Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the BCP Planning Committee Eastern Thursday, the night of May 2024. I'm the chairman of the council, and in accordance with the constitution, I shall be presiding over the first three items of business on today's agenda, including the election of chairs for the committee. Firstly, I will ask the Democratic Services Officer to read out the housekeeping notice. Thank you. Please note the meeting has been recorded by the council for live broadcast and will be published on the website for a minimum of six months. For those in the room, please note if the fire alarm sounds, please exit the building by way of the nearest available signed fire exit route and make your way to the assembly point at the warm memorial in the gardens. Finally, please ensure background noise is kept to a minimum, mobile phones and other devices are turned off or switched to silent for the duration of the meeting, including microphones and tone and volume down on your laptops. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. We're moving straight onto the agenda now, members. First of all, apologies, Democratic Services Officer, have we apologized for the meeting? Thank you. Yes, we've had apologies from Councillor Gillian Martin, Councillor Paul Hilliard and Councillor Lawrence Williams. Thank you. And item two substitute members, do we have any? Yes, we have Councillor Sharon Carr Brown here for Councillor Martin today. Thank you. Right. Item three, election of the chair. This is for the municipal year 2024 to 25. So I'm looking around the room to seek nominations for the chair of this committee. Yes, Councillor, the provin. I'd like to nominate Councillor Paul Hilliard. Thank you. Do we do you have a seconder for that? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. More than happy to second the proposal, but I'm sure that Councillor Hilliard will make a very good chair. I've been in the vice chair for the last 12 or so months. I should emphasise I have contacted him and he is happy to be nominated. I'll just take on the roll if elected. Right. Thank you, members. Any more nominations for the chairmanship? I think that's a no. Right. So in that case, can I announce a result of the chairmanship, which will be Councillor Paul Hilliard? I would normally ask Councillor Hilliard to come up and take the rest of the meeting. However, in his absence, I will go on to item four, which is the election of the vice chairman. Right. To elect the vice chairman of this planning committee for the municipal year 2023-24. Do we have nominations for the vice chairmanship? Oh, sorry, Councillor Flack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd be more than happy to nominate the point of in for the vice chairmanship. Thank you. Do you have a seconder for that? Councillor, Joe Clemens. Are there any more nominations? Right. In that case, I can now hand over. Thank you. Well, congratulations to both the chair, knocked here and the vice chair. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, while the vice chair is taking her seat to chair this meeting, an admin error on the notes in that, obviously, we are announcing a vice chair for the municipal year 2023-24. Sorry, 24-25 and not as I put it on the notes, so apologies. Thank you, everybody, for the election. I'll do my best to stand in for Paul for this meeting. So, if anyone is watching online, they will have noticed that we are a different makeup of committee from how it was prior to this one. As we're now two committees, one for the West, one for the East, or BCP, with fewer Councillors, but different Councillors in some cases. So, could I ask those present to introduce themselves? I'll start on my left with the Democratic Services Officer, who, of course, has already spoken, and then go around. Thank you, Joe Holier, Democratic Services. Louise Smith, Democratic Services. Let's do it, right, Ward Councillor Nader. Michael Tarling, Ward Councillor for Christchurch Town. I'm an Addams Councillor for Kinser. Joe Clervants, Councillor for Penhill. Joe Salmon, Councillor for Moredown. Matt Gillitt, Councillor at the top of Woods. David Flagg, Councillor for Burton Grange. Robert Firth, Senior's Lister. Simon Gould, Development Management Manager. And I realise I didn't actually introduce myself, Marion the Pedman, Councillor for Newtown and Heatherlands. So, we now move on to any declarations of interest about the item on the agenda from any members of committee. None, thank you very much. And we need to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of the full BCP, planning committee. This will be done at both the new committees, I presume, east and west. Our bottles are intending to know. That's just the next one. We have the control then. Are you all happy to approve the minutes and confirm that they're a correct record? Thank you very much. Are we going to have any public representations today? We haven't got any up yet. No, I saw that. Thank you. So, we move straight on to the schedule of planning applications, item 8A, land near toft steps under cliff drive. And I trust we have Steve Davis on screen to be honest, we have, and here's his presentation. So ready when you are, this is a this. Thank you chair. Yes, I'm just getting myself organised. Thank you chair. Yes, this is an application. Or on this form of safe front, it's an application, as you can see, for. The retention of single story buildings, which are going to be used for public toilets and start up space for businesses. Which are going to be falling within classy of the use classes order. So there's a range of potential uses there. The site is just below. It's described as as tough steps, but it's some way to