Transcript

All right, good morning everybody. We're going to make a start. Welcome everyone to the Planning Committee of Bath and North East Somerset Council. Today, Wednesday the 14th of February, 2024 in the Guild Hall bath. We're going to have two sessions today. We've got four planning applications, but we split them two and two, so we've got two this morning, and we'll look at two this afternoon. So welcome everybody. My name is Councillor Duncan Hounsaw. I'm the chair of the committee. And I now ask the officers on the top table to introduce themselves. Hello, I'm Karina Huskins from the Democratic Services. Hello there, I'm Sarah James. I'm the deputy head of Development Management. Simon Elius in the place legal team, senior lawyer. Thank you. Please can I remind everyone to switch their phones, iPads, laptops to silent during the meeting. The meeting is being filmed and the recording will be available on the council's website. Anybody speaking that does not wish to be filmed should make themselves known to the camera operator to my side here. Right, I now ask the Democratic Services Officer Karina Huskins to read out the emergency evacuation procedure. Thank you chair. If the continuous alarm sounds, you must evacuate the building by one of the designated exits and proceed to the named assembly point. The designated exits are sign posted. From this room, you use the main door and then the main exit of the building. And the assembly point is in orange grove on the green outside brands. Arrangements are in place for the safe evacuation of disabled people. Thank you very much. We now have apologies for absence in any substitutions. So, the Democratic Services Officer will now give us any details. So, apologies from Councillor Paul Crossley and Councillor Alex Beaumont is substituting. Thank you. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest? I think Councillor Jackson might wish to give us one. Well, yes, I'll formally inform you that I am a member of West Field Pride Council. And secondly, it has some bearing on the question of economic development in the Westfield area. I'm a director of the Radstock Cooperative Society who owned a store that's opposite the site. And thank you. And just to be clear, yes, you're referring to the first item over the states at Westfield. OK, thank you very much. Right. Urgent business agreed by the Chair. I don't have any. Items from the public statements and questions. The Democratic Services Officer will now inform you all of the public speaking procedure. Thank you, Chair. Speakers will be called to speak immediately after the case officer has made the presentation about the application. The order of speakers and the time allowed for speaking will be as follows. If there's any partial time Council representatives that they will speak first for a total of three minutes, objectors to an application will be allowed three minutes in total, supporters of an application will be allowed three minutes in total. And if there is more than one, objector or supporter of an application, they must share the three minutes allowed to each side. Ward Councillors, not on the committee, who have indicated that they wish to speak about an application may do so for a maximum of five minutes. The speeches will be timed by the traffic light system. You can see on the table next to me. At the start, the light will be green and will turn to amber when there is one minute of speaking time remaining. When the light turns red, speakers should immediately conclude their remarks. Thank you. Thank you very much. Minutes of the previous meeting, 17th of January, they've been circulated. Are these approved as a correct record? Councillor Jackson is... Not on the split infinitive. I'll propose that a correct record. Thank you very much. Seconded by Councillor Warren. Thank you very much indeed. Site visit list, there were no site visits applications to look at this time. So we move straight on to the main plans list. And the first one up is 23 stroke O2, 448 stroke FUL, the Oval Office, Cobbler's Way, Westfield, Radstock. I now invite the case officer Daniel Milson to present her report. Thank you, Chair. So this application proposes the conversion of the office block known as Oval Estates into nine two-bed apartments, the site is situated within Westfield. So here we have site location plan. So the site is outlined in red on the left and indicated with a red star on the right. So just to give a brief history of this site, the initially the wider application was granted permission with a condition for the office block, including this one, to remain as office so wouldn't be converted through prior approval to residential. Two prior approval applications were submitted. Both were refused due to this restrictive condition. A variation of condition application was then submitted, which sought to remove unit two, the one in question, and others from the condition wording. An assessment was made at that time to determine whether the loss of the office space was acceptable, taking into account marketing information and consulting with our economic development team. The application was subsequently approved and there is no longer therefore a condition restricting permitted development rights for this property with regards to its change of use to residential. So here is just a housing development boundary shown on a map indicated with the blue outline. So the site is located outside of the housing development boundary. The policy subject to this application is not reliant upon the application site being within the housing development boundary. This is just for indicative purposes. Here we have some existing elevations of the office block and some existing floor plans. And this is the proposed site plan, so not much change externally other than the erection of a bin and bike store which is located here. All other external arrangements remain the same. Proposed plans and elevations. The only notable difference is on the rear elevation. There is an existing kind of garage door, but that is going to be changed to windows to match all others. And then floor plans at the bottom to show all two bed units across the three floors. And this is the proposed bike and bin store. Just some site faces. So on the left is the front of the office block and the south east elevation on the right. Again the front of the office block showing the residential sites to the west. And then this is the rear south west and northwest side on the left. And on the right this is kind of pointing towards the location of the bin and bike store which will kind of be behind this tree here in this corner. And then just looking east and cobblers way. The officer recommendation is to permit for the reason stated within the committee report. Thank you very much for the report. Right. We now come on to speakers and the first one. Please Mr. Jack Broadway, the applicant speaking in support obviously. So if you come forward. Good morning everyone. We want to discuss the plan and application with you today for the conversion of the existing office block to residential units. Focusing on why we believe a change is necessary for this building. We've worked extensively over multiple applications with the council's consultees and with the council's economic development team to ensure that our approach is both informed and considerate. Firstly the reality of this building is the rent from external tenants doesn't even cover the annual electricity bill. Despite these financial challenges we chose not to pursue the permit development route which if the building was empty for three months we could convert the dwellings under permit development class MA. Instead we submit the full plan and application approach that has incurred significant costs on our side but we did this to ensure that we could keep the current tenants in their offices until a suitable alternative space in the unit next door is ready for them to occupy. We've been in contact with the tenants throughout to keep them updated on current plans and the future plans for the commercial unit next door. The decision to apply for this change follows the approval of the previous application for the variation of condition which was already recognized the buildings and suitability for office space only. The previous application was approved in 2023 and the class B1 requirement for this building was removed. This change allows us to consider more viable uses for the site addressing both economic and community needs. This change introduces smaller affordable units to a highly sought after area which already has an established relationship and mixed use residential and commercial units. Lastly our proposal to move from two half empty buildings to one fully utilized commercial space next door is driven by practicality and it's not just about the financial viability. The current situation is unsustainable and this application proposes a viable alternative use to maximize the use of this site. The current application is recommended for approval by the planning officer and has zero public comments and all the consultees have no objection to this application. And the viability for this site has already been approved of the previous application in 2023. Thanks for your time and consideration on this. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Mr. Broadway. Right. Next up is Councillor Enerjax and the ward Councillor. Thank you very much. But I would like to apologise that we haven't got a representative of Westfield Parrish Council here today because unfortunately Councillor Cooper couldn't manage to come. And the previous speaker said there be no objection. Actually the Parrish Councillors remain strictly neutral and has not logged any response of any description so it's wrong to say they don't object. They don't feel the attendance of the building that they can basically make an objection, make a statement either way, either in favour of the application or against it because they have such an important interest in it. And if I might also be permitted to say Mr. Broadway, it's been very generous terms, very good facility. And I'm sure the Parrish Council would want you on record just how good this office suite is. And there you are. It's unfortunate other people didn't appreciate the value of it. So if I might start now with the ward Councillor statement, I'm really very pleased that you've allowed this application to come to committee and to see, I've now seen the reasons why you brought it in and thank you very much for getting the measure of the situation. The first thing, of course, is that with Westfield Parrish Council recusing themselves and stepping back, there was no forum for local comment of any description from anybody. And so there's a bit of a democratic deficit. And by having this hearing now, this would have overcome it, become the problem, had there been people who wanted to speak. And it's also valuable to hear from Mr. Broadway too. And I'm glad you appreciate also the need for transparency. So it's all above board and accountability, because after all, there are processes in place to make sure that this hearing with the benefit of legal advice and so on is done correctly and accountably. There are important issues of principle involved in the conversion of buildings. And at the time when I made this request for it to come to committee, I was unaware of the variation of committee conditions, which apparently slipped under my radar, probably other peoples as well, in 2023. And I wasn't informed of the decision. I think it would be good if ward councillors, when they're involved in a planning application, got a notice from our officers of which way the decision has gone. One matter that concerns me is the amenity of the surrounding residence. If you saw the picture clearly, you will have seen that the cobblest way properties that face forwards onto this building are actually very close. This sort of distancing might very well be appropriate in vast developments, but we're used to living a more spaced out type of amenity in semi-rural areas like this. And I feel that at the moment the building closes down completely pretty well from six o'clock onwards. No noise, no light, no nothing except on two Mondays a month when the parish council meets. And so these residents are going to have more noise than disturbance. They do already complain about the noise from the two factories opposite and the general industrial procedures which are going on. And I think this is a bit of an issue, but on the other hand, if you buy a property on the borders of an industrial estate, the two factories either side, it's going to be noise. So I'm not sure that's a planning consideration, but you might like to think about the amenity of the residents on two sides of this. Nadia, I thought I'd put a bit more time. Can I say, Councillor Watson, because you start off talking on behalf of Western parish council basically. So I will give you an extra two minutes, is that okay? So when it goes red, I'll give you another two minutes. Although it's of course it's difficult to explain a known unknown. Anyway, sorry if I might just continue with a couple more points, please. There is a feeling in the area very strongly and the consultations on the local plan update and the local plan and the Somerset local plan that we don't want to be a commuter area. We want local jobs locally for local people, many of whom are skilled and required to go to Bristol or Bath or Shipton Mallard. We do have a problem with the amount of offices in the area. Had there been enforcement on the Martins building, the other side of the A367, where there should be 14 offices, then I don't think I'd have posed this application at all because there would have been enough office space available. It's a question of course of looking at the future of the area, but I think it's going to be some years before the same of our economic zone comes on streams. That's why if this sort of kind of conversion had been delayed for a bit longer, it would have been a good thing. What you need to bear in mind is that 60% of the residents commute outwards to Bath or Bristol and it would be good if there was more employment locally and my view, but this site were retained as an employment site. I couldn't find a viability study for 2023. I thought the viability study was 2021 and of course it's perfectly true what the applicant says. The world is changing. More people are working from home. More people are, we just happen to be in a situation in Westfield where there are a huge number of small businesses, white band man, all kinds of businesses flourishing in people's back bedrooms and the loss of a facility where they might have an office or whole meetings is unfortunate. The reason why parish council is a relevant consideration is not because they're the parish council or because for three years they've been looking for alternative premises and all they've come up with is the shambles which is in the heart of Radstock and possibly the co-op building may become available but these are not where they want to be in the middle of the ward. We have enough problems with the confusion between Radstock and Westfield as it is. Third point ecology and I do hope there's going to be a condition to preserve those shrubs and trees which we saw. But also, I feel something ought to be done about the lights village. This is actually an area of quite high frequency of bats and other wildlife and I would hope there could be a condition that would restrict the light