal, because an appeal planning inspector would look at it and say it meets the requirement of not overlooking if they looked at it completely objectively. And I think for that reason, I'm likely to vote to permit it. I do think it's somewhat large from the original house, and I don't support increases, but given that it has the granted permission already for the majority of it, I don't think that first floor at the rear is sufficient to refuse it without it then being risky at appeal. So that's my view on it. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Green. Are there any -- yes, Councillor Schaffer. Thanks, Chair. I just really want -- I didn't want to repeat what my colleagues have said. I think it's an attractive build. My only question is actually -- and this is just purely going from what my colleague, Councillor Hock, was saying about personal preference. I really don't like the front door. I think it looks very modern in comparison to the rest of the house. But that isn't a planning. That's not -- you know, that's just an idea that I couldn't see from the plan what that was made of. It certainly isn't -- to me, it looks very similar to the back, which is looks like bifold galvanized. So I just wondered, out of curiosity, what is it actually going to be made of, the front door? Oh, sorry. Excuse me, Councillor, we're not at a point where we can ask questions. Oh, I'll make that a rhetorical question. That can remain rhetorical. It was just -- yes, please. Yeah, I'll make it a rhetorical question. It was just purely saying, I hope that it would be nice for you to perhaps consider making something a bit more attractive in keeping with how all the house is. But that's all I wanted to say. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you, Councillor Schaffer. Are there any further questions? Is it our comments? Comments. Comments? Like I said, forgive me for the late hour. Any further comments on this? No. Okay. Okay. Councillor Waldridge. Okay, there was a concern with regard to the windows, elevated windows, which are the bathrooms. It's a small condition, but I just want to make sure those do remain bathrooms. So, there's no impact on overlooking the do but chuffed thing in me, Jake. Thank you. I suppose that's a question for our planning officer. Can we make that a condition? Can we even consider that as a condition a few years? So, yes, perhaps I should clarify. Or Liz, do you want to? I don't believe you can condition. You can condition that the windows should stay opaque for the duration, so they can't just put film on it and then remove the film. For the duration of what? Of the building. Yeah, adding an item. Yes, thank you. So, we originally used to say it had to be put in there. But actually, you could put the film up and then take the film off after you, you know, and be out of breach. Yes. But, you wouldn't necessarily know. You can say it should remain opaque. You can't define what the room needs to be. That's a great shame, but thank you for clarification. Well, that's my view and experience. Because obviously, the internal layout is up to the person who lives there. You can't tell me how I should internally lay out my house unless you're into listed building status and we're not. Forgive me, but we can do the windows. But you can say that the windows must be opaque as is in the plant anyway. Great. And you can say that it should be permanently retained. I love the word permanent retained. Many thanks. That's my view. Okay. So, is that an amendment? Do you have that report? Oh, yes. Yeah, well, I'm just looking through the conditions. I don't think we have a condition. You could -- if you wanted, then you need to add that as a condition. Okay. So, is the committee minded to add that as an amendment to the planning application as a condition? I have a seconder for his amendment. Okay. Just worth saying, what we'd also normally do is ask for it to be fixed shut below 1.7 metres as well as being able to place those combined together so that you can't have an obscure closed window and see straight out. All these things we learned in planning, right. Okay. Are you happy to accept that? Extremely. Thank you very much. Okay. Good terrific. So, that's the amendment. Are we unanimous on that? It's been seconded. Yes. Agreed. Okay. Thank you very much. So, please note the amendment for the conditions. Right. Are there any further comments, debate before we go to a vote on this? Okay. So, I'll now move to vote on the matter. And, right. So, the motion is to approve the application with conditions and kind of have a show of hands in favour, please. That's anonymous. Right. Okay. Right. So, that is unanimous. And, as approved, subject to conditions and informatives, et cetera. Right. So, we can now move on to the final item on the agenda. I'll just note at this point that the officer who was going to present the ASB report has had to go home due to the late tower, so we will defer that report to another time. So, we go to the Seething Wells updates. There's no resolution required here. We don't have an officer in attendance. We do have Councillor Roger Hayes, who I think wants to speak on this. So, just refer to Appendix B of the agenda pack. So, I'd like to invite Councillor Hayes to... Yeah, and then ask if they agree to... Right. Okay. I will just ask, pro-forma, this is under procedure rule 27, attendance of members at committees. Do we agree to let Councillor Hayes, thank you. No. No. [ Laughter ] It's all getting rather silly now. [ Pause ] Okay. [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] Yes, I would like to get on. [ Pause ] Okay. The planning application that we just finished voting on, Councillor Sharper feels it, we were voting on the amendment and not the substantive at the end, but we devoted on the amendment, and then we voted on the substantive. [ Pause ] Right. How do you wish to record your vote then? Well, can I say that I would have voted it? Yes. Thank you. Then it's... Yeah, okay. So it's unanimous. Okay, thank you. Right. Right. Councillor Hayes, would you like to address the committee, please? [ Pause ] Good evening, and thank you. It wasn't my intention to address the committee, but to be here to answer any questions or thoughts that you might have, but I will just add a few thoughts, which is really why I thought that the earlier decision that you took was