the east of tough, tough steps. And it's, you can see from the location plan there. It's beneath beneath the manorode. There's a bit, there's a better view of it. And you can see. The, the, the old building that was there was, was a surf school. It's been in, in situ for many, many years on, on renewals. The buildings did get a bit tired. And last year, we did actually renew the consent. For them to put some some newer portacabins up there, portable buildings. So the buildings that are there at the moment have been approved, but, but the consent has lapsed. So the application you've got before you now is twofold. One is to renew the consent for the buildings for a further temporary period. And the other is, is to change the use. They're proposing now to use it as business startup space. Here's a, a better view of the portacabins. I don't know whether you can see that, but there's three separate buildings. And they're, they're joined together with some clouding. And so that's, that's the, that's what they look like. You've got the public toilet unit in the middle. And at either end, you've got these two startup business use uses. There's, there's a photograph of it. As I said, it has been approved already. So it is in, in situ. And it's cloud, although there's sort of metal containers behind it's cloud with this, this composite clouding. And as you can see it, it's, it's not unattractive. It's equivalent building to the, the land train station, which is just further off to the, to the east. So chair, the, the main issues for members to consider are mainly in my view, the, the use. The previous use was for a surf school. That was clearly a use that is appropriate to the seafront. What's being proposed now is, is startup units. Now these startup units, we, we don't know what they're going to be at the moment. And the, the council's regeneration fund is proposing that they, they select uses now that they've, once they get consent. The business uses will be there for about two years, and it is startup uses. Now that the site is located in open space or on open space is public beach and members will be aware of the other applications we've had for the pop up uses that they were clearly much more and and celery to the beachfront. This isn't quite so, quite so and celery, but you can see from the criteria that I've set out in my report that the council are going to have to set several criteria to make sure they get the right business uses there. And there are two uses that suggested that it that they should be for for beach use if I can just show you those that that's the criteria there and you can see you three. The type of business they're looking for is is health and well being obviously health and well being on the seafront is an appropriate use. And the queue for is one of the important factors is, is the business a good fit for the seafront. So we would be looking or the council will be looking for uses that fit with the seafront. For example, I don't think it would be appropriate necessarily to have a high street chain located on the seafront, although they they might like to be there somebody like spec savers or go speeds or some something of that that type. So you'll see from that the conditions also chair that we're we're recommending that we give them a 10 year consent. The buildings were previously always been on a temporary consent. We feel 10 years is appropriate because the the metal containers are fairly, fairly robust. And we're also restricting the use specifically to projects that the regeneration that are aligned to the regeneration fund again to stop, you know, say a high street use operating from there. So on balance chair we feel the use is appropriate. It's a good use it will help with with the regeneration project. The you'll notice that our recommendation is is subject to a response from the environment agency. It's obviously in an area that is liable for flooding and storms. As you can see, this is perched up above the prom. So it lies within flood zone one. That's not one of the critical ones, but nevertheless, we still feel it's appropriate because the location to get the sign off from the environment agency. So you'll see chair that we are recommending approval and the recommendation is couched in terms of weight awaiting the response from the environment agency. Thank you chair. Thank you Mr Davis, and I know that we have no speakers of any kind so we're straight away onto questions. Any questions about what you've read what you heard from Mr Davis this morning, what you've seen in situ. To clarify, I've got one on start off. It says no catering, definitely. What about retail of any kind is retail likely to be permitted or not. Yes chair if you can you see is my presentation still showing it is. Yes if you look at the description you'll see that it says that the two other spaces will be used for business startup spaces for well being and retail activities. Obviously, retailing is something that would be appropriate there. You know, when people on the beach, they might want to buy things that are that that you would expect to find on the beach, maybe paintings, drawings, beach related equipment. So, but at the moment we don't know, but I think that retail activity will be acceptable it falls within the use class that we've, it would fall within use class so it's within the range of uses that they're applying for. And in fact, Cheryl, although that they're saying that they're not going to be using catering operations, catering operation to my mind would be appropriate there but that's something that the regeneration initiative isn't going to pursue. Yeah, thank you. I think it's a bit of a bland building as it is, but associated with that