spill from this building. Can I just ask you, Councillor JESSON, because the lights are at a moment set. I think you've had two minutes. Could you just wind, wind up. Honestly, sorry. I have such difficulty reading. I should have got an extra lamp. I've lost my place. The last paragraph was that I would like something to be done as a solution to make life, to consider the ecology and to reduce the light speed, the noise and so on. And I don't say our officer could come up with appropriate conditions. So thank you very much for hearing my sentiments. Thank you. Yes. Where will we find you when we've finished? Okay. Thank you. Right, we'll just pause for a minute while Councillor JESSON withdraws. Okay. Right. We now move on to the debate. Sorry. Apologies. Yeah, I got mesmerised there. Questions to the case officer. Thank you very much. Who would like to go for us? Councillor Horsl. Thank you, Chair. Danielle, just a question about why the application is being considered as a full planning application. Is the only reason the planning mission is required, or on prior approval, because of the back store and bin store and also that modest change to the elevation? Yeah, so that's correct. The reason it is a full planning application is because of the bike and bin store. If it were to come forward via prior approval exactly the same as this, it would be refused because the prior approval process doesn't allow additional buildings to be constructed. It is considered that the prior approval process is still a full back position because amendments could be made. The bin and bike store could be delivered in a different way, which would be allowed under the prior approval route. Sorry, Councillor Hues. Okay, I'll use this one. Thank you. Okay, so I've got a couple of questions. The first one is I couldn't see a marketing report in the documents. I'm assuming that the viability has been assessed by the economic development team. So for this application officers didn't consider a marketing report relevant because that was assessed at the variation of condition stage. So at the variation of condition application, which was submitted in 2021 and approved last year, marketing information was submitted, that detailed quite robust marketing information from 2018 up until the application date. The economic development team at that time reviewed that information and considered it to be acceptable. The variation to the condition was subsequently allowed and approved. So the unit 3 now doesn't have that restrictive condition requiring it to remain this office use. But that's why it's not being considered at this stage. Okay, thank you. Okay, everyone. Okay, so the second one, there was a mention of permitted development. So this building is located outside of the housing bound. Yeah, that's correct. Sorry, your mic turned off. Sorry, sorry. Okay. So, yeah, that is correct. The class MA isn't reliant upon the building being cited within a housing development boundary, nor is policy ED1B, which is what this application is assessed against. Okay, and finally, as this falls outside the housing boundary, was there any consideration of this either through the LPPU? It's not on the existing draft local plan. So has it been reviewed through a consultation process to move that boundary? I'm unsure if that housing development boundary is going to be under review as part of the local plan. But it wasn't in the LPPU? It wasn't in the LPPU, no. Okay, thank you. Councillor Gourley. Thank you. There was reference to the building next door as being potential office buildings. Does that overcome the issue of the lack of offices in the area? Or is there an issue with that? So this application has been assessed against policy ED1B. That policy, because of its sighting outside of an area listed under that policy, it doesn't require alternative accommodation to be provided. So it's not a policy considered policy requirement for alternative accommodation, however, is mind officers understanding that the applicant is proposing alternative office space in the unit next door for any current or remaining tendencies? Can I follow that up with a question on similar lines? I just want everybody on the committee to be really clear about policy ED1B. I've got it in front of me. It says the conversion of office space to residential C3 is normally permitted, unless there's strong economic reasons for a refusal, and they're two are given. One is that the site is within the bath central area. Obviously that doesn't apply. And the second is the loss of the space would be a significant loss to strategically important office accommodation in Baines and significantly harm the Councillor's ability to plan collaboratively for economic development. That seems a very high bar. So would I be right in thinking that policy ED1B would be satisfied by this application? So officers do consider ED1B to be satisfied through the assessment. So there is two criteria, as you've correctly mentioned. The first one does require the site to be in either the bath central area, Riverside enterprise zone, or a summer down or town centre listed in policy CP12. This site is not located within any of those areas. So therefore the criteria B is not triggered. Both criteria need to be in play essentially to move on to the following assessment. That following assessment isn't triggered because criteria A, it doesn't fall within the listed criteria A. So that's all for me. Any more questions? Councillor Hodge. Thank you very much. I've just got to pick up on a couple of points. Councillor Jackson mentioned just the bath survey. I noticed that a preliminary bath survey has been done already and the conclusions from that. I just say any ecologist, there's no ecologist report. I assume that's because it wasn't necessarily as a result of the original survey that didn't find a lot of that roosting and there's not roof space in that area. So it wasn't considered an issue and the ecologist wasn't involved. Am I correct in that thinking? Yes, you are correct because there is negligible potential and also there's no works for the roof proposed as part of this application. That's why it's considered acceptable. There are conditions recommended for compliance with all the enhancement and mitigations in the ecology report. I just wanted to double check on the two features that we were here, the new bin store and the bicycle. Just the location of where the bins are going to be in terms of the residential impact on other residents around the site. I hadn't looked at it very closely. Is it a covered structure? Is it near other properties? There's no be no comments. I presume that local residents are happy with it. We've not received any comments in support or objection from any neighbours. The bin and bike store is located in this bottom right-hand corner fully concealed. There's a structural building which would conceal any bins and subsequent smell. If I just go back to the site location plan, it would be in this corner here. It would be close to this garden here, but there's considered it to not be any significant effect arising from that. Just if I take any more questions, the senior planning officer, Sarah James would just like to come in. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify for the avoidance of the comment relating to the potential for the applicant to provide alternative accommodation for existing occupiers just to confirm that that's not forming part of the current application and you shouldn't have any weight to that. Thank you. We're still with questions. Who would anybody else would like to come in? We'll move on to the debate. Who would like to start us off? Thank you. Councillor horse. Thank you. I think it's critical to bear in mind that there is a fallback position here, so if the bin store wasn't being built and the minor alterations weren't being made to the building, then the building could be converted anyway under prior approval. The fact that an application has been submitted is excellent because it's giving us a forum to have to discuss this openly and certainly because of the absence of any comments from Westfield Parish. Obviously the fact that the application is here before us means that there is definitely some transparency and we can make it on record that we are considering the application very carefully. So I think, yeah, basically because of the permitted development status, I think that's a very significant material consideration and I think we really need to give quite a lot of considerable weight to that. Councillor Jackson did raise some concern about amenity but we are adjacent to a residential area anyway. It is just outside the settlement boundary but that's irrelevant because it's a windfall site essentially, so the fact that it's residential outside of the housing boundary carries no weight. So I'd be happy to move the recommendation. Thank you. Right, that's a motion to support the officer recommendation to permit. Does it have a seconder? Councillor Warren, do you want to speak to that? Yeah, just very quickly. Just to move on, I think the option is there for prior approval. So you can build the flats anyway but actually by submitting the application you can put the bins out the way, but the bikes out the way so it ties everything up so I think it's definitely moved forward so I'll be happy to second. Thank you very much. So we've got a motion on the table. Who would like to speak? Councillor Hughes. Thank you. I do have a couple of concerns. I think first of all, the building itself looks like it was designed for this purpose in the first place. It does look like a residential property. So my concerns are one, we seem to get a lot of developments coming forward almost on a monthly basis now that are outside of a housing boundary. And that does concern me because we have a democratic process of consultation to decide where we should and shouldn't be building houses. And it seems to be a trend now to ignore those boundaries. So that does concern me. The second thing that concerns me is that the economic development team are not showing consistency. I mean on one hand we're proposing the same value enterprise zone to build office space. On the other hand they're saying there is no need for office space so it could be converted to residential. And banks have actually just sold off the business centre of office space. So there's inconsistencies in our policy on do we or don't we need office space. That said, looking at the fallback position on this, I think the proposal is better than the permitted development option. So on balance, I don't think we have any option but to met. But I just want to express those concerns. Thank you. Yeah, interesting points. Do you want to come in on either of those? Sarah? No, there are points that are made and something to think about. I think for the purpose of this application I think we just need to focus as you said on what's before us. Thank you. Right. Anybody else want to speak? Okay. I think we're ready to go to a vote then. So we have a motion on the table to support the officer for the recommendation to permit from Councillor whole saw, seconded by Councillor Warren. All those in favour please show. Just for fullness, anybody against any abstentions? Right. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. If you're here just for that application to hear it, you've got a chance to move away now. Thank you for attending. Right, we're going to take a five minute break just while we get ourselves settled. Five minutes. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] So this is number 53, Rockland Road in the blue line, and then the site is outlined in red. This is a flattered development here, and then these are dwellings along Forest Avenue. And again, you can see on the aerial image, this is obviously the river just up here. As you'll have seen in the report, the site is in flood zone 3A. So the yellow hatching just shows where the extent of this flood zone is just for your reference. And then I'm going to start with some site photographs to give you a little bit of context. So this grass area here and along here along the wall is providing the access into the site. And then this is going into the site itself, so it's just through this hair dispensing here. And then you can see some of the surrounding dwellings in the other photo. And then I've just walked into the site here, so taking a couple more photos looking down towards this is Rockland Road. The backs of these properties up here. And then at the other end of the site, looking the other way. So these dwellings here are the backs of the dwellings which are on Forest Avenue. And another one of the sites. And then this is the flattered development behind. So this is Rockdale Court. So we've got the existing and proposed block plans. So at the moment, this is the site is existing. There's some hard-standing, it had an application you would have seen. There's quite a complex site history, but there was a planning application to change the use of the land to garden residential land. That was permitted. Some works have taken place in that the trees have been removed, but it's never kind of been built out and finished in accordance with that application. So the proposed plans show the dwelling tucked up here at this end of the site and the access which goes from Forest Avenue all the way up to the dwelling. And the proposed plan. So the undercroft, the house is sort of built up on, I guess, on stilts for one of a better words. So there is an undercroft with the parking area and the service for the air source heat pump and cycle storage refuge bin store. And then the first floor plan has the kind of main living area to the bedrooms. And then the second floor plan, there's just one bedroom kind of up in the roof. And then you just see there's PV panels on the roof to help comply with policy SCR 6. The proposed elevation drawings. So quite helpfully, you can see the dotted line of the dwellings surrounding the site. So this image here is looking up as if I were standing at the entrance. So these are the dwellings of Rocklift Avenue behind. And then we've got the side elevation. So you'll see there's no windows on this elevation. There is a window here that has louvers on it to help with some screening. I've got a slide to just show the detail of these. As you would have seen from the report, there have been quite a lot of concern raised about overlooking. So this detail has been proposed to try and help to overcome that and obscure the kind of horizontal views out of the main windows. And then I've just included the landscaping plan. As you will see, there is the recommendations delegate to permit so that section 106 contribution can be secured for some offsite tree planting. This is because a number of trees were removed at the site, obviously in connection with the previous application for the change of use to residential land. Garden land, sorry. But obviously that was kind of never carried out and the replacement trees were never planted on site and obviously now proposing a dwelling. There isn't space to replace the number of trees that were removed. So we need to secure an offsite contribution which the applicant has agreed to. There are, I believe, 11 trees proposed on the site and they're shown in this plan. And there is a condition requiring this plan to be implemented in accordance with it. So the application is a delegate to permit subject to the section 106 agreement to secure the offsite trees. Thank you very much. Yeah, those diagrams