important, because what we are looking for as a council, as well as a community, is a holistic, long-term, lasting, sustainable solution to the filter beds. Despite the behaviour of the current owners, the strong desire of the council, the strong desire of the community, and lots of groups and individuals that have taken an active interest in this site for some many years now, is that it does become a heritage-led nature reserve, and the entire site needs to be protected and considered as a whole. And that really is the item that you've got before you this evening, and I hope that you can consider that and look to work towards a community-led resolution for the site. We are likely to continue to receive ever more fanciful applications from the current owners, but we shouldn't allow that to distract us from what the real purpose and objective for the site should be. So I hope that you can hold that to be the vision that you would have, because it's certainly the vision that many of us have held true for a lot of years now. So happy to hear your thoughts and answer any particular questions that you might have. Comment as well, which very patiently, Phil Renton and Ty Lee Ling, and so perhaps invite you both to come to the table at the same time. Yes, I just say that despite the late hour, I won't impose any kind of a time, but we would, I think, raise the more comments, and we will listen attentively. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, we'll keep it brief. Firstly, I'd like to become behalf of SWAG, as one of the coaches, and thank the committee for their refusal of the application of the pump house tonight. While I understand it was a difficult decision, we feel the right decision has been made in this regard, you cannot consider the pump house in isolation of the wider site. So, following on from that, we've read the updates with regards to the recent events with the meet with the owners, and the updates based on the police committee recommendations that were put through last year. And we just had a few comments. One of the two main issues that we'd like to follow up on is what is happening with the 215 notice, and the last we heard that there was some action that was being pursued, because this is, I believe the deadline was October last year, so it is quite far behind now. On that point, the owners in the meeting that we had with them, I believe last month, actually cited Council intervention, I believe they said it might have been the highways department that had prevented them from finishing the work on the railings. They had been notified, they didn't go into detail, but they basically had said that this had prevented them from continuing the work. And I've since heard that that's not the case, but we haven't had an official update with regards to that. And then just finally, on the valuation, it is disappointing to see that evaluation hasn't been done yet, as this just seemed to be a barrier on multiple occasions when it goes to looking at funding and looking at possible options to either buy the site by a fair party like historic England or someone like that. And so we'd like to see if this is going to be reconsidered. While the owners have said they wouldn't sell the site, they also have said they would, and they have also put it on lease and sites as well, despite what they may have said in person. And that's it, thank you for me. Okay, well again, thank you to all the committee members tonight for refusing the application, great news, thank you. And I just like to add and repeat, as I said in my little presentation earlier, that why not put a 2-on-5 order for the pump pass as a possible interim solution to 2-on-5 orders all about visual, meaning to visual, an aesthetic aspect. And as I comment from the chair earlier on that you drive in down that road, it's a complete, you know, it's an ISO, and that can be relatively easily sorted out by a 2-on-5 order. Okay, maybe cost some money, but at least it achieves the aesthetic aspect of a 2-on-5. In respect to the fact that they're not performing on the 2-on-5 on the railings, and the rubbish is accumulating, and it's a boatyard, that needs to be further emphasized to implement the existing 2-on-5 plus an additional. So I'll leave it there. Thank you. Well, thank you very much for your comments. So the committee's not required to pass the resolution for this agenda item, but are there any members who wish to speak? I just want to double check if there are no other members. Okay, I'm being advised about Democratic Services Officer to ask if anybody else wish in the audience wishes to make a comment. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Now, Councillor Green. Thank you, and thank you for being brief on your comments. I know you could say an awful lot more. I was just going to suggest to the committee that I think they raise two really interesting points about the Section 2-on-5s. And I think I could just take it away and ask the questions, but I think it has more weight and power if this committee says we would like the officers to look into, to provide an update to interested parties, let's just say, on the railings 2-on-5. And I noticed we did have a piece of information from Friends of Seething Wells, I think, on the desk from John Allen about asking about the railings as well. So, interested parties, please provide an update to officers on where we are, and please investigate the potential for a 2-on-5 on the pump house. And if this committee says we want to do that, it's got a bit more teeth than me or Roger, just saying it. And there's lots more I could say on this, but I won't. Is that a motion or just a request to the committee? Whatever gets it done quicker. I would be... Sorry, Councillor DAVIS is seconding it. Okay. Let the vote now be put. Right, fantastic. Excuse me, who's doing this? Right. That's a procedural motion, let the vote now be put. Oh, I see. Is that actual procedural motion in the Constitution that can be raised by any member? Right. Okay. Okay. Fantastic. Anybody object to this, is it unanimous? Yes. We're agreed. Okay. Can I take that? Okay. Fantastic. Anybody else want to make any final comments? No. Thank you very much. That brings that to a close. ASB report is postponed to the next meeting. And I'll just ask everybody to note the work program and there's no urgent items. So thank you. Good night and goodbye.