with the retail potential retail take up. Is there going to be some restriction over the use of signage on the on the building at the moment it's obviously it's a sort of draft green to blend in with the sort of cliff behind it. It would be shame if if that's the idea to paint it bright colors although I don't should quite like it acted bright colors to make it a bit more cheerful than it currently looks. Is there is there a condition on on signage and areas that are available for four years. JAS the advertisement regulations are separate to the planning legislation. At the moment, we don't know who the business is going to be in there. So there's there's no proposals for advertised now I think I've put an informative note on the recommendation to remind the applicant that if they do want to put any adverts up, they will be subject to the investment regulations. If they wanted to put an illuminated advert up there or a large advert, they probably need consent. And I would imagine that just a small sign above the entrance there would fall within the deemed deemed consent under the investment regulation. So I expect that whoever's moving in there will put us smaller firstment up. And if it's small, it would fall within the remit of the investment regulations and wouldn't need consent. Thank you. I found it might have been speaking. I found this at number eight. So in the notes at the end. So thank you for that. Oh, Councilor Gillette, then Councilor Brown, then Councilor Salmon. So just trying to understand the application and the change of use. So previously, it was a surf school. And in a sense, a surf school is would be a basically a retail is a hiring a hiring premises. So, so I just trying to understand, was that without consent? Well, so why, why are we needing to change the consent? Is it because you're putting the conditions on the consent whereby you're just saying, well, you can, you've got a one year break clause included in as a planning restriction, which wasn't there previously. Yes, yes, Chair, the, as I said, the previous consensus lapsed. So they need to apply to renew the consent. But they're now wishing to extend the use from the previous approval of the surf school to widen it to include all other categories within class E of the use classes order again to give them some flexibilities to to encourage the startup businesses to, you know, to locate on the site. Thank you, Chair. My question is just a follow up really on the retail aspect of it, because the site is fairly constrained. You have the, the railing in front of it. And I'm just wondering if you, if you're, I don't know if you're wanting to sell beach related goods. And if you compare with the overstrand at Boscombe, there's considerable overspill onto the frontage for those those very goods. So I'm just wondering what what constraints there are on that and how would that work for a, what I would consider to be a sort of typical retail beach offer. The, the, the, the, the planning permission is, is for, as you can see on the site plan there that that identifies the site area. If you've got a retail unit there. It would be reasonable for them to, to display goods within their within their red line. So, but they couldn't expand beyond those. You can see the, the site is fairly well, constrained by the building and the platform. If there was a retail use there. And there's no reason in, in planning terms, why they couldn't display a few goods temporarily on the forecourt area that that wouldn't affect with the, the free flowing of vehicles and pedestrians along there. But they, they couldn't go, they couldn't go beyond and sprawl out onto the beach and onto the prom. So a couple of things about time scale of 12 months for businesses. Is there any wiggle room in that because I can see some properties setting up in there and coming to the end of the 12 months and being desperate for another six, I'd like to know that I guess I'd like to see where it's being done before. And if we've looked at what's worked with similar projects, because we can't be the first place doing this. And just the only new businesses I see popping up are fape shops and American sweets. Just watch out. Are we just going to end up with a stall selling fapes to teenagers come into a beach. Well, that's not within the sort of the remit of this application the, the terms of the planning permission, they've, they've asked for a class use, which can include a whole range of goods. But you can see that the project is only getting funding because it's to encourage startup businesses. And the applicant, as you can see, has set out a range of criteria. Let me just, let me just flag that up again. They set up that, that, that, that criteria. And I think it's two years they, they're looking for the, you know, for the start up, I think, isn't it. But the, no, that's so it's two years that they, that the businesses is considered to be to be a startup. But it, that's not within our control, but the, the only control that we're putting on is that I've added that condition. That it's, that it's the use that's, that's part of this regeneration fund project. Or something similar. So I suppose in some respects we've got to trust the, the council as applicants to choose appropriate uses there in planning terms. It's difficult for us to, you know, moralize and say you can't have vape shops there because we don't think we're that healthy or whatever. So in planning terms, the, the, the use classes is fairly, fairly wide, but I would, I would hope that the council as applicant, and we've got to trust them that they're going to choose appropriate uses. The council, you know, obviously want, want to make sure that this is a success and