were very helpful. Thank you indeed. Right. We now move to statements from public speakers. So first up is Mr. Mark Thurstein, chair of the Bathwick estate residence association who's objecting. So it is Mark here and Andy Harrison. When you're ready. I'm here this morning as chair of the Bathwick estate residence association. Whereas many residents have expressed to me as chair opposition to the development, no one has expressed support. This opposition is reflected in the fact that 55 residents are formally objected to development and only eight have supported it. While the association generally does not take a stance on planning applications, it has opposed the multiple iterations of this proposed development arguing one. There is no overriding community need for this building in contravention of local plan policy CP six, which requires demonstrable public benefit. And furthermore that the development fails and I quote any to to conserve or enhance local landscape character and the distinctiveness of the Bathwick estate conservation area. Two, we note the site has previously been granted planning permission for, and has been used as a garden. Annex two of the MPPF specifically excludes residential gardens from being considered as a brownfield site, which strangely the application states it to be. As such, the association fears that approval of this application would set an alarming precedent for potential development on gardens in our estate. Over to Andy. This submission does not solve the issues of mass scale and context, which were the basis for the refusal of previous schemes. It is still an overbearing three story building. While the minor reduction in building height has occurred, its footprint is almost doubled and it extends much further into the site. It is now the length of three houses on Forester Avenue. There's no significant change to the distance to surrounding buildings and there is still significant overlooking. The windows of Roachford Court will be just eight meters from a six meter high blank stone wall. It's still at the back of a long cramped plot on a garden where permitted development rights have been withdrawn. The only justification for the building responding to local context is that it is made of bathstone and it has a flat roof. The only flat roofs are the local garages. The scheme was objected to by the landscape officer as it represented a permanent loss of canopy cover within a conservation area. And it is counter to the council's core policies for tree planting and climate change. It fails on four criteria of the landscape policy, NE2. In summary, granting planning permission for a single house would irreversibly alter the character of our conservation area and negatively impact residential immunity. It fails to address the previous reasons for refusal and is contrary to CP6, D2367, HE1, NE2 and the NPPF. It has to be refused. Okay, thank you very much. That's a perfect timing and you put your points across very confidently. Right. We move on now to our next speaker, Mrs. Stuart Rackham, agent who is speaking in support. So when you're ready, Mr. Rackham. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. I'm here today on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Millward, who's here today, who lived in the area, this Bathwick area for the last 20 years. They currently live in number 53 as the officers confirmed, but with the downsize, but remain in the area given their children have grown up and left home. They want to build a smaller property which meets their needs on land they own to the rear of the existing house. The new property will be self-built, which also will meet your own low carbon policy criteria, minimizing emissions and the impact on climate change. The new home will be high quality design that respects and enhances the World Heritage site and the character and appearance of the conservation area. Prior to the application being submitted, a pre-application inquiry was submitted to your officers in January 2022. The positive response is received, which stated, and I quote this, it's quite relevant and pertinent, the proposal is for a high quality, contemporary scheme, low in mass and scale, which utilises natural bathstone and relates appropriately to its context. As such, it is considered a planning application for this proposal would be considered favourably. Following this positive response, a detailed scheme was drawn up and submitted, which again gained the positive response officers, including conservation officers who had no objection. Throughout this process, we've responded positively to requests from officers and made changes in tweaks and amendments in relation to impacts on local immunity, residential immunity, tree planting and biodiversity. Examples of this are on the east elevation. As the officers explained, we've taken care to ensure no overlooking to the proposed external elevation. On the south elevation, we proposed louvers, which were shown in detail on the drawing, and this ensures no loss overlooking or privacy. We're also making a significant contribution towards tree planting and biodiversity. The officers report confirms the site is derelict land. It consists of hard standing and gravel, again, as you've seen from the photographs, and has boundary treatments, including block walls, which are in a state of disrepair. Approved of this application would lead to an improvement in the appearance of the site, with a detailed landscaping scheme prepared by local bath-based landscape architects, ensuring substantial planting and biodiversity benefits. There's currently no existing planting on site, but approval of this application will result in planting of 13 tree species, green screens, hedging and wildflowers, and further soft landscaping. With regards to biodiversity, this will be greatly improved, and there's measures of bird, bat, bee, vertebrate homes and hives. We've also addressed all the other issues relating to flooding, design, heritage, immunity, parking and ecology. The officer report supports a recommendation for approval for this high-quality, self-built home. It confirms the application is acceptable subject to planting conditions to secure tree replacement, repayment and a set of appropriately worded conditions, which we agree to. Therefore, we genuinely hope that with all the work we've done with your officers, that you can support Mr. and Mrs. Mill Ward's application and support the officer's recommendation for approval. Thank you, Chair, members. Thank you very much. Again, that was a well timed speech. Thank you. Councillor MANDER-RIGBEE is coming forward. Now the Ward Councillor and Councillor RIGBEE will have five minutes. Thank you very much, Chair, Morning Committee. First of all, I'd like to commend the applicant for changing their plans in order to attempt to address some of the issues which were raised when this application was last turned down. However, in my opinion, I do not think what is now proposed completely satisfies what previous committees have wanted, and respectfully, I disagree with the officer in their calculation of balance, and I would recommend refusal. To clear up a bit of a contradiction, in the report you have in front of you, the area is referred to as brownfield at one stage, but there's also reference to it being made designated a garden space in 2017. This makes quite a difference to the policies you will need to consider before you make any decision. I don't know how familiar you are with the area, and certainly I would recommend you go on a site visit if you are minded to approve without seeing the unique characteristics of the site. Sadly, you won't be able to see the trees which used to form a small orchard as they've been cut down already. Because of the size of the proposed dwelling, it's also impossible to replace those trees on site as the officer pointed out, so the application includes offsetting the loss of trees elsewhere. Via the residence, the Bathric estate, which is all in the conservation area, has had a program of planting trees and is referred to in many historical documents as leafy bathwick, so it is a great shame that currently it's not proposed to replace the trees on site. And for me, that cuts across both our biodiversity and conservation policies, and I'll point out all the relevant numbers at the end of this presentation. Focusing now on conservation, I know all of you know of the need to preserve and enhance by any application in a conservation area. I'm not certain that this application does either. It sits very uneasily in its setting, and its development to the very edge of its cartilage does not sit well with the prevailing area which has reasonable size gardens adding to the local streetscape. By any measure, this is a large development on a plot this size, bringing it with it the same issues of overdevelopment and overlooking that caused it to be refused before, although the design has been altered. You've heard from the chair of the local residence association and the local resident there have used, and why they think this application should be refused. You've also, I'm sure, seen all the objection comments on the website. I too am asking you to reject this current application, or as a minimum, have a site visit. It is a unique area within Batwick, and it is hard to visualise without seeing it for yourselves. The policies I am asking you to rely on in order to come to this decision are before, in regard to the World Heritage and Conservation Boundary. The flood risk on SSS-1, which has already been referred to, are nature and ecology policies adopting, and I'm drawing the committee's attention specifically to the objections made by our own agricultural offices. The need in the NPPF for there to be overwhelming reasons to develop in a garden, and policy D7, read backland development, but of course the issue of whether or not it is a garden or a brownfield site needs to be resolved. And although, as I said up front, I commend the applicants for their attempts to review their previously rejected applications. It still does not meet the requirements of D7, in my view, re-not harming residential amenity. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much, Councillor RICB. Thank you indeed. Right, we now invite members to ask questions of the case officer. So, who would like to go first? Councillor Hughes. Thank you. So, I'm just trying to understand a number of things. I'm guessing that the reason for the off-site BNG is because the footprint of the building is so big, is that? Yes, so it's a little bit confusing, but obviously back in 2017, there was a planning application which was granted for the change of use of the derelict land to see three residential garden land. And as part of that, there was, obviously, there was a landscaping scheme, there was tree replacement planting, other planting, et cetera, which, I mean, at that time, by diversity net gain wasn't a policy requirement, but it would have provided by diversity net gain. The trees on the site have been removed, there has obviously been some site clearance, but the application for the garden land has never been completed, so it hasn't sort of been designed out as that application permitted. It just, you know, it's been started but not completed. So, in terms of the Defra Natural Indian Guidance is quite clear that when a site is cleared, you need to take the ecology baseline from before the site clearance, and we're quite lucky in this situation because, obviously, we have an ecology survey from the 2017 application. So, that's what's been taken as the baseline. So, the baseline isn't what's on the site now, it's what was on there before, so it's higher than what's there now. Obviously, yes, building on the site with the hard-standing and the dwelling means that they can't achieve a net gain solely on the site, so they need to offset it. Our policy, obviously, has a preference for on-site gain following the hierarchy, but doesn't prevent an off-site gain through the purchase of units. And, you know, the guidance coming out now with mandatory net gain is that, really, we shouldn't be refusing something on biodiversity net gain grounds if there is provision being made. So, officers consider that the purchase of units, even though they're outside of the district, there's been a multiplier applied, they actually have to purchase more than they would if it was in Baines, is a satisfactory alternative. Sorry, that was a very long answer to your question, but I hope that makes sense. Okay, and the speaker in favour of the application, the agent, is still referring to this as derelict lands, but clearly in 2017, it was reclassified as garden. So, what are you classifying it as? So, I wouldn't say it's a reclassification. I mean, there was a planning application granted for the change of use. I would consider that that change of use has been implemented because the trees have been removed. However, having been on the site is quite clear that that application has ever been completed. There is kind of a very small shed and sort of a basketball hoop, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily fully in the C3 residential use that it's been permitted for. It's one of those situations where a planning commission is being implemented, but not completed. So, describing it as brownfield, I think, is fair. I probably wouldn't describe it as the derelict land. It's sort of a midway in between. But, obviously, it's a material consideration that we have permitted the change of use to 2C3, and I've obviously considered that in my report, but members can decide how much weight they want to give that. Thank you. Councillor GIRLIE, and then Councillor Hodge, and then Councillor Buf Jackson. I think one of the issues for this apartment being looking very big on its site and I would value a site visit is the fact that it's a three-story block, albeit they've tried to reduce it from the previous application. And the reason for that is obviously the size of the undercraft, and is there any reason why the undercraft has to be so tall? Because if the whole building was lower, then it wouldn't be so overlooking and an obstacle for the neighbours. Yeah, so part of the reason for that is because it's in flood zone 3A, so the raising it off the ground is kind of in response to that, I believe. Right, Councillor Hodge, do you want to come in now? Yes, thank you. I've got a couple of questions that relate to the size of the proposed property. So, my understanding was that the previous application was refused on one of the planning reasons was overdevelopment, and I just want to be clear on the footprint of this property compared to the footprint of the previous property. Yeah, so I don't have any measurements in front of me, but I do believe that this is a larger footprint than the previously refused scheme, but lower in height. So, are we talking, is it double or is the footprint in what proportions to the refused scheme? I'm afraid I just don't have the floor areas, so I can't give you that response. I think that's quite important if it was refused on overdevelopment before. On secondly, in relation to backland development policy D7, the proposed property should be well related in terms of scale and math of the frontage buildings. So, I just wanted to be clear from the map, what the size of the footprint of the proposed property, how does that relate to the scale of the individual properties? Individual properties and forest avenue. Sorry, I'm just going to whiz back to the site location plan. So, hopefully you can see on this plan, it's obviously quite an interesting site because there's almost two site franchises. I suppose you've got the dwellings on Rockcliffe Road here, and then you've got the dwellings on Forest Avenue here. So, they are terrorist properties in both respects. If I then move on to the site plan, there we go. So, yeah, you can see there is obviously a difference in the scale in terms of the footprint. Obviously, one of our speakers did raise the footprint of the three dwellings. I wouldn't argue with that, you can obviously see that on the plan. I will also show the elevation drawing again in terms of the height and the massing, I think is quite important. Obviously, it's quite a significant length, but the bottom story for one of the better description is obviously an undercroft. So, the main part of the accommodation is all on one level. In terms of the heights, it is quite significantly lower. I think the measurements are in the report. I can't recall them off the top of my head than the dwellings that are on Rockcliffe Road and Forest Avenue. So, you know, my conclusion to the case officer is that it does respond to the frontage dwellings, but again, it's a matter of planning judgment for the committee to make that decision. I just got a third question. So, it's in relation to the issue of building on a garden and the issue of whether it's a garden or a brownfield site and the policy mentioned by the war councillor, an overwhelming case. I don't understand that policy, so I'd like that to be explained in relation to building on if it's designated a garden. In terms of removal of the trees, if there is no enforcement issue around the removal of the existing trees, surely that is because it is still designated as a garden and then there's no case for enforcement. I just want to be clear about that because if we're saying there's no need for enforcement because it's a garden or is it a brownfield site, I think it's a really important issue. Right, just before you come in there, Sarah James would like to speak. Thank you, and the case also can correct me if this is incorrect, but listening to the debate and just to clarify this issue about the existing use of the land, there was an application to change it to a garden, a residential garden, and that was implemented. Therefore, if you take it, that is the use of the land as a residential garden. Your consideration now is whether development of that land is acceptable, so I don't think there's necessarily a need to get overly exercised with the description beyond considering it a garden, and on residential gardens in an area like this, it could be considered a windfield site, and the main consideration for yourselves is whether the development as proposed on that land is harmful, because there's nothing to preclude development on a residential garden. It is about whether it's harmful. The case officer, I don't know if you've got anything to add to that. Yeah, thank you, Sarah. I think the comment in terms of the brownfield land is probably referring to previously developed land. What we would classify as previously developed land sometimes over talking about Greenbelt, for example, and it does talk about excluding residential gardens from that. The issue that we've got here is that this site has not always been a residential garden, so it's obviously got this history where it was a change of use, and then it was sort of proposed to be encompassed into the garden. Obviously, as I've said, that's been implemented, but not completed. So I think I agree with Sarah here is that it's probably not the crux of the issue. This is a site which is within the urban area of Bath. There is nothing precluding development coming forward in residential gardens. We see lots of issues at times when property is built in the garden adjacent to houses, et cetera. So I think in terms of the principal development, I don't think there's anything preventing this development being granted in principal. I think it's the other issues which probably are more the crux of the discussion. In terms of the trees, the removal, obviously the site is within a conservation area. So if the trees were removed without consent, that would obviously be unlawful. In this case, obviously, the removal of the trees were permitted under the previous application. So there was nothing stopping the applicants from removing those trees. Obviously, because we've taken the baseline before they were removed, we're now seeking a contribution to their replacement, which can't be fully accommodated within the site because the dwelling is proposed. Okay, Councillor Jackson and then Councillor Holson. Thank you very much. I'm really puzzled, very puzzled. We're agreed that there should be a replacement of these trees. But on page 37, it says the location for the offsite delivery, this is for the biodiversity measures, is Belmont State in North Somerset. And it says that I'd like to try and understand why it's acceptable to have the mitigation in another county, not even a Weka county. So the bees can't be counted into the Weka beekeeping scheme. I mean, seriously, it smiles away and it won't benefit our residents. There must be a reason that I can find you a good site in Waterside Westfield for these trees. That's the first question. Second question, in calculating the biodiversity remediation that needs to be made, there's a reference to there being a sedum roof, which is a great thing and I'm all for it. But it has not been counted in the sort of measures that are needed for the remediation because that would obviously go a long way to helping inset life. And my final question, if you could enlighten me on these biodiversity matters, I'd be grateful. My other question is, though, on page 36, it says that it's not necessary to have a condition concerning an EV charging point. I'm sure the applicants are a very nice person, but you can't actually guarantee that whoever constructs this house will just do it. I think we should have a condition if we're going to permit. But you may have a reason why that is not the case. It's not the nature of the applicant we're judging or they're self-built things. But surely, it's the block, the mass, the location, the amount of garden and so on. Not the actual occupant, though, aspirations are very worthy. Thank you, Councillor Jackson. I'm going to answer your questions backwards, if that's okay, because I think they started more complicated and entered more simply. So the EV charging will be covered by building regulations in this case because it's a new-built dwelling. So because it's required under the separate, I guess, legislation, or it's not a necessity to condition it. We could put a condition on. I have no issue with doing a delegate to permit to add a condition to that effect, but it basically is almost defunct, I suppose, because they would have to do its rebuilding regs unless you're going to correct me, Dan. I would just reinforce that. There's a very recent planning appeal on that very issue where a Councillor put a condition on free EV charging and the planning expector to dismiss that because it was doubling up on legislation. So if it's in building regulations, that covers it. It doesn't need to be considered any further in planning. Thank you. Going back to the BNG, yes, there was originally a seed and roof proposed, but that has been removed to accommodate the PV. Obviously, this application has been in for quite a long time. There have been policy changes since the application came in, and part of that was the stable construction measures, policy SCR6. So they've taken the seed and roof off to comply and add to the solar panels. I believe that has been taken into account in terms of the BNG calculations. The replacement of the trees in the Belmont estate, so there are two separate issues. The replacement of the trees in that contribution. The contribution will be spent by banes for tree replacements within banes. So that is separate from the biodiversity net gain, which is to be provided at the Belmont estate. So there is a hierarchy for BNG, where ideally, BNG will be provided onsite. If it cannot be provided onsite, the next stage is for the purchase of, well, for offsite BNG. It's either through the purchase of units or for the applicant if they happen to own some or can have an arrangement with a landowner to provide BNG on another site. There is obviously a preference for that to be within the district, but there's, or the national character area. There's different national character areas. But legislation and policy does allow for that to happen outside the district, outside of the character areas. The applicant or the developer is penalized for that. So there is a, this spatial multiplier. So they, if they were buying units within banes, they would have to buy less units than what they're having to buy within the north Somerset site. The last resort is credits, which are purchased from Natural England, which are incredibly expensive, you know, in an attempt to kind of put developers off from purchasing those. So obviously we would prefer for the BNG to be within banes, but we have to consider the availability of sites. The applicant at the moment we as a council don't have very many sites to sort of offer for unit, unit purchase. And also it's kind of a market run thing. Different developers can sell off different units of their land for different prices, which will be market driven. And that is the system which is coming in for BNG, you know, as it now becomes mandatory with the legislation. So it wouldn't be a reason, a valid reason in my view to refuse the application on the basis that the BNG is not within our district. It's not preferable, but the legislation the policy does allow for the applicant to go down this route. And our in ecologists are content, they are essentially buying enough units to offset the biodiversity losses on the site. Councillor JOHNSTON, do you want to come back on that? Is it under building regulations, the stability of an undercroft? Because there have been instances where somebody has tried this and the neighbouring properties walls collapsed. Yes, so the development would have to go through building regulations after planning and would have to comply with the necessary regulations. There is a provision to rebuild some of the boundary walls as part of this application. There is a condition again for details of that. But yeah, it would have to comply with building regs and I would say that that would come after the planning stage. Councillor HUES. Thank you. I'm just still a bit confused about the elevations. There's two documents within the PAC that show elevations. One shows elevations about any windows at all. And then this one here shows elevations, which I'm assuming is a cross-section, the top part of this slide. So these are the East and West elevations. So this elevation here is facing into the site behind. These are the dwellings on Rockliffe Road. This is the West elevations. This is like the back end of the property. And then these are the south and north elevations. So they're basically the four sides. So these aren't a section drawing. So there are no windows. There are no windows proposed on the north elevation to essentially avoid overlooking. There is obviously this window here on the south elevation. I'm just going to go to the floor plan actually so you can see how that impacts inside. So here you've got the south facing window, which has got the looves in front of it. If you go off the screen down here, this is the back of the properties for us to avenue. You've then got a large window here, which faces out of the site. There's not really any residential properties of that kind of looks directly onto. Then you've got a window at the rear looking onto Rockliffe Road that again has louvers proposed to mitigate the impacts of the overlooking. And then there are very small windows. You can just sort of see them when my cursor is on the bits, which I guess protrude from the main wall of the dwelling to add some natural light. And then on the roof of the dwelling, there is a roof light and a small window here for the bedroom and another roof light. So from my perspective, I'm satisfied that there is sufficient light getting to all the habitable rooms of the dwelling. And you feel that's a suitable design for this location in the setting that we're talking about? Yeah, my view is that it is acceptable. It is a contemporary modular design, and there is some contrast to the surrounding dwellings, but I think by virtue of its height and the way it's cited within the plot, it is appropriate in this backland location. Again, that's a matter of planning judgment and the committee within their rights to decide otherwise. Thank you. I just have one question. The planning agent spoke about the motivations of the owners with this application and mentioned personal circumstances. I just want everybody to hear and you confirm that personal circumstances have no bearing on the determination of a planning application. That is correct, and I haven't taken that into account in my planning balance. Right. One more question, I think, Councillor GIRL-E. I'll go for Councillor GIRL-E first. Well, we haven't quite got to the debate, so if people stop asking the questions, then we move on to the debate. Any more questions? You have a question. Yes. One issue that was raised was the conservation area of a character appraisal plan. My understanding is that there's a planning preparation in draft, but it hasn't been finalised. Is that correct? And what weight should be given to it? Yes, there is a character appraisal for Bathwick. It is a draft appraisal. It can still be given weight. It's on our website if you want to have a look at it. I haven't given it significant weight because it is still in draft, but I would say that limited to moderate weight can be applied. And again, it's a matter of plan judgment of how much weight you want to give it, but in my balance, I would say limited to moderate. Thank you. Right, we move on to the debate and Councillor Simon is one of the local members, so would you like to go first, please? Yes, I think there may be some appetite here to go and look at the site in order that we can appreciate it, assess the quality of what's on the ground at the moment and see the site. So what I suggest is that I move that we defer for a site visit before I express any views and see whether colleagues would, despite the very comprehensive presentation by the officer and the good photographs, whether they would like to go and look at it before making a decision. Thank you. Right, we've got a motion on the table for a site visit. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Hughes took my eye there. So, Councillor Hughes, do you want to say anything about that? No, no, it's just a sensible decision. Okay, thank you. Okay, so we've got a motion on the table from Councillor Simon to proposing a site visit seconded by Councillor Hughes. Does anybody want to contribute to a discussion about whether we have a site visit or not? Right, we'll go straight to a vote. All those in favour of a site visit, please show. Okay, that's unanimous. All right, so this will be deferred, the determination of this application until after we've had a site visit. Thank you, everybody. That ends this morning. Yes. I just wanted to point out the best way of getting to the site if people are going themselves. There's an alleyway that leads beside the fire station, the fire and ambulance station down to this area. So, if you're coming in from Cleveland Bridge or on the Cleveland Bridge Road, Bathwick High Street, take the alleyway. If you're not carborne, I'm needing to park on site. Thank you. Would you be willing to put that into an email that you could send to us so that we can remember, because we're not quite so familiar with the places you mentioned. Thank you. Councillor Jackson. Thank you, Chair. I mean, we've got 40 minutes still the official closure. I was just wondering if we could look at the report at the back with the appeals and so on. Yeah, that seems a very sensible suggestion. So let's do that. I'll give an opportunity for people in the public gallery to leave if they wish. All right. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. I thought there's a very good discussion, actually, in presentation discussion, that last one, and looking forward to the site visit. Right. Councillor Jackson. Yes, I mean, I've almost always changed my mind when I got on a site visit, but as I haven't completely can't make up my mind about the decision. I'm so glad we're having a site visit. It's very appropriate. Yeah, I was looking at through the appeals and the decisions of the inspector, and I just wondered if the officer could clarify a bit the last one, which is a split appeal allowed. I don't have time to look it up. This is the one I asked about. Yes. Yes. Thank you. If anybody's watching this broadcast and not quite sure where we are. We're on a gender item nine appeals report. And so, let's sorry, Sarah James now will answer the question. Yeah, thank you. And thanks to Jackson. It was something that you mentioned yesterday. And I did look at the application in question and the papers that were available to me this morning. It is clear that it was upheld in terms of the effects on the residents and occupants of the building that that was agreed with as being an unacceptable environment. In terms of the split part of it, that wasn't really very clear from the decision that I read of the inspector. It did mention the fact that it felt that the development had an acceptable impact on the conservation area, but I couldn't see that it was ever refused on that basis. So all I can say is that I probably do need to catch up with the enforcement team to get further into the details of that split decision, because it wasn't immediately available from the papers. I was able to read myself online. Can I say something? Yes, this is in my water. I'm familiar with it. And basically, as service says, it was up. The decision was upheld and it was only some of the details and timing that was allowed. And there's been a subsequent application for C three use for this property, which has been agreed. So hopefully it will go, it will stop being a party house and go into residential use, but it's not ideal as residential because it's over a railway tunnel. And I think it's going to need continued attention from the enforcement team until it gets fully implemented as a single family C three. Thank you. Right. Well, yes, thank you very much. Okay. So we're, we're, we're noting the report. Council Jackson has asked that we note the report, all those in favor of noting the report. Thank you. That's unanimous. Right. Well, we'll finish the morning session there. I can, I'll repeat this this afternoon. We obviously have got a site visit, and that will be on Monday the 4th of March. Who knows there might be another site to visit, but Monday the 4th of March, if you can set that aside for a site visits and obviously on March meeting committee meeting is Wednesday the 13th. Right. Well. Sure. Can I just look at that date? I have an audit committee meeting of the Western find authority in Bristol that morning. Would it be possible to have the site visit either mid afternoon or to try to troll for another date. Right. I think I'll leave that for the officers to look at it. I mean, obviously the availability of, you know, Isabel and others that will be important. So we've heard what you've said and what you've asked for and we'll see if that's possible. Right. That's right. Isn't as we move to satisfy one member, it might affect another. So, yeah. Yeah. Right. I'm just thinking is there anything else before we break for for lunch. We're okay. I think so it's half past 12. Well, coming to a half past, we'll come back for two o'clock. Thank you very much. See you later. Right. Good afternoon, everybody. We'll make a start. Welcome to the afternoon session of the planning committee held on the 14th of February, 2024 in the Guild Hall. Councilor Gurley, I'm sure we'll be arriving at any moment. So we'll go through the preliminaries. Just to begin with, can I welcome you all? And my name is Councillor Duncan Hounsel, chair of the committee. I now ask the officers on the top table to introduce themselves. Hello, I'm Karina Huskins from Democratic Services. Hello, I'm Sarah James, Deputy Head of Development Management. Hello, I'm Simon Elison, the place legal team as a senior lawyer. Thank you very much. Please, and I remind everyone to switch their phones, iPads and laptops to silent during the meeting. The meeting is being filmed and the recording will be available on the Council's website. Anybody speaking that does not wish to be filmed should just make themselves known to the camera operator to my side. I'll just ask the Democratic Services Officer at Karina Huskins here to read out the emergency evacuation procedure. Thank you, Chair. If the continuous alarm sounds, you must evacuate the building by one of the designated exits and proceed to the named assembly point. The designated exits are sign-posted. So from this room, you use the main door and then the main exit of the building and the assembly point is in orange grove on the green outside browns. Arrangements are in place for the safe evacuation of disabled people. Thank you very much. Councillor Paul Crossley is absent today and there is no substitute for him this afternoon. So we'll move on and the first item this afternoon is planning application 23 stroke 00537 stroke FUL 14 woodland grove, Claviton down. And I now invite the case officer to give her report. Thank you, Chair. Yep, so this item concerns 14 woodland grove, which say detached dwelling in Claviton down. The application is for a ground and first floor extension to the existing ground floor extension. Sorry, Chair. Point of order of disregard in the screen. Have I not set it up right? Okay. [inaudible] [silence] Okay, so the application site is shown here in the red line. The existing ground floor extension is, oh, I don't know if you can't see my mouse, but the ground floor extension is the kind of perpendicular. Section that comes out to the northwest of the main house. And here's an aerial view so you can see that flat roof extension to the top of the house. These are the existing and proposed block plans. So it's at the head of a cul-de-sac and the avenue is to the rear of the site. This site shows the existing and proposed ground floor plans. So there'll be an extension on the ground floor of approximately 2.5 meters in width. And this is the existing proposed first floor. So that's just the main house on the left there. And then the proposed shows where the second story extension is to go. These are the existing and proposed elevations. So this is the southwest, which is the principal elevation of the main house. And then you can see the side of the proposed new extension, which is set back from the ground floor slightly, which you'll be able to see better on future plans. The first floor is proposed to be timber and the ground floor either render or timber and a condition is proposed for a schedule of materials to be submitted prior to commencement where the final finish could be confirmed. The existing timber cladding on the main house is also proposed to be replaced by new timber cladding. This is the southeast elevation. So this is what would be seen on the approach to the house as you come up Woodland Grove towards the head of the cul-de-sac. The front elevation of the ground floor will extend into a garden wall and is proposed to be rubble stone. This shows the northeast elevation, which faces the avenue. This is the lobby area with the main extension behind it and the lobby area is proposed to be standing seam metal. The windows on this side will also be obscured glass and this is the northwest elevation, which is the rear of the new extension. This is the proposed roof plan. So it shows the setbacks from the ground floor. So we've got one down the bottom there where it's set back by a meter from the side. And then where it joins the main house, there's a setback there with a light well to the ground floor. This is the proposed section and proposed visualization. And then we've just got some site photos of the site. So this is as you approach up Woodland Grove. This is the existing ground floor extension. You can see there and just the wider view there. And close of you and you can see the relationship between to number 16 Woodland Grove, which is on the left on the bottom photo. These are photos from the rear. So you can see houses from the avenue there. And then on the right here, we've got number 16 Woodland Grove again. So you can see the relationship between those two. And then we just got some 3D aerials. And again from looking from the avenue. So the for the reasons outlined in the committee report, the recommendation is to permit the application. And I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone has. Right. Thank you very much for your presentation. We'll go now to statements from public speakers. And then we have questions to the case officer. So first to speak is Mr Peter Brewer, who's speaking in objection to the proposal. So if Peter, if you come forward and start when you're ready and comfortable, thank you. Speaking on behalf of all of the six close neighbors to the rear inside of the proposed development, who have all registered objections. The proposal nudges the footprint of the existing double gauge in utility space, therefore brings a corner that stands for much closer to the neighboring properties. With the addition of the second story, this would create an overbearing aspect to all our properties. The corner of the applicants building is just 2 meters in the boundary fence, 12 meters from our adjoining properties, far closer than the accepted planning separation of 21 meters. Thus there would be a considerable oppressive effect and cause unacceptable overshadowing and loss of light and privacy to our properties and gardens at the rear. This causes severe harm to all our mean t-values as set out in the Council's policy D6. Furthermore, the proposal is totally against the Council's policy D5 as a mass and bulk are excessive. Despite the strong advice repeatedly given by the planning officers to persuade the applicant to reduce the upper story bulk, the only concession was a minimal setback on the frontage. There has been no consideration, no attempt whatsoever to reduce the impact of bulk on the closest neighbors in circling the development of the rear. This proposal is a complete overdevelopment of the site. The relatively small plot has been extended twice before, using up all the promoted development rights. Together with the second story, it would mean the original house would have been doubled in size. It is proposed that the two rear elevations, directly facing all the properties to the rear inside, be cladding a dark industrial metal sheeting for the full two-story height. This is despite the planning officers requesting a break in the user materials to the lower and upper stories to break up the perceived mass of the building. This use of sheet metal not intended for a 6-meter height and 7-meter width of walls of domestic dwellings. It is far too dominant in the residential setting, affecting all of our properties in such close proximity to the rear. Several elevations will retain options for full height timber cladding, contrary to the planning officer's advice. Similar local applications were previously refused as being overdevelopmental site, given the size and bulk of the proposal, and would have a detrimental negative impact on the immunity of existing occupiers. In this application, nothing of significance has changed, and the planning application should be refused for the reasons stated in all of our objections. Before a decision is made, we would welcome a visit by the planning committee who would have unfettered access to the rear of our properties and gardens. All six neighbors believe it is not possible to make a fully informed decision without standing in one of our rear gardens. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Brewer, and well done for keeping to time there as you made your points. Next, Mr. Tom Rock, co-applicant, and the agent speaking in support. Chair and members, good afternoon. Well, I have addressed this committee on many previous occasions. This time is a little different, because the application is for my own family home, which was seeking to improve through the addition of a first floor over an existing single-story former garage. Several other properties and neighborhood have added similar extensions over their garages. In addition to creating an extra bedroom and improving the curb appeal of the property, a primary objective is to enhance the energy performance and efficiency of the existing single-story accommodation, with its poorly insulated flat roof and single skim walls. This aligns strongly with the Council's declared climate emergency and the associated groundbreaking planning policies contained in your recently adopted local plan update. I can add little to the extremely thorough, balanced and professional report prepared by your planning officer, and I thank her for all that. She carefully considers, in response to the various issues that have been raised and provides you with a clear and fair analysis and recommendation. I'd just like to emphasize two points. First, the current proposals bear no resemblance to the previous scheme that was refused planning permission in accordance with your officer's recommendation and incorporate a wholly different design approach. Rather than continuing the bulk and massing of the existing stone block under elevations under a pitch roof over the single-story former garage, as was previously proposed, the current proposals embody a lightweight, contemporary design approach at the first floor level using a combination of timber glass of metal cladding under a flat roof set behind a parapet. The new first floor will appear to float above the heaviest stone base of the existing redesigned ground floor. The outcome is a design that complements rather than competes for the host dwelling and is of significantly reduced scale and massing the previous scheme. Second, whilst the previous application was refused, the only reason related to the impact of the proposal on the appearance of the existing dwelling and path of woodland grove in which it is situated. It was accepted that there would be no harm to the living conditions of the occupies of neighbouring properties, and no such refusal reason was included. Given the much reduced scale and massing of the current proposals, there's no basis for reaching a different conclusion on this occasion. In my professional view, the refused scheme proposed by the previous owners was of poor design, and the council was correct to refuse it. The scheme now before you is of a wholly different design, and through collaborative working with your officers has been further refined following submission of the application. In our view, it is now an even better solution at the time of application, and I'd therefore like to thank your officers for challenging us on the design. Chair and members, it remains for me to thank you for your time and to commend the officers' recommendation to you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for keeping to time there, Mr Rook. Right. Before I call the current ward, Councillor MANDER RIGB, the Democratic Services Officer here will in a moment read out a short statement from Dr Kumar, who was the ward councillor at the time the application came in, and I need to give a bit of context to this. Dr Kumar called the application in, and this is what he wrote at the time. May I request that this application please be determined by the committee. I do not see any objection or support for this application on the portal yet, but as this is an important development in the ward, please may this be considered by the committee. Now, the councillor's approach to these situations, as he's no longer a councillor, is to honour the call-in requests of previously elected councillors and refer applications which have been called in for consideration. Now, a couple of days ago, Councillor Kumar emailed me, and he wanted a statement of clarification to be read out, and the Democratic Services Officer is just going to read out a couple of paragraphs from this email. Which explains his position, which he's trying to clarify. Thank you. So, this is from a statement from Dr Kumar. I communicated my support to the applicant and suggested a referral to the committee only if the case officer recommended refusal. Upon reflection, I realised that my referral request did not accurately convey my intentions, as it did not specify that the application should be referred only in the event of a recommendation for refusal. Unfortunately, I am no longer in office making it challenging to rescind my request following the case officer's recommendation for approval. Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness to the applicant, I find it crucial to clarify my position. Without this clarification, the application would likely have remained delegated to officers, and planning permission might already have been granted. After reviewing the case officer's comprehensive and impartial report, I believe it provides a clear and fair assessment of the proposals. I hope the committee will consider accepting the recommendation. I kindly request that you communicate my position to members of the planning committee. Right. Now, just to be clear, regardless of what Dr Kumar did or didn't do or what his position is, this application has been called ultimately to the committee by my decision, supported by my Vice Chair. So we'll move on, and Councillor Rigby, would you like to come forward and speak, and you have five minutes? Thank you, Chair. I'll try not to use my five minutes. All applications, as we know, are determined on their own right, but there are a couple of similarities with the application this morning. Namely, this is an application that is in a residential area and is part of two World Heritage sites. It will also have a visual impact on the streetscape. So some of the reasons for wanting a site visit this morning are largely similar, so if you're already out and about in Bathwick doing a site visit, perhaps you might want to consider going another five minutes up the road. What is clear in this application, and I agree entirely with the applicant, so a lot of work has been done in order to make the design different, specifically for the frontage on woodland grove. There's been less consideration of the impact on the avenue, which to my mind could be even greater. The avenue is the name of a road. Sorry, that sounded patronising, but I wasn't just talking about a avenue. I agree with the officer that the principle of development in this area is acceptable, and whilst it's subject to the planning material considerations, where we diverge is in our balancing of these considerations. You have heard from the nearby residents about the loss of light, the invasion of privacy, and the detrimental to the residential amenity that this application could lead to. Specifically, the elevation facing the avenue is fairly large, and I call it brutalist. Other people have got different names for it in design, but it's certainly not reflective of the area, which comprises very consistent architecture of its time. The officer makes reference in the papers too, and I'm quoting here. Neighbors have objected to the view of metal cladding, then there's a few more words. This is obviously a contemporary material, which is not typical of the area, and then a few more words. However, it is as contained to the rear, so it is not considered as detrimental to the street scene. It is, however, highly visible from the rear, and as you could see from the map, there is another road that goes, it was sort of in a triangle for, in a better word, so it is visible from that side of the street scene. I think, again, that probably leads me to say perhaps the site visit wouldn't be a bad idea. I know that precedent doesn't count in planning, or at least it's not meant to, and I think this committee is particularly great at separating out each application and determining it on its own merits. But if you look at the reasons why there's been a refusal of an application at this address previously, and the fact that none of the, in the interim, none of the relevant planning policies have changed, I unfortunately don't see the compelling arguments that the applicants put forward for saying that this one, judged solely on its own merits, would be acceptable. So I would urge you to potentially consider rejecting this, or make best use of the allocated site visit time, and defer to allow yourselves to see before approving. You have heard from the neighbours that they would give you full unfettered access to their back gardens where you could see for yourselves exactly what an impact this would have. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Thank you. We now move on to questions to the case officer, so who would like to go first, Councillor Simon? Thank you. Can we just be clear about the cladding issue? If you could just walk us through what the cladding will be, both on the front elevation facing Woodland Grove and on the rear elevation. Yep, so on the front elevation it's proposed to be timber, and on the rear is a grey standing seam metal. Do you have, would you love that? I'll have this. So this is the front elevation. So the cladding on the right-hand side, there's existing timber cladding there, and it's just proposed to be replaced by more timber cladding. And then to the rear, where we have had the wider space vertical lines there, that's proposed to be metal cladding, and just that part around the corner as well. Could you just go back to the first slide that you showed? That one. No, the one before? That one, yeah. Can you just, can you explain, is there a purpose to the extra cladding proposed to the right of the door as we're watching the front door? Is it decorative or does it serve another purpose? So on the main house, I believe it's just decorative or possibly insulating. There is timber cladding on the house already, so I believe it's just a replacement of that. Okay, thank you. More questions to the case officer? Councillor Goerly. Yeah, I mean, the applicant made reference to improving the insulation and so on, but that's not too much of the main house, is it? I mean, it's just you're adding on an extra bit of an insulation and that really well, but that's not impacting the main house. And also question why the use of metal when it's very clear that there are other materials that have well in use in that area. Why would you do something so different? Yes, I believe the extra insulation is aimed at improving the efficiency of the existing extension, because it's currently a single skin construction. So the insulating improvement is aimed at that area. With regards to the metal, that is the design approach that was proposed. So we assessed it on that basis and challenged the design where we thought necessary. And ultimately opted to make improvements to the frontage and assess that the rear was acceptable in our view. Do you want to follow that up or are you okay if we move on? Okay, Councillor Hodge, next. Thank you. I've got a question about the sunlight and the impact on changes. Have any sunlight that has been done? I couldn't find any. No, we haven't had any sunlight studied. I just wondered why they weren't done in this case. So we judged it based on the plan submitted and the distance is given there. We didn't believe that a sunlight study was necessary in this case. Right, the senior planning officer Sarah James would just like to make a comment there. Yeah, just really to say in situations like this, as the case officer says, we obviously take into account what we can see on the ground distances, et cetera. So we have to be proportionate when considering applications. So to expect applicants to put forward those sorts of studies, obviously, they need to be really considered fundamental to our ability to assess the application. In this case, we don't think that is something that we need to make a recommendation. It's proportionality really. Right, Councillor Baurin. I just want to sort of challenge the question that Councillor Gourley made. Surely, if you've got the single skin extension, if the extension is connected to the main house, the heat for the main house is to be lost through the extension as well. So presumably by improving the installation on the extension, that should improve the installation on the main house too. I don't think I'd be able to comment on that. I'm not sure about that. Sorry. Yeah, Councillor, sorry, thanks. Senior Planning Officer. Yeah, I mean, clearly the extension as well, all the additions are aimed. But if you're adding to one elevation, some improvements that may have some moderate benefits. But the house overall, as exists, that will obviously still have the same sorts of values. But it's about some improvements rather than overall. Right. Councillor Jackson. Thank you, Chair. I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. It must be a long lunch hour. I can't quite see what purpose the cadding has, except that it sort of breaks up the house into segments, makes it look a bit more interesting. But I was just wondering, are there any other houses in the area which have the same sort of cladding? And if it's, you know, why should this one be decorative and not the others? Perhaps that's not relevant. And my other question is, I haven't quite managed to visualise the spatial proximity to other dwellings. So, because that bit of the presentation went through a bit quickly, could we just see that? How it fits in its context? Because I always think context is everything. And whether there are any other nearby houses that have any similar sort of cladding. And whether it can be considered a design feature that makes the building look more interesting. Can I just clarify with the cladding question, is that the cladding on the main house or the new extension? So, it might be best. I'll show the block plan. So, that kind of shows it in context to number 16 and the houses to the north in the avenue. And then if I show the aerial photos as well, that might help. So, if you can see that in the top left photo, the existing single story extension is right in the centre there. And there it is again from the rear looking south. So, in the area there is timber cladding on the frontages of the houses. In the avenue there is a first floor extension with timber cladding there. There isn't currently existing in the street seen metal cladding. However, at number 20 Woodland Grove there was recently metal cladding approved for the frontage of the house. So, there are a few examples of either existing timber or approved similar materials around the area. We've got some quite interesting modernish buildings there. This wouldn't be entirely out of context is what I'm trying to say. Am I right in thinking, you see behind that tree if you carry on up to the top of the frame with your eye? There are four houses with like warehouse roofing. I'm sure I've driven past them at least once. The senior planning officer just wants to come in with that. Yeah, I mean it's useful to have the photograph that you have before you. I think that what numbers should really be focusing on is the overall character of the area. So, a quick assessment of the character of that area would show that it's various buildings of various form. But there's a predominance of some stain interspersed by various different elements, different claddings and colours on that stain. So, most of those buildings have a broken up in some way or another by a different design element. And if you think of that as being the character, what you should be considering really is that the building that's before you. Is that character also of the same type? I don't think you can figure down on the specific details on those who are not here to design the buildings. But I think in terms of your consideration, it's considering the overall character and would this be out keeping? Yeah, thank you. That's what I was trying to get at. So, thank you. Councillor Hues, do you have a question? Is it working? It was just a minute ago. It stopped again. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, I appreciate what Councillor Jackson was saying, but looking at Woodland Grove specifically, would you not agree that all the properties, all the properties in that road are uniform at the moment within their design and materials? I mean, I've never seen such a uniform row of houses anywhere else. So, would you not agree that this is completely out of context with the design of the rest of the street? So, there is a very uniform character. However, contemporary editions, which are different, are not necessarily unacceptable. It's just making a judgement call about whether something different would be acceptable in our view in this case. It was, however, the committee is within their rights to disagree. Sorry, can I just come in there? You mentioned that there's another property that has got planning permission for something similar in terms of cladding, but that's not yet been carried through. Is that in this street? Yes, so that's it. I think it's 20 Woodland Grove, which is just across the street. So, it's, yeah, the kind of front cladding, and I think there's a front extension. I don't know the case in detail, but metal cladding was approved. Can I just check it? So, if we visited the road, would we see it now? No, it's not yet in place now, OK, but it's had planning permission. Yeah, OK. Right, more questions? Councillor Simon. Yes, can we go back to the question of the view from the avenue? Can you show us what length of the avenue would be from what length of the avenue would you be able to see the rear of this property? My impression is that it's quite short because there are other houses blocking it, but can you sort of think sightlines from the avenue? So, I don't have any official sightlines. From the public street, you'd be able to see very little. You can only kind of see the house through gaps in the other buildings. So, this is the bottom right photo here. The houses at the forefront are the houses on the avenue. So, that almost gives an impression of what might be seen there, and if I show the elevations from that side. So, this would be seen from the houses, which are closest to this elevation here and some of this elevation as well. Any more questions? Councillor Hughes, did you have a question? Councillor Hughes. So, just one more question. I'm just trying to understand from the original footprints how much, I mean, there seems to be a lot of extension already on this property. Do we have any sort of volume of how much this increases the property from its original design? I don't have that information, I'm afraid. I do have the extra square footage that would be added onto the existing extension. So, that would be approximately 6.9 metres squared, sorry, onto the existing in terms of footprint, but I don't have the originals, I'm afraid. Senior Planning Officer wants to contribute here now. Just to sound that point, in terms of the original and the proposed, it's not like Greenbelt where, you know, you have to sort of consider volumetrics in terms of acceptability. When assessing something like this, it's purely a case of just assessing whether it's acceptable. Its original starting points isn't really a factor in this assessment. Councillor Girly. Sorry, just to understand. So, how much bigger is the footprint than the existing single story? I mean, are they the same size as just you literally plug your box on top or the whole thing to get bigger? So, there will be some extension if I go back to the floor plans. So, yeah, where you see the kind of room that's extended and then the second story will be on top of that with some insets from the sides. So, let's say that's approximately 6.9 square metres, additional. Any more questions? Let me have a good look around. Right, in that case, we'll move to the debate. Councillor Simon is a ward Councillor, so Councillor Simon will go first. Thank you very much. Well, this is a sort of application that's read and book for officer decision, putting an extra room on top of a garage extension effectively. It adds only that boot room to the ground floor footprint. It puts a first floor on. The officers work through the materials palette. It seems to me that the officer has carefully analysed all the issues and come up with the view that this is an acceptable proposal. And I can't see any reason to disagree. So, I'm going to propose that we accept the officer recommendation. Right. We've got a motion put forward. I need to find it a second. Is there somebody who would second that motion? Councillor Warren. Right. So, we have this motion on the table to support the officer recommendation proposed by Councillor Simon, seconded by Councillor Warren. So, we now continue the debate. So, Councillor Podge. Yes, thank you. I would like to propose a site visit as can I continue? Well, I was just going to say we've got a motion on the table which we will need to vote on, but you're quite welcome to comment on what you might do after that. Yes, I'd like to make my case of why I really feel we should have a site visit in this particular situation. There's got the officer's report in front of us as four pages of comments from residents. I think the orientation of this property within this location at the end of a road with houses all around it is very difficult to take a view on the impacts on amenity in terms of light and closeness. However much you try and interpret the volumes and the measurements, I think without being in that location. So, I am concerned about light and residential amenity and also the impact in that setting. I'd also like to note that the previous application that was turned down is a slightly bigger bulk but not a substantially bigger bulk. So, and that was turned down on the basis of overdevelopment of the site. So, I think there are a lot of questions here to be answered. We're in the location and there's nothing to be lost from a site visit, I feel. Okay, but we're still debating the motion on the on the table at the moment. So, Councillor Hughes. Okay, is this one? Okay, thank you. I won't be supporting this motion. I mean, I think that this is out of context with the street scene. I think the flat roof adds a bulky appearance. I think it's not at all sympathetic to the street or the street scene. It's very industrial and, to be honest, I think it's just wholly inappropriate in this location. So, if someone wants to propose a site visit, I'll happily go along with that, but me personally, I'm minded to refuse it. Councillor Horsl, next. Thank you, Chair. I mean, we've got a motion on the table, so we will have to vote on it. I feel reluctant to refuse the application and I do supervise with Lucy's point. But I think given that it is unashamedly modern as an extension, I know Councillor – and they're called it Brutalist. It is very contemporary. It's very grand designs. And I think it is a positive thing for our city to have, you know, innovative architecture rather than the stuffy old, you know, bad stone kind of development. But it is a unique material. The actual design of the extension is – I mean, I think it's a very fine design, but I just want to be sure that it will actually fit in with the context of the surrounding street. And I do have sympathy with the neighbours, and I think it would be very helpful if we could defer and have a site visit rather than make a decision today. Right. We've got the motion on the table. Before I go to a vote on that, is there anybody else wants to contribute? So, Councillor Jackson. Well, Chair, I think we're in a very Nvidia situation. I hear what Councillor Hughes is saying. I can see the merits of it, but I can't with confidence vote one way or the other without actually seeing the site. So, I'm quite surprised. We've got to vote on Councillor Simon's motion before. We vote on the site visit, and so to be safe, I'm going to vote against Councillor Simon's visit, though. I might actually completely change my mind after the site. Okay, Councillor Simon. If there's a feeling that a site visit would be helpful, I'm willing to withdraw my motion at this stage so that we can vote on site visit and then look at the merits if that's not agreed. Councillor, aren't you happy with that? Right. So, that motion is withdrawn. So, we have a motion proposed by Councillor Hodge for a site visit. Can I have a seconder for that? Councillor Holsob caught my eye there. So, he's seconded. Right. So, we'll vote on a site visit. So, all those in favour of a site visit, please show. All those against? Abstentions? One. Site visit, it is. Thank you, everybody, if you came for that item. Obviously, we've determined that in the future at some point following the site visit, which will be organised. Thank you indeed. So, we'll just pause for a few minutes to allow you to leave if you wish to leave. Thank you. [ Pause ] Okay, we'll move on to our final case today, 109 Herne Nain Cane Schim, 23-0-4-7-5-6-F-U-L. And it's a page again, busy afternoon. I invite you to present your report. Thank you, Chair. Yep, this one's for 109 Herne Nain in Cane Schim. It's a semi-detached dwelling and permission is sought for the erection of a single-story rear extension and single-story front extension, including the conversion of the garage to livable space. So, the site is shown here, edged and red on the location plan, and I've got a place of view here with the aerial, so you can see how that adjoins to the other semi-detached property. I've got some site photos first for context. So, this is the front of the house with the existing porch, and you can just kind of see the adjoining houses porch just slightly there as well. This is the rear with the adjoining house extension on the left. There's some more aerial photos. It's a bit distorted, but I thought they might show kind of how those porches come out and a photo from the street again. This is 109 on the left with the flat roof porch. So, we've got existing and proposed plans. So, the rear extension at the top here is proposed to come out approximately 3.8 metres and not beyond the neighbouring extension. The existing porch down the bottom here has a depth of approximately 1.25 metres, and the new extension would be of the same depth, but run the full width of the frontage. This is the existing and proposed front elevations. We can see the flat roof porch here, and then the new front extension would have a mono-pitch roof with a maximum height of 3.45 metres and an eaves height of 2.6. And the rear elevation, this will also be a mono-pitch roof with a height of approximately 3.7 metres and eaves height of approximately 2.5 metres. This is the side elevation looking from the north. And for the reasons outlined in the committee report, the recommendation is to permit the application. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Right. We now move on to public speakers. Liam Clemens, with the applicant, if you'd like to come forward, obviously you're supporting your application. So, just start when you're comfortable and when you're ready. Hi, thank you. I was just going to focus on the front elevation purely because that seems to be where the objections are. In regards to sort of the town council's objections, where it says it doesn't fit in the character of others in the locality, we're looking for a traditional brick construction, which is the same as the existing property and all the others on the street, so it's nothing different there. In terms of sort of removing the garage, house number 82 opposite hours, and there's a further one up the road has also replaced their garage with windows or doors, so you can keep them with the area. And we're proposing to change from the original flat roof to a pitched, and we're currently actually in the minority on the road with the existing flat roof, the majority have switched to a pitched roof. In terms of the main issue seems to be the extension going the full width of the building. If you go to number 117 and 119, which is four doors up the road from us, both of those buildings have full width front extensions. It's actually where we got the idea for the front extension itself, so we do feel like it's in keeping with the area. The main other issue, the objection from next door is to do with the issues of the lighting. It doesn't come out any more than the existing porch at the moment. And in regards to this, where the sun sets up the road from us, and up from the neighbouring property, our property situated down the road away from the natural light, so we don't feel like it would impact on the next door's natural light that they are currently receiving. I suppose also, in terms of the garage, it allows us to adapt that to an internal room, so it gives us further installation to the downstairs property where the garage is not currently insulated, so let's improve on the existing property. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for using your time so efficiently. Right, we've got a statement from Councillor Andy Waite, who's the ward Councillor, and that's now going to be read out for us. Thank you, Chair. This is a statement from Councillor Andy Waite. Having read the objection concerning the extension's application at 109 Hearn Lane from Kingston Town Council, I was concerned enough to ask the Chair to call in this application to the Planning Committee. Having learned that he had agreed with me and that the Planning Committee would make the decision, I met the applicant at his property on 31st January for further clarification. Two issues that concerned me, the first was the new appearance at the front of the property, and secondly, the effect that the new extension at the front would have on the adjoining property 111 Hearn Lane. In particular, the reduced amount of daylight available at the entrance to 111 Hearn Lane. The best solution would be a joint submission from the two properties. There is an example of such an extension further up the road, but unfortunately, this is non-starter as one on one Hearn Lane is currently for sale. The applicant was very open and asked my questions fully and understood my concerns. I was reassured that the frontage issue wasn't a problem given work done to other properties close by. However, I think the committee should look closely at the light issue. I believe that needs careful consideration in your discussions. Thank you. Thank you for reading that out for us. Right, so that's the end of public speaking on this one. Right, we now, let me just check where we are. We have questions to the case, Officer. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask really, just to clarify again, to the front extension, how deep is it going out? I mean, obviously, it's going parallel to the existing flat roof extension. So you see there was one point? Yeah, it's approximately 1.25 metres. Okay, so how far across in terms of the whole width of the front of the house are we extending to the boundary of the property? Because obviously that will then determine what width is left on 1-1-1. I'm not explaining that very well. Yeah, I'm not. How far across are we going? So it's to the boundary. I'm not sure. I don't think I have the actual measurement of what the width of the house is. All right. I'm afraid. But both properties are the same width. Okay. And they both currently both have flat roof porches. No. So 1-11 has a kind of hip-to-roof garage area. So it's not flat roof like the other, but it is the same distance away. It's symmetrical in that respect. Paige, it might be helpful if you go back to the photograph, which showed the frontage, just to have that on the screen. Yeah. Thank you. We'll have that on the screen. We'll still carry on with questions. So next question, Councillor Jackson. All right. This might possibly need to be the last question on the first question. I'm at a loss and the officer might be able to help to see how we could reasonably refuse this one. Because this looks to me like the kind of estate we've got all over Baines. It's very typical of a certain period. And people who wanted to customise their houses to fit their needs or their energy requirements. And I'm asking, how could we refuse this? What sort of policy is it overbearing? Is it loss of amenity? Is it over development of the site? I know we need a planning ground if we're going to refuse that. Right. That's very big. You're wandering off from a question to the case, officer. That really is for members to decide. I mean, the officer is recommending permission. The sorts of things that you would be considering in an application like this would be obviously a residential amenity of occupants and also character of the area really on an application like this. So, you know, you could consider the sorts of comments that the tank council made about their concerns, which relate to amenity. But clearly, the recommendation from officers is to permit. So I don't think we're able to give you reasons not to. OK. Councillor SRIMANN. Thank you. Is the orientation of the map on page 65 of the papers north south? In other words, is this property due north of the property to the right? Yeah, it's directly north, yeah. Councillor Hodge. Can I just check the measurements around the front window and so the, sorry, it's probably on the drawings. But the application porch will come to the boundary and it will project by about one and a half metres, 1.25 metres. The width of the window that is then in the tunnel in between the two porches, how wide is that? I'm just in terms of proportions. It seems like a little bit of a tunnel type effect for that front room in that they've got