the, and what they're offering is something that's going to be good, good for born with. Thank you. In terms of the health and well being preferred. Will there be a restriction in that because that could possibly include a massage parlor, which is not relevant to beach activities, in my opinion, in my opinion. I think that these established these premises should be purely beach and leisure related, and so I'm a bit concerned about the health and well being preferred. Yeah, I mean, well, I mean, having a massage is probably a good thing to have on the beach. But, yeah, again, you know, I referred to my previous answer in planning terms, you know, it's difficult for us to try and restrict certain uses when when they've applied for a general, a general class use. And, you know, in my view, I think, you know, we need to trust the regeneration project that they can to put in there. Appropriate uses, again, they, you know, they, they don't want to be seen to be putting forward uses that are going to be bad, bad for the project. Council flag. Thank you chair. My first question is that can we confirm the image we were looking at the front elevation of the building is, is that an artist impression or is that what's there now. So, that's what's there now. So, my second point is that it doesn't, it doesn't coordinate with the elevation drawings because the elevation drawings are stating that the vertical green cladding type to be confirmed. That's on the front elevation the front elevation is not showing the existing handrail to the front either. And then the rear elevation, it says, proposed door fittings and WC container, which I would have thought that information was on the front elevation. So I just feel that whoever's done the drawing, it's not quite got the drawings correct in my, in my view. Yes, I did. I mean, clearly the railings are something sort of ancillary and, you know, the railings don't need consent and they're, they're part of this sort of permitted development for, you know, for street furniture so so they don't need consent. So they, you know, although it does, it does say type to be confirmed. I think the, the reason is they've used the same drawing that they used for the previous application. So this is a renewal application. So this is the same plans that we use for the previous application, but they've now actually gone ahead and constructed it and we're now looking at renewal. So that's probably the, the reason for the anomaly there. But it, you know, clearly is, is there on site. And it is now established. I've got a couple more questions myself. The first is about access. From the drawings, it looks as though the access is only from the two ends. And then you would have to walk along the whole links of the footpath. If you were coming in from the wrong end to get to the far container, which again comes back to the issue of displays and obstructions. So that's number one. Yes, that's right. You know, clearly the, you know, and there's public toilets in the middle. So I'm, you know, if they were to put displays on the, on the forecourt. I'm not, I mean, that that's not, I would think that's something for the, for the council who are managing the projects to deal with it's not, it's not interfering with the, you know, the public, the public, the main public footpath. But so, you know, I, you know, I accept that they're, you know, that's probably something for the internal management of the, of the site. Yeah, just looking at from outside it would seem to be sensible to have steps up to the toilet section if that's going to be in the middle so that people can access it directly, but that's not what we're offered. We mustn't think about that because what's on what we're being asked to decide is what we've got in front of us. The other question we've talked very much from the retail aspect, but presumably these containers could be used just for office space. Um, and, and no public facing activity. Well, it's no beach use public facing activity, but it could be, I don't know what I can't think what it might be, but it could, it could theoretically be, I don't know, a startup architect or something. Well be yes, although I'm not sure whether architects could give people much well being, but there you go. Well, I'm just trying to think of something that, because, you know, but, well, I don't know, architecture has a lot to do with well being. Yeah, I don't know if there's, yes, the whole range of uses are, you know, finally, I was in Brighton recently and if you go to Brighton underneath the arches of on their beach they've got a whole, a whole host of similar sorts of units. Um, you get artists there, you get people making jewelry. Um, you know, you might get some alternative therapy use there. Um, you know, there's a whole range of uses and I suppose that's why they're applying for a flexible, flexible use. Thank you. So any more questions? Yes, Council salmon. Sorry, I just want to get my head around this. Can the business be there for longer than the 12 months or is that something that's going to be locked in? They've got to have been operating for less than two years. But if they're in the unit, according to this, they're in the unit for 12 months and after that, the Council is meant to help find the permanent premises. I just want to check. Are they tied into that 12 months or can that go longer? Based on what we pass here. I don't think that's a condition. That's just part of the project. And I just want to check on that. Yes, I don't know. The only information I've got is what you can, can, can see in front of you there. And I think the, you know, the, the, see the, you know, we, there's, there's, we're dealing with the planning issue, which is the