a porch on one. I presume their front porch is about the same proportions, 1.25 metres forward. Yeah, so the porch kind of depths are the same. Unfortunately, I don't have the width of the windows to hand. And the porch should be constructed on the left-hand side of that brick, so it will be brick to the window, to the side of the window. Yes, it's brick. If I just bring up the... So it's a plan. Sorry. Yeah, it's a brick, so there's no window on that side. Sorry, as you decide of that window. Yeah, thank you. Right, quick question from me. When we talk about loss of amenity to a neighbour, a key word is the word 'significant'. So, am I right in saying that if we're considering the amenity of the neighbour, that we have to judge whether the harm is significant harm? Is that correct? That's correct, yeah. Any more questions? Right, we now go to the debate, who would like... Oh, Councillor McPhee is the ward, Councillor, so you start first, please. A. Thinking that I would vote against, but I take your point, really, when we actually look at the... variation of the extension going up to there, there is still a considerable space for light, it seems to me, to come down. So, as far as I can see, I would support the officers' recommendation. Right, is your proposing a motion or do you want to hear what other people have got to say first? I'll hear what others say. Right, go to Councillor Hugh's next. Thank you, I mean, I'm sorry to say this, Albert, I disagree, I think that... I don't have a problem with the extension to the rear, but the tunneling effects created by this extension. I agree with Councillor Waite's statement, which is, if both neighbours were doing this together, I think it would be great. Like has happened further along the streets, it works very well. But in this situation, we're creating a tunneling effect looking out of their main window, which I think is a serious loss of amenity, so I wouldn't support this. Councillor Holson? I am currently torn at the moment, I'm sitting on the pivot arm, so I'm happy to listen to ongoing debate about this. My initial doubts are sort of following from Councillor Hugh's about the tunneling effect. The next block, yes, they've got concurrent developments at the front, and it's part of the character of the street scene. So I can understand why the applicant feels that it's perfectly fine to go across the whole width. My issue is that gap between the blank side wall that goes out on the quarter metres, how much width they've got as their front window before their own porch. Obviously the other thing to bear in mind is that the proposed porch is going to have a picture through, which will create even more of a potential tunneling effect. It's, presumably it's the front room of the house, it's their principal living room on the neighbour's property. Okay, so it's not as likely if it's a kitchen, it is actually a room there where the residents would spend a considerable amount of their time during the day. So, yeah, what we have to make the decision on is if we were to refuse it, it's about whether it's causing significant harm to the means of the neighbour. So I just want to hear everybody else and work out whether I'm going to lean towards significant harm or actually it's not as significant to warrant a refusal. We'd like to go next. Okay, Councillor Jax and then Councillor Simon. Well, I think there's no question there will be some harm to the neighbour, but I think it's rather difficult. There is going to be harm to the neighbour on the one side. This is obviously going to benefit the applicant, and I don't see how you can sort of weigh the two things against each other. So I was going to actually, second, if somebody had proposed a motion that we accept the officer's recommendation, because I think she's worked on the subject pretty thoroughly and answered most of our questions pretty well. I was going to support anybody who was proposing a motion which I thought was going to come from the ward, Councillor. So it swings around about so we always get the difficult ones, don't we? But I think on balance, the applicant wins out. Right, just to be clear at the moment, there is no motion proposed. Yeah, right. Councillor Simon. Just a short comment, I think it's relatively important that this house lies to the north of the other. So it's not going to deprive the next doorhouse of a much sunlight album and very late evening in high summer. So I think the overshadowing aspects are less worrying than if there were certain other directions. If it had been the other way round, I think I might have had more difficulty. Right, just for my benefit, let's say, could you expand on that just so I understand the point you're making even better. What somebody called the tunnel, there will be reduced light coming into the main living room of the right hand property, but it won't in general lose so much sunlight because of this property, because the wall is directly south facing wall, it's a north aspect. Yeah, thank you. Right. Anybody else want to contribute? Right, Councillor Hodge? Yeah, sorry. I'm also pretty undecided on the proportion of what concerns me is the proportions of the window, which are unknown, but I would estimate it's between one and a quarter and one and a half metres. With each side of looking out onto a, so it's outlook as well as light onto a wall, which I'm not sure either, I'm thinking about it. Can we look back at the picture of the frontage of the buildings? Right. Okay, so there is a tree immediately to the south, south west, so that's going to have some impact on the sunshine anyway. I think that, bang in mind the house, next door is for sale anyway, the potential they could do something similar. But I don't think we can make a decision based on, you know, that hypothesis. Right, Councillor Huse. Sorry, yes, but I mean, the loss of immunity isn't just about the loss of sunlight. It's that tunneling effect when you look out of your lounge window and the, the angles that you can actually, actually view from your own front window. So I think it's a lot more than just sunlight, this loss of immunity, and I think the tunnel effect is, it's too much. Yes, Sarah James is coming in there on that point. I don't know if this is helpful, so I'm picking up how difficult this is and the different views and how. I just really want to say that I think that the points made about it being north facing that is, is a relevant point because this is already a room that wouldn't get a lot of light. Equally, the point made about tunneling is a, is a relevant point. So, you know, it is one of those cases where there are some considerations that have been raised here that are perfectly valid. And it is very, very difficult for me to steer you in one direction or another. On those points, it is very much a case of yourselves coming to a view on those competing factors. There I said this might be one that you might want to consider visiting as well. And I don't like to put that to you usually, but I can certainly pick up the difficulties and the different things that are coming forward. Obviously it's open to people to think about a site visit. I can say having looked at the site myself and walked down the road and looking at the presentation, I don't think you'll get any more from actually physically being there than looking at the, what we've seen. I think what we've seen highlights the issue. And if we visit, which we can, I don't think it would change the dilemma, if you like, that we're in. I think we've got the information, it's about what the appropriate decision is. And I just want to ask the question to the chief planning officer here. That if we did overturn the officer recommendation to permit on the basis of tunneling, you know, tunnel effect, we always have to be seen to be acting reasonably. Obviously the applicant can appeal. In your opinion, would that be a reasonable thing for the committee to do? Or would it be unreasonable based on all the other extensions that have been made in the local area? The consideration in this case is all about harm. So, you know, if we refuse something, we have to consider that we can demonstrably show at an appeal that harm has been caused. In this case, the extension is relatively modest. There will undoubtedly be some further enclosure of that window, which is to remain living room. Some of that enclosure has already been caused by the applicant's own property. So, there's already an acceptance really of creating enclosure and limiting the outlook from that window. So, it is something that in officer's view is acceptable because of the modest nature of the extension and the circumstances. However, if members were to decide to refuse the application on the basis of the overbearing impacts on that property, in my view, that would not be something that would be completely indefensible. But I don't think it's something that we would say is harmful. But you can come to a different view in this case, and if there's no clear-cut policy grounds, not to, if that is where members are thinking of going with this decision. Right, Councillor Warren, then Councillor McPhee. Thank you, Chair. I've been listening to not talking much. It's different for me, I know. I'm happy to move the officer's recommendation to permit. Thank you. So, we have a motion to accept the officer's recommendation to permit. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Simon. Right, so we're now debating that motion. Does anybody wish to speak? Councillor McPhee. The light. I was thinking about people coming in and out of the front door, and it seemed to me that that wouldn't make any effect to going in and out. Now, thinking about the tunneling and the fact that the roof is actually going to come out a bit, I could be persuaded that that will be pretty noticeable to those people. So, I think in a sense made a mistake by just concentrating on people going in and out of the door rather than the tunneling effect. Right, we've still got our motion on the table to accept the officer's recommendation. Councillor Jackson. Well, if you look at that, as it is now, we'll pass a veil over that border, which might be lavender anyway. I aesthetically, to have another pitched roof on the left-hand side would be more pleasing. I think it would improve things. And I do appreciate the point about tunneling, and it's not really what you want for your living room, but thinking about my own living room, if you look out to the back and the garden and all the rest, you've got the same effect, actually, because of the neighbour's wall and my extension. So, it's not good, but I don't really feel it's significant, and I think we might be deemed unreasonable if we overturn the officer's recommendation. And, as I said, I do think the pitched roof on that extension there will greatly improve it. Councillor Hodge, and then Councillor Hodge. One other consideration, I was thinking of precedent, and I know we always say that isn't a precedent, but then we refer to other developments in the road, and again so that isn't a precedent. But, say this preceded, then surely a precedent would be set for one side to have a front extension across the top. So, if this happened again for another semi-detached pair, the applicant would quote that it had happened to this house and the committee had come to this conclusion. That's just what I'm thinking about. Councillor Hodge. As a trained planner, I think I'm going to be committing a cardinal sin and going against the officer recommendation here. The extension, we're talking about the front extension, the rear extension is absolutely fine. I don't think anybody, no one's even mentioned the rear extension, and I think given that the neighbors got an extension that goes exactly the same depth, I think that would be perfectly fine. And that's the problem we've got on the front. We haven't got the same extension. We won't have a mirror on each property like we have on the next block. I think, you know, by taking the porch all the way across, putting a picture, a monopitch roof on there, in proportion to the existing porch on the neighbor's property, we've got basically a tooth missing in someone's mouth. I think it is going to cause not necessarily a lot of light, as Councillor Samner's referred to, but I just think that for a principal room in a modest house, if you're having a one-on-quarter metre wall right on the boundary coming out, plus your own porch wall coming out, you're left with a one-and-a-half metre wide window. I just think that creates a poor living environment for that property. If both properties were to do it together, I don't think would be a problem whatsoever, but I just think that the proposed porch on the front of that property will have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the neighboring property. Just before I come to Councillor Goody, perhaps should have asked this to the case officer, so I just posed this really as a question in sort of mid-air. It would be very relevant if there was any other semi-detached properties in her lane, which had already the configuration that would be produced if we approved this point. This front extension, whether somebody can provide an answer to that, I don't know. Obviously, if there was another example of it, it'd be very hard to refuse this one, so it's just a question in my mind. Right, Councillor Goodly. I think the applicant mentioned that there was something similar further down the road where the two houses had done the front, same front extension. With regard to tunneling, it's really interesting looking at the back. I know we've talked about there's no problem with this back extension, but actually if you look at the existing configuration that has, it is effectively tunneled at the back by two other extensions because it's shorter than the two houses either side. I'm just thinking that it's really important to make houses fit for people for modern life, modern offices and all the rest. I think that having this extension at the front and at the back is a good thing because it makes the house better for the occupants and future occupants. If the house next door has this tunneling effect and I do wonder because it's the south, it's partly blocked by their own garage and front door anyway. Anybody else want to contribute to the debate? Right, now we've got a motion on the table proposed by Councillor Warren that we support the officer recommendation to permit and just remind me who seconded that to Councillor Simon. So we'll take a vote on that, so take a deep breath. All those in favour of the motion to accept the officer recommendation. All those against? Okay, it's carried, so the officer recommendation is supported and thank you very much for the case officer and for the applicant I think waiting for a decision. Thank you everybody. We'll just take a deep breath for a few moments. Chair, perhaps we could congratulate them as mostly on two very good presentations. I think it was our initial innings here with the committee. Yes, thank you very much for your efforts there. Right, we've dealt with the appeals report. Let me just remind you about next gatherings. So we've got our site meeting and we're going to two sites. And that's at the moment scheduled for Monday the 4th of March is normally in the morning. But we're obviously here more like that. And the next meeting of the committee is Wednesday the 13th of March. So I formally close the meeting and thank you very much for everyone's attendance. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] You You