principal of, of the use. Obviously, the, the regeneration project will deal with, with the management on a, on a day-to-day basis. And, and I suppose, you know, they, they will have a range of people that want to use it. If there's, if there's, if there's a youth there that, that is doing well and is successful, but they feel they should move on. I think, say, I think the whole purpose of it is it's a startup business. So they want people to start up when they're successful. They'll, they'll be encouraged to move on. I'm not quite sure what, what the terms are. But, you know, I think the, the idea is that you, that you get people, you get businesses there that, you know, that start up and then move on and then somebody, they'll be a waiting list of people that are wanting to move in. And, you know, the, the regeneration project will have to make the decision as to when, when the right time is to, to get the new businesses in. And, Councilor Cobram. Thank you, Jack. Um, just finally talking about, um, like a waiting list of people to use it. Now, I believe these have been there a couple of years and have sat empty and haven't been able to be let. Um, so I just wondered how the criteria for letting them have, has, have changed so that we think that they will be let this time. I think it's only been there for a short while. And I think that they're, they're awaiting the planning consent because they haven't got the planning consent in place to, to, you know, to start up. So I don't think that they could have. Of let the units before, because the planning consent had laps. So I think that their, their understanding is that they're quite keen to get this application approved up and running so that they can then start letting it. Whether they've got a waiting list of people ready to move in and not quite sure hope I hope they have. So it looks as though we've got no further questions, so we're on to debate to discuss the pros and cons of this proposal and whether we should approve it or not. Councillor Tally. We'll make it really quick. I think, um, thank you very much to the officer for presenting this. And we've discovered most of the questions we've had here and more about the operation of the 30 post consent being given for its use. And I think just to remind everybody that what we're deciding here is the planning issue of change of use. And I don't think moving from a surf shop to another retail offering the massage flip flop shops, or anything we can think about sand merchant was when I was thinking of their office use for you. But, you know, whatever the use is, is sort of secondary and not part of our material consideration planning consideration. So I propose that we accept this in line with the recommendation from the planning officer. Thank you and thank you for giving us that reminder because you're, of course, absolutely right. Councillor ADAMS. Happy seconds. Thank you. Does anyone wish to add any further comments, or if not, we'll move straight to the vote. Yeah, there was something in the addendum as well. So it's between clean. Yes. Yes. Can we look at the addendum. It wasn't, it wasn't amended condition. And I'm trying to remember exactly what the change was. It was to do with the, the condition, the approval being for a period of 10 years, so that on or before the period of 10 years from the date of planning permission, the buildings are to be removed. And then the last use of the likes of business per position cease. Chair, just so I can just clarify, the only change there was that we put in with the you should cease as well as the buildings being removed. It's just a minor point. Yeah. In other words, the building, the use couldn't go on with no building. That's what that means. But that's logical. That's logical. So we've had a proposal emotion. We've, it's been seconded. Nobody seems to want to debate. So we can move straight to the vote. So if you're happy to approve this application as it stands. Please vote to pay for now. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. So, no one against no one abstaining. So thank you very much. So that is the end of the applications. We only had the one to look at. So we now move on to item nine, which is about committee protocols. And we're asked to confirm the existing protocols for public speaking, speaking, site visits and pre application presentations as set out in part six of the council constitution, which are also written out in the agenda for us. So, it's just to say that this is just so that provisions are in place for the immediate future. And obviously the same item will be going to the Western planning committee. Of course, it doesn't mean that the committees can't review the protocols at a future point. Yes. Thank you. These, these were accepted at the first meeting of the planning committee a year ago, but I have two people wishing to comment. I suggest we crack on and keep them for now, because if there are changes, it would make sense for them to be uniform with the other one and probably go through it on the process. Yeah, we keep. Yeah, I wanted to make one thing that I found quite charging and it relates to what was a very contentious planning meeting last year was related to the obligation to attend an organized site visit. And that I, I attended for the first, I think, hour and a half of a site visit that went on, I believe in excess of three hours, which was excessive. I, I'm, I'm, I'm not proposing to remove it because I think if a plan meeting is, is. It is put in the in our diaries that the committee should, should make efforts to attend. And I think there needs to be some form of compulsion, but I'm concerned that it excludes certain people, those that have daytime jobs and sometimes these meetings are called that relatively short notice. I tend to fill my diary out a month in advance of planning meetings and to have a, a site as a call, you know, a week within it, or a week's notice is generally not long enough for myself. I don't know there's other, other councils that have been that situation. I'll be interested to hear what other councils think about this. I have raised that with officers myself because as it stands site visits might not be arranged until a day or two before the committee between the chairs briefing, which tends to be on a Monday, sometimes a Tuesday, and the committee on the Thursday, which is very short notice a for the officers to get it all arranged and be for members of the committee to free up their diaries to attend. But very often these are only with really can be, you know, major issue applications that are known about well in advance and hopefully we'll get the plan. If we need a site visit, it can be arranged further in advance. But I say this is something I've already raised, Councillor Clements. Yeah, thank you, Chair, just to agree with Councillor Taling. And as you have said yourself, these big planning applications are arranged a long time in advance. So, with that in mind, I don't understand why the site visits can't also be planned and arranged with better for site and notice, because as Councillor Taling said, it is very, very difficult sometimes to rearrange your very busy diary. When things are sprung on you last minute and a three hour site visit is quite extraordinary. I don't think I've ever experienced one as long as that before, although it was a particularly interesting application. Yeah, so I think that's something that really does need to be looked at and revised where possible. Yes, I think I think I hope officers are getting the message. What the solution is, of course, is another matter, but, you know, that they will have noted our concerns. Councillor Taling. Could I in quite good. I'm not proposing a motion because I think it's something to see because it affects our constitution. But I would like to know, and perhaps I'm sure if you could actually get a written response from our constitutional team, or from whoever it is from maybe our monitoring officer or head of planning on how what the procedure would be to debate this in more detail, and to remove it from or remove the obligation to thank you. Just on the last point, I'm not quite clear from what I'm hearing, exactly what members concerns are as to whether they're arguing about the principle of the need to attend, or they're arguing about the timing of notice to attend, because I think there's two quite discrete points there. From the point of view, I think it's the latter from what I expected is the latter, but I wasn't just just because the last comment that was made I wasn't quite sure. So just to explain, on the issue of principle, there's a challenge if you don't have people attending the purpose of the site visit. It's clearly generally recognized that it's an exception, and it's being called because it's considered as necessary for people to go on site to be able to see certain viewpoints and that's all members here will sure appreciate. You need to make sure you've had some people you've had access to all relevant information for the technical application. So there's a problem with the principle. That's more of an issue. If it's a timing issue, that's certainly something that could be explored. I'm sorry Madam Chair for you. I'll cite the two examples that we went to. One would was the site of the Thistle Hotel, where that certainly I felt it was worthwhile going to see, although I had been to the area, except into the views in a very built up area. And I think that was just over about an hour long, and I think fairly, fairly worthwhile doing. If I remember correctly, it was a new evening. Yes, it was in the evening. And then Hymewall Farm was in the morning, and in essence was a field, and took three hours to walk around the field, which was, I felt excessive. And if, as I stated to you at a time, I could attend for about an hour and a half. I actually had another planning meeting, a different planning authority afterwards, that I couldn't get out of. But to then be told that it went on for another hour and a half afterwards, I really think that was excessive, and it was maybe just responding to issues that could have been dealt with, not on assignments. To be fair, it was a bit more than just a field. The site was considerably more than just a field. Maybe it was a bit you didn't attend. It was considerably more than just a field. But I agree for three hours was ridiculously long, it should not. I'm sure it was not necessary to have it as anything like as long as that. I've got Councillor ADAMS, then Councillor RISE, and Councillor CUMMONS. I sadly also can attend said field, so I wasn't able to take part. So the idea, I do get the point that Councillor Tally makes, I wonder whether it could be sent or written. Maybe you could write is it the constitutional review working group, just to have a maybe have a deep dive into the protocol site visits, because they're the ones that do the constitution thing. I don't have to be an idea for them to have a look at it. So the site visit protocol is actually within the planning committees, both committees gift. So it's for you. If you, we can take away those comments and look at best practice in terms of site visits. I think best practice for notice on me, because again, doing, I'm not nearly as popular as Councillor Tally, but I'm doing it on a three days note. So sometimes difficult, even for me. So, I think one message I'm getting is that we rely on the officers to give us advance warning, if there's a major application coming up that would warrant a site visit, so that we can possibly get it scheduled. A month or so, a previous meeting, you know, I don't know the practicalities, how much that is feasible. Yeah, I mean, we can certainly look at it. And obviously we're only speaking as one half of the Council's planning committee. So, you know, there's the Western Committee would have to be consistent. So, but we can certainly review. I mean, the initial thoughts that come to my mind are is that we really want to limit the number of site visits because from a logistical point of view and organizational point of view, they're very time hungry. So we really should only be going to the most pertinent sites. And, you know, there's a couple that have been mentioned already where I would tend to agree. So, but what we can do is we can look at, you know, well, certainly one thing I would say is that the agenda is published in advance of the chairs briefing. So, there is actually more time. We would also encourage members when they're looking at weekly lists and things like that. If there's any applications that stand out that, you know, initially you think might warrant a site visit, give us early advance notice. We run a pipeline spreadsheet as officers about applications that we know that we need to go through committee say, my initial thought is we could maybe look at that. And maybe somehow, you know, run that through members to see if there's anything that, you know, is causing, you know, giving initial concern that we might want as I visit, but it's a balancing act. I think I'm very keen from an officer's point of view that, you know, we do it's like visiting exceptional circumstances as opposed to the norm, but we can certainly take some of that away in food for thought. Yeah, thank you chair. I think the officer planned site visits for major planning applications are essential actually I think they're very helpful and useful and I don't see how we could possibly make important decisions without them. But I do think there should be a time limit limit and a cap maybe maybe that's one way around it to sort of limit it and say, you know, it will be one and a half hours maximum, for example. And also to give more notice I think that's the main issue for a lot of people, but I do think they're crucial and I wouldn't like to see them not take place. So I think even if we do you live in an ideal world where we get 10 years advanced notice or site visits or whatever, kids still get sick, you know, stuff still happens and people can't attend stuff I think we're all sensible enough to keep our mouth shut when we we're not speaking from an informed position. I don't see the need for that to be a site visit protocol that says, if you didn't stand around in the field for enough hours. You can't participate in the debate or vote I just get shot of it altogether. I think we act as a collective rather than individuals in these meetings. And I think actually the site visits been caught up. I would trust whatever people told me on the site visit, if I hadn't turned up I wouldn't think they would talk you're up. I don't see the need for it. I don't see the need for it to be mandatory, you know, obligated or whatever. Mr. First is, while I understand the sentence being expressed, I'm afraid legally there will be a risk if you adopt that approach, which is essentially people might take a view that you have not had access to sufficient information to be all available information I should say to be able to make an adequate assessment. That's the same principle that's applied for a member chose to get up and walk out of the room partway through discussion of an item as it happened in committee. The purpose of them is to make sure you do have a members to ensure members have had access to all relevant information. And that's why the profession exists. And remember you can be subbed, some before the site visit and the meeting. So if you can't make the site visit and you can find someone to take your place who's adequately trained and everything. Then they take your place and they will do the complete job, the site visit and the committee. In contrast, how much notice do you have as officers of when a large application will be on planning committee. Well, that can vary depending on what triggers it to go to need to go through committee. In some instances it can be from day one. For example, it's a council application and it's a major. In other instances, it will be when the number of reps triggers it. So there was my question more accurately was, which planning committee it's going to go to which month it will go to. When do you know that. That's very difficult. We have a pipeline spreadsheet that we know that what needs to go through committee actually pinpointing it to a specific committee can be challenging because of all the factors that are in play when you're considering a planning application. You know, we might be waiting on a number of external consultants to come back until we get that issue resolved. So we could say we'll take it to June, but we end up taking it to August because of just all the plates that are spinning on any given planning. Can I just come in here. I assume you all know that the vice chair and chair of the committee's meet on it. A few days before the committee usually the money or Tuesday, which obviously is I've just said it's very short notice to a major side for that time's agenda. But maybe officers can can brief us that these things are in the pipeline force, probably some months ahead. And we can certainly the chair and vice chair can be suggesting whether we think a site visit would be useful or not. And then it can be programmed in. Is that, is that feasible officers. Yeah. Yes, we can, as I said, chair, we can certainly look at how we can start to introduce our point nine spreadsheet and sort of share that so that if there's anything on there. But it's, it's flagging of interest to members that we can, we can start to build that up in advance that that will require a site visit. So, I was hoping someone else might suggest this first, but when we do the site visits we, you know, there's there's a mini bus down here and it takes everybody to the site we all know. Months in advance, when the, when the planning meetings are going to be. So why can't the site visits be on the same day. Now that we've got a shorter agenda as the, as, as the planning meetings. And then we turn up at 10 o'clock, we get carted off in a mini bus, which also resolves the issue that Felicity was saying about, you know, coming from Paul and having to potentially go over to. Or, or even worse Christchurch, and a further away, obviously. So, so then we just simply have the site visit in the morning and, and to the, the remainder of the planning, plus our, our, our lovely officers get to see more of us. As a clearance and I was sort of exchanging looks in that because that's precisely what we used to do in pool, we had site visits in the morning, and we always had a site visit because we looked at some very minor applications in those days. And then the committee started at one o'clock in the afternoon, but of course it was only pool and meetings didn't last as long. That's like it's only east. So, Oh, sorry, so I just wanted to perhaps try and wrap this up. I think we've just, you know, I think we've agreed that the principle of site visit is strong. You might just be standing in a field, but it gives you perspective. It was a field I knew particularly well, actually, and still saw it differently with the information in front of me so it's absolutely essential. The idea of the site visit in the morning, and then you know that that day is, is committed, as it were, and it's perhaps easier to plan in that respect. But what I'm conscious of is we've got a discussion that's slightly focused in on being quite unhappy with one site visit, rather than the principle here, which is, it seems to me that the only thing we really want is a bit more notice. And, and a stronger view on timing and planning, so that we know what we're doing. And I don't know if we need any kind of proposal around that, but I think we want to take that away, rather than, you know, just don't grab. Remember before you should probably be having a similar discussion in the fortnight's time at the other committee. So I would ask those who are on both committees and there are a few of us to perhaps hold back on that occasion, let the people who haven't been involved in the discussion today. Then we may find this, I suspect we probably will find this right. A lot of consensus. And I'm getting lost on how we've had counts. Have we had counts as some of the carper and say what I wanted to say more good. Right. Oh, so we're on to cancel a sermon. Yeah, thanks, Chad. The only other thing I'd like to add is that it isn't always essential to organize transport for the planning committee. And in some instances, it's probably easier to, like we did with the key thistle site visits, easier to get yourself there often because you can do it in your own timeline and, and get organized yourself to suit yourself, rather than be organized to fit in with a schedule because transport's being provided. That's right. I think the other one, partly at least it was because it was inaccessible and, you know, a lot of ground to cover. And we actually were transported from one part of the site to another in the course of it, weren't we? So, but yes. There seems to be it for the site visits part. Oh, Councilor, on there. There was a section where it was easier to walk than to take the bus. So just to highlight that that was the concern raised, but not automatically. We must also remember that some, some members may have reasons that they can't do that mobility issues, a taxi can be provided, for example, but it doesn't have to be a huge. I mean, it's, it's cool. But, you know, we have had committee members who had mobility problems. So that's got to be taken into account. Happy to propose the acceptance. Pre-application presentations. We haven't really had any, but we did agree a protocol for it, which is, which this is, because it could be. And we have in the past had them, where a developer came in at a very early stage to say what they were thinking about and listen to comments, not necessarily just from planning committee members. And, and had the opportunity to adjust their plans at this stage before they did a formal application. Councillor TARLING. Yeah, thank you again. This isn't necessarily forgive me for raising this. It's, I believe it's outside of the item nine, but about the SRA's or the chairs and vice chairs. I believe they're being discussed elsewhere, but just wondered if. But I believe that is the case, but I have no idea what the outcome of the discussion is, or is likely to, what proposal is likely to be made. Thank you very much. And it is outside of that. So, we had a motion from Councillor ADAMS to accept them. That was way, way, way back right at the start. If he's still happy to propose, and we have a second subject, the no, the informative notes of our opinion, we will give. Yes, well, I'm sure I'm sure we've been listened to and not taken where possible. Councillor CUMMING. Thank you. Yes, please. Those in favour of accepting the protocol as they stand for now. Thank you. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING.