Transcript

[ Silence ] Okay. Good afternoon everybody. It is 4 o'clock and we will press on with the committee. Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members. Thank you Chairman. We oversee the apologies from Councillor BIDINGTON, Councillor Simpson, Councillor Holland and Councillor Pratt with Councillor Weber's substitute for Councillor Pratt. Thank you. Thank you. Request to address the meeting. There are several requests and you have it on your list and they will be called in the usual way. Minutes of the last meeting. Is it your wish that I signed them as a correct record? Councillor Sibley. Thank you Mr. Chairman. As you know, the application that we spoke under the urgent business was for a prior approval application to demolish the Wavley House, the old Manistrates Court building under permitted development rights. Members of the public were invited to comment on the application of which over 50 local residents raised objections to the demolishment of the building, not knowing that their views were not to be taken into consideration for a number of reasons. When the local listing of the Manistrates Court by CDC as outlined in the VISTA conservation area appraisal, it really is, as we found out now, it's not worth the paper, it's not worth the paper it was written on. And really, I think the planning officers should look at this area conservation appraisal and remove that because there's no point, we're not protecting anything. And so, as I say, that needs to be urgently looked at. And to rub straw into the open wounds, the member of the Planning Committee, members of the Planning Committee, could not have any say on the application and would not have known about things such as the 28 day rule under the permitted development rights. And in the report, it does say that the officers will provide information in regards to the process regarding prior approval applications under permitted development rights. And at this moment in time, we haven't received anything, and knowing that there's possibly a few applications coming down the line, I think it's very important that we as Planning Committee members, and I'm sure you would agree that we get that information so we know when we can participate and when we come. And that's due to the policies that's before us. So, I just wanted to take the opportunity to say in that. You're absolutely right. The minutes state that I explained that I couldn't accept what was going on. But the chairman has requested the planning officers and you're quite right. I haven't received anything so I assume nobody has that. So, can you make sure that all members are kept in touch with the applications where we really have no, no sale and put it that way. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. John was a quick record. Thank you. Chairman's announcements. I'll say the usual. Please members of the public. Don't please, I'll ask you not to interrupt officers or members when they're speaking, please. I have no items, sorry, declaration of interest, I apologize, declaration of interest. Council will start the Council over. Item 11, council key is a member of the boundary town council. Yes, same as my colleague, item 11, because I'm a member of the boundary town council and it relates to the council key. Councillor SRI. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Agenda item nine as a member of the Bista town council. Thank you. Councillor Chappell. Yeah, castle key number 11 as a member of the executive. Councillor Wood. The same for me, Chairman. Sorry about that. I'll say there are no items. It's in item seven, site visits. You will see it on your update sheet that we've had a proposal that a request from Councillor Webb. And the officers raised no objection to the proposed site visits. Councillor Webb, would you like to propose that they take place? Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to propose as written on the supplement for Laurel's Farm and Grange Farm, the site visit, please. Thank you. Our members are happy to have a site visit as proposed. I'll second. All those in favour, please share. Thank you. I think it's fair to say that Grange Farm is not actually in Volsk, it's some distance from Volsk, but it's in lobster and parish. It's on the main road. But it's a Volsket address. Move on to Agenda item eight, which is land to the rear of Wirwright cottage. You will see it from your agenda that this has been brought onto the agenda by the Assistant Director for Planning and Development. I'm going to ask the committee if it's possible to defer this application until the next meeting in order for a site visit to take place. As luck would have it, it's only about a mile from the site visit that we just agreed to go to. We're not going to be tearing across the countryside. And the reasons I'm going to ask you to do that is, A, clearly the Assistant Director believes it is an important one for the committee to deal with. And I think having read the report, there are one or two aspects of it. The juxtaposition of the planning application and the listed buildings and the conservation area, I think need to be looked at on site, because it is on a site that is fairly steeply one house above the other, if I'm going to put it that way. I would like to propose a site deferral for a site visit at before the next meeting. I've got a second now. Thank you. All those in favour of a site visit, please share. Thank you, Chairman. That's unanimous. That's been deferred until next meeting for a site visit. Thank you. If there's any member of the public here who came specifically for that, can I apologize, but we feel the committee clearly feels that it would be better to have a look at site and you'll be able to speak next time. How do you spoken this time? You wouldn't have been able to speak next time. So thank you very much for coming and I apologize. Agenda item nine is 20 almond round bister and application for two houses, page 36 on your agenda. And there are speakers that will come. There is a speaker who will come after four as presenters. This is an application for two detached dwellings on land adjacent to 20 almond road bister. 20 almond road is part of a development of 55 houses which was approved in the late 50s and constructed in the early 60s. There are a variety of different house types which are probably more visible from the aerial. Most of the properties on the almond road are linked to detached properties that there are one or two semi detached properties intermixed with them. As you can see from the aerial site is bounded which is bounded by the railway line on the northern boundary. That is 20 almond road and the site, the application site is to that side of it obviously. The site is currently, as we say, unkempt at the moment. I think the house property has been empty for some time. You can see 20 almond road on the right hand side of the photograph and that just illustrates the relative variety of properties along that part of almond road. This is looking north towards the site. Again, I think you can pick out just about in the centre left hand of the picture 20 almond road and the site next to it. A large detached property abuts the site and then you've got a bungalow and the first of a row of linked detached properties. This is the application proposal. It's for plot one is for a five bed dwelling and plot two is for a four bed dwelling. There be served by two parking spaces at each which the Canada Council deems to be acceptable and notwithstanding the fact as a number of the neighbours have pointed out that it is on a bend. The highway's office is satisfied that there are no highway safety issues associated with this proposal. I think if you look very closely, the architect is drawn on a put on a hatched actual line. The position of two previously approved three bed dwellings. This commission is still extant so the principal development has been established. As you can see, what is proposed are on a larger footprint. If you look at the relationship with the 20 almond road, the architect has been keen to establish that the new dwellings will not be higher than 20 almond road. This is probably born out of a recent planning refusal at 20 almond road where the applicant sought to raise the height of the property. Whilst there is a variety within the street scene, there is a relative uniformity of ridge height which is why the principal reason why this application is refused. In order to achieve this and to make use of the second floor, the fourth and fifth bedrooms are on the second floor, the applicant proposes to lower the site slightly in order to accommodate what is a slightly higher building but won't appear visually higher in the street scene. You'll hopefully see from the plans that a number of the bedrooms are served by ensuites which has led many to conclude that this will be a HMO at some point. We obviously can't treat it as such. It's been submitted as two dwellings and even if it is used as a HMO, it currently wouldn't require planning permission if there are no more than six residents. This is the second property, slightly smaller property. Officers mulled over the acceptability of the flat roof rear extension. But as it will be largely obscured from the street scene, they concluded on balance that this was probably acceptable. As the principal has been established, design is considered to be acceptable. There are no residential amenity issues associated with this application and highways officers satisfied with the parking and general highway safety element of the proposal and all other matters that are dealt with by condition. This application is recommended for approval. Thank you. As I said, we have one speaker, Andrew Greening, a local resident who is speaking in objection. If you'd like to come up to the front, you will have five minutes from when you start speaking. Thank you Mr Chairman and Committee for listening now to what I have to say. I make an objection to this particular planning application as I and many of my fellows see this as a development of this particular site. The architect has called them contemporary builds which goes against all the rest of the housing within almond road itself, which are all brick built properties. These two have been given out as rendered properties, which is not in keeping with the street scenery and they will stand out like sore thumbs. The other item I would say is, as you have heard, it is on a bend in almond road. It is a very sharper bend. It has an extremely limited view coming into the bend from both east and west. The two properties combined give nine bedrooms. If all nine bedrooms are in use and there are only four car parking spaces that leaves five cars. If all the people in those properties are of driving age parking their cars elsewhere on almond road. That being the case, many people are loathed to park their cars any farther than they have to, and I have on occasion seen people who have parked their cars on the bend, both on the outer apex and on the inner apex at the same time. If this is allowed to occur, then obviously, every Friday, when the refuse wagon comes around to pick up the refuse, they will not be able to pass that particular point of the road due to reduction of width through cars being parked there. The other thing is also we have to think about family and friends of anybody who happens to be there because they will arrive in their vehicles and where are they going to park. The only option is to park in almond road. That could lead to the grass verities on both sides being cut up by vehicles being carelessly parked. I have on occasion on my own property ended up with people parking their vehicle in front of my property. In doing this, it will reduce the desirability of our properties within almond road itself. The other thing I would say is with the number of bathrooms, which are proposed for both these properties, that land is going to put a strain on the water system, both sewage and water itself. As I do know that the pocket there is four inch diameter and it is fiber. And parts of those point works are actually in collapse. And this I know from another resident in almond road who has had those parts checked out. The other thing I would say is that this appears to be done for maximum monetary benefit by the person proposing to have these two properties put up. We are not against properties being placed within almond road. Some of those properties are in keeping with what is already there. And that parking is given more consideration than just two per property. And we have no worries about the renovation of number 20, which is adjacent to the two proposed properties. And I would say that would be the basis of my objection. If that please the chairman and committee. We have no other speakers, so we move on to questions for the officer. Councillor what can. Thank you, chair. Yes, I too wanted to ask about the parking. We really feel that two spaces for two such large houses is adequate because the chances are older children will live with parents there or as we just heard it could become. Property of multiple occupation, obviously we can't look ahead to that, but. The size of it and just two spaces for each of those two houses seems a bit inadequate. It seems like they are sort of. I would say over development for the site. I just wanted to add. Parking provided meets the county standard. So we are hands of to hear what you're saying. Our hands are tied. We have to agree with what our colleagues says. We will question them, but. And this instance, they agreed that two spaces was acceptable. Councillor SRI. Thank you. Just on the clarification really on the first point is on the chair well planning portal. It says that the application number. 1-3-0-2-4-1-2/f. According to the design statement, it's under consideration, but the chair well planning portal says it was actually refused. And I think you confirmed that that particular application 20 album and road was refused because it included the two additional units on top. And the second point is referring to on the same site basically, but 20 almond road again. It contains a word refurbishment of the existing house. And I know there's been some planning applications for extensions at the front and to the rear. I just wondered whether you could clarify. Does that include demolition? I'm sorry to remember that we, as you quite rightly pointed out, we did refuse this application. On the height, not necessarily the additional bedroom space, the extension they were looking to do. But it's the additional height they were looking to achieve that would have harmed the street. We also objected to the use of render. I should have pointed out in my presentation that the two properties won't be rendered. We've got revised plans that are proposed to be constructed in brick. Thank you, Chair. Would you mind repeating what you just said, because that was about the rendering versus the brick, because that was part of my question I was going to ask. Is there going to be a change? Yeah, the case officer got amended plans. So these two extra. So these two are supposed to be in brick. Okay, thank you. And the second question, just going back to the parking, I mean, from the plans, obviously, there can be the way it's currently set up with the design. There can be no parking round either side. There isn't room. The standard you refer to in terms of the two parking spaces. Can I just ask, almost like general knowledge really, how old that standard is? Because obviously we're looking at very different living conditions these days with many younger people now living with their parents. It is very up to date. I can't remember precisely when it was introduced. It was last year at some point. I think it came in last year, middle of last year. I'm interested in it at the same time. The bicycle parking spaces, I think each house has to provide 10 covered bicycle spaces. That came at the same time as the new parking restrictions. Because for some urban areas, there is no need for parking now, according to the county council. It's quite a deliberate policy, in my mind, to ensure that people don't have too many cars. The real problem is, as the gentleman pointed out, they will park on the road. Anybody who lives in a town or village will realise a lot of cars do park on roads and sometimes in difficult positions. The idea is to cut down on the other parking spaces. Thank you for the clarification. I was just sort of checking how it today was. Thank you. The council will work and then council will board. Thank you. One of them you just answered because I always assumed it used to be that if you had five bedrooms, you have five car parking spaces. That was a common sense point of view, which perhaps our other friends don't understand common sense. As I understand it, number two, the area has already been passed and approved for a building, is that correct? They both got the approval for units on them. It's probably less clear on unit one. You can see a bit of the hatching on unit two, but two three bed dwellings were approved at the end of 2021. So both have been approved for a building of some description. Exactly. Okay, thank you. Board, thank you. Thank you, Chairman. A couple of points. One is I was very interested that the plan we've got on our documentation includes the house, 20 almond road. Whereas yours, the red line was only those two new developments and not the house. And I just wondered, well, partly why ours was different to yours, but it leads to the question that has already partly been asked already. And particularly on page 50, condition seven says no development other than demolition shall take place unless. And if you go back to an earlier point, it also talks about the whole area in the red line. And I just found that really strange and wondered whether the demolition comment. Does that actually refer to the existing house because that's the only thing on the site that could be demolished? Or is that going to be upgraded? It's a standard condition, so yes, the condition should have been tweaked because there's obviously nothing to demolish on the site. If you look at the red line up there, you'll see that the 20 almond road is outside of the red line. Well, have that might have suggested our documentation plans that I've shown were for illustrative purposes only so they were saying it in relationship to 20 almond road and it wouldn't be any higher. That was the purpose of showing 20 almond road. No, I wasn't worried about that. That's perfectly clear. I was more worried about the documentation that we receive as members, which suggests that 20 almond road is within this planning application. Sorry, can I suggest that we make sure that is corrected in future and we don't get something like that again. The other mention is of biodiversity net gain in amongst some of the wording. And I'm just wondering whether seeing as there's quite a big garden at the back of this, there is quite a lot in the documentation about trying to do something about that. Is it possible to make sure that that does come to something like 10 or 20%? There is a condition you're quite right. There's an ecology report dated back to 2016, which we discussed with the ecologist. Although it's out of date, it didn't show anything of particular note, but she did want it and updated ecology reports so we could confirm that that was still the case. And I also noted that, of course, my favorites, ESD three and five, all about solar panels and whatever. There doesn't seem to be any mention about trying to make these buildings up to that standard, even though it is listed in the items, you know, the policies to be considered. So I'm hoping that they're not going to be just cheap tin boxes. They'll have to meet current building regs, which obviously, I can't. Unlike a major application, we can't require them to put solar panels on them. So again, we've got a policy in our listing on our documentation that doesn't seem to be applied. We can have a word at the agency. I'm sure mostly they're willing to do it, but we can't require them to do it. And probably the last item, if I may, which is just one of my other bug bears of every development that goes on anywhere, I notice you've got lovely documentation that says that I can find it. On page 50, condition seven F, wheel washing and road sweeping will be required to stop mud and things getting onto the road, onto almond road. Can you make sure that that's enforced, please? And I don't just mean here, I mean everywhere, because it isn't. I'm aware that, yeah, in wet weather, yeah, mud does go, but they should, they should, yeah. But we have got the condition there, and if they don't adhere to it, then we do monitor sites more regularly than we once did. So if it's picked up, I can raise it with the planning enforcement team leader to ensure that they do. If this is approved, they do adhere to that. And everywhere else, of course. Thank you, Chair. I think Councillor Webb probably asked this, and I'm trying to express it in a different format. Within the red space, we've got these two new houses. Now, the officers say that because other applications for to build something within that red space means we've got to consider this application, but not necessarily approve it. They are different applications, so you can come to an alternative decision. But I would argue you probably couldn't argue against the principle of development, particularly as we are in business. So are you saying we can't vote against this? It's for you to decide if you decide that you don't like the design, for instance, then that's entirely for your... Sorry, but are you saying because other applications have gone in recently for this plot, right? That establishes the norm, the norm, that something can go in there. That's correct. But we can reject what's before us with specific reasons. That's correct. Thank you. Councillor MURPHY. Thank you, Chair. Before I ask the officers the question, it was a matter of some minor shock to me to hear you say that the new standard for cycle park in every new house is 10 bicycles. It's two covered bicycle places for every bedroom. Good Lord. Well, I'm pleased to say that I have covered cycle storage at my house for four bicycles, which are stored in there. This place is called the Garage. The after note is another of the bicycles have been ridden for the last 10 years, but I digress. Anybody interested in secondhand bicycles can contact me afterwards. My question relates to our old friend's policies, C28 and C30. And directly my question is, does the housing development as proposed in this application? Is it compatible with the appearance, character and scale of existing dwellings in the vicinity? As officers, we concluded that it was. As I pointed out, our principal concern was that it wasn't significantly higher. There is quite a variety of houses within our own roads. The actual physical size as opposed to the height was perhaps less of a concern. Obviously, there comes a point where a property gets too large and you can run the overdevelopment argument and I would suggest that this isn't the case in this instance. Chairman, I thought that was an excellent Sir Humphrey answer. But I have taken it that the answer is yes, Minister. I think the crypt house would be, if the officers recommend approval, then they are happy that it complies through the policies of the dual district council. If there are no more questions, then we will move on to debating it. Councillor SIVELY, I am sure you would like to start. I do. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. First of all, I might as well do it from the beginning because I might get an extra couple of minutes. If I actually... I have given up the timing of the time in the slide, they don't go on too long. Well, that's excellent news. I will try and do my best to keep it fairly short because I think the resident from Onman Road has probably put a lot of the arguments forward. But I just would like to... Yes, I'd like to move, actually, that we refuse this application. I don't know if I have a seconder. Come straight back to your after the debate. I will come straight back to you after the debate. Yes, thank you. You're having another true act, then? Yes, OK, thank you. Just a couple of things to point out, first of all, I think this development does actually cause visual harm to the street scene. It's definitely not in keeping in answering to Councillor Wood's question. It's definitely not in keeping with the character and the layout of the area. It also has an adverse impact on the neighbouring residential properties that we've not heard too much about at this moment in time. The location and height of the proposed development will cause overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residential properties. The proposed development, by its design, height, scale and mass, will dominate the street scene and blight the skyline. It's definitely, in one's view, certainly the way that it looks to me, that it's a case of inappropriate and over development of the site. And I think that's what raised the question here, because it's a bit confusing there, but it's a whole site. It was a question I was going to ask earlier on, are we talking about the whole site? Because I think we are, because they impact on one another. The bicycle, I don't know whether I missed it, but it does say in the report about the steps going down to one of the properties, I believe. And I think it was made clear that for cyclists, that that wouldn't be a good idea if they were seen to be carrying their cycles down some steps. I mean, all it would need is a bit of an accident or something, and who would be liable for any such going on. The location of the waste bins are now, I suppose you would say that that will come at a later stage. Leaving, again, it's important, because we know what it's like one roughly collection days, and we can have all sorts of bins all over the place. And this being development being right up against, as we can see from the diagram, right up against the footway, the footpath, I should say, which no turning circles for the vehicles. And that really does give me a lot of concern, you know, for safety access and exit in the parking base allocated. So whichever way they, it's right on the blind bin, which has already been previously alluded to, and it's quite difficult. I lived in that area for quite a number of years, I won't tell you how many, but pretty close by. And that road, it's very narrow. It's now coming under extreme pressure, because it's been starting to build out. It's receiving a lot more traffic, and if you go down there any time of the day, you'll see that exactly what I mean, especially if you've been in that area for some time. So the turning circles for the six parking, well, four on the ones that we're talking about today, and the proposed that will probably come back again later on, the two on the number 20 itself, is six. And they're all going to be parked on the front of where the footpath is. And I think people have already alluded to the fact that this will lead, I mean, I'm assuming that these people will have visitors or deliveries that will come into those, into that particular area, and the resident highlighted. And I know from my own experience that it's right when it's the resident saying, they start to try and park down on the in-arm and road and even further field. As I said, it's not the ideal places for parking vehicles on the street, and that's what seems to be the highways are saying. Don't worry about it. We got six cars going. That's going to cover the area of the site. But don't worry, there's plenty of on-street parking elsewhere around. Well, I don't think that's going to be acceptable. And I think, as I said, they must be having visitors unless their visitors are all going to come by bike, and they would have to give a sort of cycle to the site, which I might think that might be a little bit bad. But to me, it would be a detriment to the highway safety. And the development, as I try to allude to being adjacent to blind-bend, raises visibility issues for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, and is detrimental to highway safety. I see no mention about visibility displays, because that gives me, again, a cause for concern for that particular area. And I think I'll leave it there now and just see what other people say taken on board. What you said, Mr Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Anybody else wish to debate this? Councillor Burod. Thank you, Chairman. A couple of things. One is going back to what Councillor Wood mentioned earlier on, about C-28 and C-30. And as if you look on page 44, it actually mentions quite a lot of it. And actually sums up some of the issues in the sense of it says the overall acceptability of the proposal is subject to other considerations, such as the impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the site and the surrounding area. And the impact on neighbours and highway safety, it suggests they're addressed below, but they're not really. And then it goes on about the NP-PF, making the planning should contribute positively to making places better for people. Further permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area. And as was mentioned, the officers had a bit of a debate with themselves about the flat roof area on one of the properties. So you're already thinking this is not really very good. And then it goes on policy C-28 and C-30 of the Chawa local plan, exercise control over all new developments to ensure that the standards of layout design and external appearance are sympathetic to the character of the context as well as the compatible with the existing dwelling. And so these are reasons why, in my view, what's actually happened is application, and this is where it got rather interesting when you were having the debate about with Councillor Bier, about this application relative to what's already been approved. Because application 2101 400 stroke F was for two detached three-bed, and this is why I was asking about number 20, and refurbished the existing three-bed, which was itself a resubmission, was approved, and more in keeping with the street scene, and not over development, and also from what I understand, was accepted by the local residents. So as it was, the actual application that's already been approved, I would submit is what we should stick with, rather than the application that's now been added to try and over develop the area. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like, if I may, to put a different interpretation to the application, and that is that all the business about how well there's not enough car parking spaces is there, and people will park on the street, won't they, and it's a sharp bend, isn't it? And so on and so forth. Those considerations are effectively trumped by the Highway Authority. The Oxfordshire Highway Authority says, No, it isn't. It's all right. It's in accordance with our policies, and it's, you know, you can't object to this planning application for those reasons. You cannot seek to do that. So members here, Chairman, need to blank out those considerations from their consideration of this this afternoon, because they will not hold any water were there in appeal if it was refused, because the relevant planning authority, the Highway Authority says, No, it's all right. Then you come in the end to, Well, is this a development that is out of character with the area? And that was the purpose of my question of whether or not C28 and C13, in respect to the character of the area, does that argument apply? Answer, no, it doesn't apply. And so that kind of structure or that kind of argument also falls. We have already heard that the consideration of, well, they'll look terrible. If they're rendered, won't they? They should be bricks, shouldn't they? Answer, I forgot to tell you, they are made of bricks after all. And then you come to, Oh, well, what about the bin lorry is going around there then? Answer, it says in here. A, environmental services does not object. B, there is space for bin storage, you know, one of those little sort of shedy things that you keep your bins in these days. That is available to go on the site. And then you come in the end, Chairman, to the basic principle of development. The principle of development as Council would be discovered and highlighted has been accepted for two by three bedroom houses. All that we're doing is say, Oh, well, no, no, we want two by five bedroom houses now. And so to be able to, for the committee to distinguish between the merits of three and five as your dividing line seems to me to be a very weak, narrow dividing line. And our report tells us the design of the dwellings is in keeping with the surrounding residential area. The highway authority has no objections in terms of highway safety and the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on existing properties. Of course, that last one is a subjective analysis in a way. Does it have a detrimental impact on the other neighbors nearby properties? Officer judgment is no, it doesn't. So, members in the end have to take a view. Oh, yes, it does. On a subjective analysis. But in the end, this report says it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the provisions of the relevant development plan policies and would therefore represent sustainable development. Therefore, it is recommended that planning is granted. So in the end, Chairman, if members are minded to refuse it, they have to say, have to say, and that's simply may want to do this in a summing up, have to say what it is that says that that conclusion at paragraph 10.4, the report is fundamentally flawed. Because I don't think it is. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chair. Well, following Council, I basically see, as with all these applications, it's a question of balance. We have two extra houses, large houses, which may end up being, and it's not known. So, I think it's going to be a question of, I think, in the future, which potentially would give nine extra homes. It's sustainable as far as I can see, because I was on my phone with you at the map in terms of ability to access things, not necessarily on a bike, but on foot, the train station and the centre. So from that point of view, it is sustainable. And I think about this in terms of, is disappointment in perhaps the sort of heating provision for these properties, you know, whether it would be about solar panels or heat pumps. It would have been nice to see in these new developments, the sustainability extend not just beyond the location, but to the design to incorporate efficient ways of heating and powering these homes for the residents who may take it up. But yes, it's always a balance. So that's my disappointment. But on the whole, you know, through its actual position on the assumption that you, you know, in future, particularly, if those residents can walk into town and will do so, then it's sustainable. But of course, we will not know until those residents are in balance. It's probably I would be inclined to get with the officer's recommendation, but I would be very keen to incorporate anything that we can do in terms of renewable energy and solar panels in the build. Please. Chancellor Webb. Sorry if I'm putting my foot in it, but if they got permission for free bed, then I could see that fitting in five, I think is over development the site. And I have my own opinion on oxygen highways, which they might not like in an appeal. But yes, you need if you're going to have you need more car parking spaces. And people have visitors. It's great that they got space for the bikes. And maybe one day the highways will wake up, but that's only my personal opinion, not for anyone else. If there's no other member wish to debate, I'll come and I'd like to thank the members of the spoken because we have debated the problem, if I'm putting it that way, or the application. So I'll come back to Council. So simply wish to move a notion of something. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr Chairman. And I still, even on hearing what's been said in tickle by sort of Council would, I would give the opposite view and also outline some of the reasons why it should be refused. And anyway, I move it for a refusal. And on the basis that there's, it will cause this development will cause visual harm to the street scene. You only need to go down there and have a look if you live anywhere near there and see what's going on. This would stick out like a sore thumb, this development. So that's one of the first points to make. And I'll come up to the policy reasons in a moment. Not in keeping with the character and the layout of the area, because already you have heard members talking about the two free bedrooms, but that's not what's going on here. It's not two time free bedrooms. It's actually coming. They want to use in the word that's in the report, enhance this particular sort of development by putting units above that, extending the height of the building. And the fact that it's, well, you know, it goes down a level and it might just bring it up to the same level as the existing one as it currently is at this moment in time. I think will be, as I say, a major impact to the character and the layout of the area. And certainly have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties. There's no way that that could be what's going on in that particular area in terms of the housing and the design of the housing. The proposed development by its design and its height, scale and mass will dominate the street scene and blight the skyline, as I was saying, no do wrong. There will be no other development in that road that will be the same. And this will just be overpowering and taking on board Councillor Wood's points about highways. I'm not even going to go down there or use that at all. It's definitely is, in my view, an inappropriate and over development of the site. I think I will leave it there. The policy reason is that the reasons why I'm outlying to refuse the application is because it's contrary to policy ESD 15 of the chilwa local plan due to the design, the height, the mass and proposed extensions, roof extensions, also causing significant visual harm to the street scene. And C28 and C30, the chilwa local plan and government guidance contained within its contrary to C28 and C30 of the local plan and the government guidance contained with the national planning policy framework. I think there's enough reasons there to remember to consider. Thank you, Councillor SIVELY, for giving us the policies. I think the officers are well aware of the policies that you're proposing. Have you a seconder? Councillor BROOKE. Do you speak now, Councillor BROOKE? Yeah, if I may, and there's a sort of question I should have asked earlier, really. Certainly from the point of view of what is already approved, as I said earlier, I think is the important point that everybody has already agreed with what's already approved for them to do. And really what they've done is taken something which is acceptable in the view of the area and made it unacceptable by just making it bigger and bulkier and over dominating the area. They've ruined their own particular application that came before. The question I was going to ask is if this fell, if this ocean falls, I guess the old application part of the old application was still applied, which was to refurbish the existing three bed, which I should have asked earlier, I'm afraid. I think that's correct, but there is an extant permission, yes. So that will still stand, even if this was ended up as two five beds alongside it, which is kind of another reason why it shouldn't be passed, because you can end up with a three bed on one side and two five beds, which he now wants to add on the other side. So those are also, I fully support exactly the reasons that were given before and my own reasons, of course. Certainly to say, sometimes I feel like I'm living in a parallel universe, the Councillor Sibley is, I have to say, a cogent arguer of planning points when he represents his constituents in this in this committee. But I think that we were shown on the screen a picture of the height of the new five bed houses with like a dotted line going across to the existing house. These houses in height terms are not bigger than that that's there. So that, I think that that argument actually doesn't hold over much over much water. That was all I was going to say, Chair. It's been proposed and seconded. This application be refused, contrary to policies C28 and C30 of the Chair or local plan 1996 and policy ESD 50 of the present local plan, all those in favour of refusal for those policy reasons, please go. All those against refusal. One abstention. Thank you, Chairman. That's 10-4-4 against one abstentions and applications to be refused. Thank you. We will now move on to agenda item number 10, poultry house, Rickfield farm station road Milcom. We have three speakers. We have a local member to speak. We then have an objector and then we have speakers in support. But first of all, we have the officers presentation. Thank you, Chairman. Let me just get set up. Okay. So, I shall see from the written update, there was a objection received from CPRE yesterday for the application. But this application is a change of use of existing poultry said to storage container as these class B8, which includes associated landscaping. So, here's the location plan outlined in red, and then the blue line around the location plan is the ownership. This is the poultry shed in an aerial view. And then I'll just show you the scenario view of the wider site. So, just to go through the history of the site, there's 92 retrospective storage containers on the site as existing. There is a building that's been converted as a change of use to a B2 and B8 storage use, which is in blue in the middle. Just below that, there's a change of use that was in 1975 for light industrial use. The application site is in red. On the right, there is the solar farm, which is outlined in yellow, and then the top RNG one is two polytonals, which were approved earlier late last year with the intention of the farm diversification. So, the proposal is a resubmission of a previous application, which was for 70 storage containers, and that was within this poultry shed, and then a Dutch barn to the right. So, the current proposal was refused under delegated powers. The current proposal seeks for 56 storage containers to provide a self storage facility within the poultry shed, which is the middle building on this picture. And just to show what it looks like, this is the picture of the building. So, the council recommended this application for refusal being contrary to policy, SLE one of the local plan, due to the uses the employment site of self storage containers. And there is a change of use away from agricultural, and with the plan here, there won't really be any agricultural buildings left on site. So, the diversification is almost too much as a result of this development. There's been no objection from highways colleagues, because the proposal said an extra seven trips per day, which they didn't object to. I think that was all from me. Yes, and nothing much further on the report. And then, yeah, probably take any questions. Thank you. As I said, we have three speakers. First of all, Councillor Mckew, you have 10 minutes. Do you want in 30 seconds? Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm kind of sure you won't need your time. Mr Chairman, members of the Planning Committee, I feel I'm not going to be much used to you today. I've been asked to speak for and against this application. So, I'm going to be posing more questions than answers. I called this application in following discussions with the applicant. She felt that the comments in the previous report that were disallowed were subjective and would not stand up to the scrutiny of you, the Planning Committee. I will focus on what I think is the major area that you should consider today. I will be aware that the Council is signed up to becoming carbon neutral by 2030, and if you take a look at the logo behind us. And in the proposed terms of reference for the Climate Action Group within Choal District Council, we'll be using our influence on paraphrasing here to bring the district with us to become carbon neutral by 2030. One of the greatest levers we have in that regard is you, the Planning Committee. Now, in my discussions with the applicant, she mentioned that she would be pursuing regenerative and agroecological approach to the land and the farmer state, focusing on, among other things, soil quality. Now, for those of you that don't know, regenerative farming and its ability to sequester carbon in the soil is recognized as a significant approach to addressing the climate change emergency we faced. And among its proponents are the soil association and the World Bank. It is, however, recognized that regenerative farming, in being less intensive form of farming, reduces yields and hence farm income. This brings about the need for diversification of land use within those farms to offset the loss of income. The question for you today to consider is, does the proposed pivot towards regenerative farming and possibly improve carbon sequestration, offset the potential harms of the change of use sought in this application? You will have seen that in the officers report that Milken Parish Council has no objections to this application. I'm afraid, as of yesterday, that submission, I learned yesterday that submission was a result of an internal communications glitch in Milken Parish Council. Due to the date of reply being very close to Christmas, the parish clerk, having received no comments, submitted a no objections return. Yesterday, I received an email from the chair of Milken Parish Council, advising me that with other planning applications for this site, Milken Parish Council are not in agreement with a site being used to increase the number of storage containers. Some of their reasons were increased traffic, it will encourage through Milken, which is now already suffering from higher volumes due to new housing estates in Hooke, Norton. And also, I know that we've been discussing the problems of some of HS2 contractors using it as a cut through. But also, it's a country location with no affiliation to any sort of industrial park and is an unsuitable place for this type of enterprise. And thirdly, they say that the location of the entrance into Rickfield Farm is on a de-restricted stretch of road which is bounded on either side by very large trees and therefore quite dark. Movement of any slow large vehicles leaving the site could be potentially dangerous. The chair of the parish council acknowledges that the applicant did come to the parish council meeting in September 2023 prior to this application being presented to Chirwell. The chair told me that the parish council found what the applicant was hoping to do with the farm going forward, interesting, and that the parish council did ask questions, but they did not say they were behind the application. The minutes of that meeting states the council has asked a number of points of clarification and advised that their main concern with the application was the increase in traffic through the villages, through the village, especially HGVs. At that September meeting, the discussion and minutes were about an application for polytunnels. The application before you today was not submitted until November 2023, but was discussed with the parish council in outline in September. The minutes of that September meeting referred to the polytunnel application and also to the putative application now before you. After the applicant had left, there was a discussion at which it was decided not to support the outline proposal. The reason I go through this is I'm satisfied that the views that I received yesterday in regard to this application correspond with the meeting of the parish council attended by the applicant. So, finally, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I don't believe that the countryside should be set in Aspik or frozen in time. The climate change emergency that we face means there will have to be changes to farming practices, particularly intensive farming practices. Those changes in farming practice will change the nature of our rural environment. It's up to you today to decide if this application will help us to achieve our net carbon zero aspiration as a district, or whether or not the very real objections of milk and parish council are nullified by the promise of future regenerative farming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We now have a speaker, Director Caroline Mills, a local resident. You will have five minutes. You press the button on the bottom of the microphone, one in the middle. No, not yet. It should come red. Thank you. So, to expand on points in the office's report recommending refusal. This is not farm diversification, it is a separate proposition. The retrospective permission to cite these shipping containers outdoors was applied for prior to this current afterthought application. The respective 39 and 53 containers to which the officer refers have no permission. A sizeable self-storage business is not an essential element of any diversification scheme, and certainly not on a farm of some 400 acres. Any pressures facing farming are not exclusive to the applicant. To provide some government statistics, the average farm size in the UK is 81 hectares or 200 acres, and in southeast England that's 87 hectares, with almost half of all farms less than 20 hectares. Many of these farms have for years worked as sustainable biodiverse operations without the requirement for self-storage shipping containers on site to support. The applicant notes that the wider estate of Rickfield Farm is part is 400 acres, more than double the average farm size and as a part approximately 50 acres, which is still larger than almost half of all farms. It doesn't therefore have exceptional circumstances to maintain profitability without the need for urbanizing diversification. There is no functional link between self-storage and agriculture. If the applicant requires funding for a change of farming approach, that shouldn't be to the detriment of the countryside's character through unsustainable urbanization as per the local plan. It is no great distance to visit storage facilities in Bambrian Chipping Norton any more than other urban facilities not permitted in rural areas. Personal circumstances, financial or otherwise, are not a material planning consideration. It is not sustainable development within the locality or nationwide to claim that to farm regeneratively one must diversify land and buildings for storage containers. The applicant places much emphasis on regenerative farming, including soil health and ecosystem damage. This bears no relation to stale storage, and as evidenced by reports in the public domain, the applicant's history of burying outside source waste material and not clearing up the environmental harm, despite years of ongoing enforcement, makes any regenerative proposals questionable. Shall we, as a farm of a mere 23 hectares, land managing regeneratively for 25 years, do likewise? And other neighboring farms too, because granting permission in this geographically unsustainable location will set a precedent on the basis that our farms are financially unsustainable without. There is no justification for this agricultural building to be redundant. We've been approached by three farmers in the past 12 months, looking to rent a building for cattle, sheep and poultry. This is the only remaining agricultural building on site as the Dutch barn doesn't actually benefit from permission. The loss of the building becomes the loss of the farm and it becomes an industrial estate. The site's location is under the National Historic Landscape Characterization as enclosed agriculture. The chair will local plan for Millcomb states the landscape character of the parish's rolling village pastures. As the PDAS accompanying the application quotes, To the west of the site is a public bridleway which goes through a local wildlife site. Also to the west of the site is a conservation target area, and the habitat is noted to be any RCS 41 priority habitat. It is bounded by open fields in what is a fairly level rural landscape divided by hedgerows with woodland to the west to the south of fields sloping down to the rivers were. In that context, this countryside location is not the right place for an urbanizing business with the potential for a further 56 traffic movements down a farm track that runs directly adjacent to the local wildlife site and within the conservation target area, including a priority river habitat and woodland. The applicant quotes a low amount of traffic based upon CCTV from 2020 when lockdowns prevented most movements. Highways determines from a human safety perspective and based upon inaccurate figures, not an ecological one, not forgetting the bridleway begins at the road entrance to the farm track. The unregulated traffic relating to this proposal and the urbanizing change of use will cause visual intrusion, undue harm and be inconsistent as well as harming the historic value of the landscape. The farm track is within the CTA and there is no way of mitigating the damage caused by multiple maneuvers. The harm cannot be avoided by planting elsewhere and will result in damage to the directly adjacent site of biodiversity. These are contrary to ESD 10, 11 and 13 and all three policies state proposals will not be permitted if they contravene. Any planning decision is obliged to regard the detriment to surrounding land, not just the site itself. As that land includes evaluated by Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre since the previous application, more than 200 plant species on the vascular plant red list for England, including threatened species and indicator species of ancient woodland, this must be considered. Thank you. Thank you. We now have speakers for all the support, Duncan Chadwick agent and the Jenny Taylor applicant's daughter. You will have a total of five minutes between you. Thank you, Chairman and Councillors. I have been in a farming family all my life and six years ago I was given the amazing opportunity of managing the farm. I feel privileged to have experienced of living on a farm and understand how lucky I am to have lived a life in the countryside. Although despite the many benefits associated with the living on the farm, I have also observed the many stresses that come along with a life in agriculture, with most of those relating to money and lack of control on how income is generated. Whether that is down to the weather, how much someone is willing to pay for goods, mostly not much, changes in political policy, geopolitics affecting the price of inputs, the list is endless and far bigger than in any business I have experienced in my wider career. For those reasons, diversification became a really important focus for us. Diversification represents a means of taking back control, giving us certainty so that we can farm in a more sustainable way, a way that is good for nature and good and grows nutrient dense food, provide resources for the community so they can reconnect with nature and understand where their food comes from, reduce dependency on government subsidies to provide for a secure future for my family and to ensure a farming legacy for my children and to become self-sufficient. If we hadn't embarked upon this development for the farm, it was bleak. Years of poor returns for our intensively grown products and increasing levels of debt had driven us to the brink. The storage business has saved us from that eventuality. It has provided us with a rare commodity in the farming world, financial stability. It is subsidising our farming activity so that we can produce food that can be sold in the most sustainable way possible directly to the customer. Our food will not go to the grocers and be forced through a supply chain that has no respect for how it has grown or one that processes it until all the goodness is removed. Our food will go directly to our local community for those who care about how and where it has grown and to those who are willing to pay a fair price. I personally don't understand why you wouldn't want to empower that and let's be clear, we're not asking you to subsidise the product, we're asking you for the opportunity to work harder to spread ourselves thinner in order to generate the income to support this way of farming. We want to be financially independent as farmers so we can build a sustainable and resilient local farming system. You have the power to help us achieve this. Thank you for your time and consideration. Chairman, your local plan talks about rural areas and villages being lived in, not just slept in. As my client has said, she's working hard with her family, third generation of farmers on this farm to make an income, make a business, deliver food for people and support the local community. What I can't believe is the amount of opposition to this scheme, beggars belief, anybody watching Planet Earth would know what my client is doing is so important for the environment, climate change and other matters. Now, you can't expect every employment development to go into Bambury or Vista. Most of the district is rural, most quite a number of people, 32% live in rural areas. If everything in the towns, then rural areas communities will suffer, farms will decline, more people will be forced to travel and commute to towns to find jobs and services. Private travel will increase, congestion will occur, emissions will increase and climate change will be exacerbated. Is that what you want for the district? I certainly don't want to see that in Sherwell. I think it would be absolutely terrible. Without growth and balance of residents in jobs in rural areas, there is little to build social and economic sustainability. Failure to deliver suitable economic growth will stagnate a rural area, freezing it in time, which cannot be sound planning, since it makes communities and rural areas less sustainable, not more sustainable. There are numerous storage facilities in rural areas approved by this council. Most, if not all, are in much less sustainable locations than this. You have 32nd. Thank you. This location is close to Milcom. It's even closer when that appeal is developed right on the edge of Milcom. It's got an hourly bus service going past the site. This is not an unsustainable location. It's appropriate for the site. It's accompanied by sufficient justification and supports the council's vision for the rural areas of the district are set out in the local plan. It reuses a vacant agricultural building, protects the landscape and no objections have been received in the technical consultsies. As Councillor Wood said, highways are happy, environmental protection are happy. It's a benign proposal and there should be no objections to this scheme. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chair. I just wondered, is this poultry shed currently in use as a poultry shed? I don't believe so now. Thank you. So, as I understand it, a lot of farms have diversified with containers. Some of them are agricultural related that they rent them out to and also caravans and other things. They are that class down as a movable object. So, one or two, I won't name them. Of course not. Depending on the numbers, do not have planning permission for them because they're movable. So, I know this is a slightly higher number, but I can see what they're trying to do. I just wanted clarification on that, please. What do you mean is the fact that movable objects are positioned? Because a movable object, like shelters and stuff like that, don't need planning permission, the containers are movable and if there is a market for them, and then if there isn't, they will be sold and it seems as though there's quite a market for selling containers from I can make out. Councillor Broad. Thank you, Chairman. It depends on their degree of permanence, whether they need permission in their own right. So, if they never move and they're bolted together or whatever it might be, then potentially they might need planning permission, but also there will be a change use of the land for the stationing of the storage containers. So, because of those two factors, they do need the benefit of planning permission if they're going to be used for the purposes that's laid out. Councillor Broad, sorry. Thank you, Chairman. It's saying like a very simple question, but I'm struggling to try and understand whether this is an application to store containers, which are going to be sold, or are they going to be in a building which is then used for the storage of other things within the containers? Yeah, so it's a self-storage facility. So, you would rent a container and you would put your own personal items in there. So, they could be, as Councillor Webb said, some people use them for farm objects, so it can be used for farm stuff in theory. But say someone's moving house and they just want to put their belongings in a safe space, that's the business model that it is. So, it's a self-storage facility using storage containers within the building. Yeah, because that's important, where it comes to the transport issue, in a sense, you know, when we were talking about HDV use or HDVs coming around. Obviously, you know, these things are, well, it depends on how big they are. I presume they're 42 foot standard containers. So, if you've got those standard ones on a flatbed truck or something, then they've got to be delivered. So, while they're being delivered, I guess, that's where the traffic of HDVs comes from. But if they're going to be stuck inside the buildings and never moved again after that, the only people are going to turn up, I guess, are going to be the public or somebody putting whatever's in them. Yeah, more or less. The only thing we would say is, obviously, it wouldn't necessarily be car journeys if it is larger items. So, it just depends. Yeah, more by funds or bigger things. But yeah, HDVs will probably do the transportation. Thank you. If I may have a couple of questions. The County Council have not rejected either on traffic or sustainability grounds. That's right. That's not unusual. And secondly, there is, at present, no permission for any storage containers on site. Yeah, that's right. So, there's 92 storage containers on the site. They don't benefit from planning permission. In the wider history section, they did do a lawful development certificate on the Council by the point of it being moveable objects. But with the being level of permanence, that was refused because it needs to be 10 years. And they subject to enforcement investigations at the moment as well. And final question is, I think, what can I keep getting told that we have given lots of permissions for storage containers. I can't remember any. I'll be quite honest with you. So, obviously, miss those. They must have done under their delegated powers. Yeah, they would have been instaligated powers and each case is assessed on its own merits with each unique circumstances. Obviously, in this circumstance, there's not a lot of agricultural use on the site as existing. A lot of it has already been diversified. So, we're taking away sort of the last part of their cultural element or one of the last parts to make it in this industrial use, which is not considered acceptable in accordance with Palsia SLE1 with the coupon. Listen, Councillor CHATMAN. Hello. Thanks to the officers for the report, which I've always read carefully. But I would like a little bit to understand something a little bit more. And that's the number of this seems to me to be the balance of the tilt of the business between farming and industrial using common language. Could you explain just for my education a little bit what was behind the conclusion that it's not sustainable, that it's unsustainable? I've read the policies. I understand our policies. That's not my question. It's how would they apply to come to that conclusion with this application? So, it's in quite a rural area. It's outside, obviously, the settlement. It's not considered to be on the edge of the settlement boundary. So, policy SLE1, which is the employment development, does allow for some rural employment land, but it should be on the edge of the settlement, whereas it's not considered to be on the edge of the settlement. Obviously, it's noted the agent said about the appeal site in Milken, but that still is to the northeast of the site. It isn't directly bound in this site, and this is to the south anyway. So, the roads helps give it more of a separation. So, any trips wouldn't be immediately associated with Milken, and therefore, not a sustainable development in that respect. Hopefully, that answers your question. Yes, Councillor NEckland. Thank you, Chair. First of all, I will not consider storage container as an industrial activities. There is nothing industrial on this. The people doesn't have no machinery. We don't operate any plants, anything, is that the storage? So, that's not industrial, first of all. Second of all, we are here to protect carbon environment, which is very good, but it's time to looking on the people as well. Those farmers that were in front of us, I feel very sorry for them, because in getting this situation. So, they're trying to put probably few containers to make their living. We know very well that today, the agriculture, it's on the edge of the cliff in the United Kingdom. All livestock people get rid of their stock, because they don't make no money. We bring in from Netherlands 50p per kilo of chicken, and our farmers make one pound per kilo. It's not to talk here, but it's relevant. So, as you know, all people that it's in agriculture or business, trying to do something to make little bit of living to put the food on the table or to keep that farm alive. It's nowhere to go, nowhere to go. They cannot make money from livestock. No chicken, no beef, no pork, nothing. Last 15, 20 years, they showed us they would go down the numbers for what I'm saying here. So, it's time for us to looking in the people, to looking in our farmers, to help them if we can. Not to try to put a break in what they're doing. It's just in the middle of their farm. It doesn't bother nobody. It's a storage. Put a container there, somebody coming, put a night table, stand inside, close the container, go out. I don't see no problem with that. So, that's why we're here. Here we are Councillor, we are elected, it's time for us to looking in the people, before anything else, think. We seem to have moved into the debate area. Councillor, whether that's a question or? It's a question, please. So, is a solar farm industrial? Sorry. It's over 1,000 acres. Any solar farm is industrial? It's head man, you can answer that one. I'll try. When it generates electricity, so there's technically an industrial process happening, but we do often allow them in rural areas. They generate renewable energy, and if they're a small scale in an appropriate location, well screened, it calls minimal harm to the surroundings. But also, what can happen with solar farms in fields? The grass underneath them can be either planted for wildflower meadow, or they can be grazed by sheep and animals. So, it can be allowable. Just sort of on the back of that, I think the point with the report is that solar farms, if they are industrial, not industrial, but they aren't necessarily the farming use. I think that's what I'm trying to get across in the report. That is part of diversification, because they would get money from selling electricity, and similar to the building that got approved as a change of use in 2021. That got approval for a B1 light industrial use to diversify away from the farm. And that was a strong permitted development fallback that was given to that rose also. Hopefully, I'll answer some questions in a bit more. I'd like to say a few words. The trouble we've been about for a long time will get some memories. And I'm pretty certain that this poultry building was thought over quite lengthily at a planning meeting, because of the disadvantages of access to poultry. And a poultry building of this size takes quite a bit of traffic and the occasional aromas that come from them. That's a long time ago. It's always difficult. Certainly my pleasure on the April 4-22, we have huge business parks, if I'm calling that, that have got bigger and bigger around former agricultural buildings. I am disappointed that there are clearly a lot of rest perspectives containers on site. But if they were put inside the poultry house, one could argue that the poultry house might be tidied up a bit. It might be neater. Even solar panels on the roof, I suspect it collapsed under the way to solar panels. So you could argue that possibly within the building, the solar panels might not be the problem that's scattered about in the open, they may be. But it is a difficult thing, as it's just been pointed out, farming is changing and farming diversification is something that everybody's looking at, because they have the buildings. By the very nature, farms tend to be in the countryside away from villages and not near bus routes, et cetera, although this one is. It's an interesting argument, this one, and I'll be more than interested if there's anybody else has any views on this. Otherwise, we'll move on. Councilor Broad, and Councilor Morrison. Yeah, thank you. In answer to the question, what is a solar farm? It's not a farm. That's the number one. It's a power station in a country, so whatever way you want to look at it, and that's the way that you can grow things underneath it. That's just a red herring. To me, it's just in the wrong place. There should be on the roofs of all those warehouses and buildings we were talking about. But the main question that we're debating here is not so much diversification, as much as we've already got that, in a sense, as was already pointed out. Today, we've got some of the buildings being used for B1, some light industrial, you can go to other farms, and you see where some of the buildings have been converted for car repairs or whatever. We've had them come here. Those ones in St. Plasten was the one that comes to mind, where the farm is actually diversifying into something else. But whether it's connected to the farming is another issue. Excuse me. Whether this particular application is, oh, it's not my good voice. I've been speaking too much today. Can I come back? I'd just like to make a couple of points. I don't know if anybody's ever been to farm ed, because they're doing regenerative farming. It's a brilliant place. If this farm is heading down that road, then good luck to them, because it's a fascinating place. Farm ed is just outside Chaddlington, so it's in Oxfordshire, and I do recommend going to visit it. It has some really interesting, innovative farming practices. I don't know if anybody's ever used one of these storage containers we had during our business, but it's not just for storing if you want to go moving house. A lot of small businesses use them as well. They can't afford a big unit in a warehouse. There's quite diverse self-employed from computer repairs to a mobile car screen replacement service. It's not just about storing places. It's actually supporting a local community so that people can be self-employed. They can store stuff. With our housing today, we've got no garages. We've seen in previous one, we don't have garages where we used to be able to store these sorts of things if you did want to become self-employed. Unfortunately, places like this provide that facility for them. It's just something to bear in mind, please. Well, I recode. I don't know whether my voice did. Sorry about that. I don't know what happened there. Perhaps if my voice was trying to tell me to shut up. Basically, I was going to follow up exactly as Councillor Morsen started to follow on from my thought that farming is already diversifying considerably. What really we're looking at in a sense is whether it's an intrusion into the countryside. As you were saying, Chairman, the storage units or the containers that are already there, that's a very debatable thing. The ones that are going to go inside a building, you won't be able to see them. They've got access, obviously, to people going in and out. So, to me, the ones that might go into a building that is not being used for whatever it was meant for is a different aspect altogether. So, the ones that go in the chicken farm, I think, probably would be okay. The ones that go in a Dutch barn, that tends to mean that, because the Dutch barn is very open, isn't it? They normally store straw and stuff like that, isn't it? So, that one's a bit different. What I'm really saying is I don't know whether to vote for or against this. Hello, I'd just like to come back to a point you raised a few minutes ago and it may be a red herring, but perhaps it's not as well. You mentioned that the change of use had been applied for and approved for the solar and inverter commerce farm. Could that have been a route for this application? I'm not sure in some questions. Well, what's behind the question is, I think the number of this is this diversification or a completely separate unrelated business. So, I'm trying to pick my way through the logic of that, because I don't know whether this is a sustainable farm or not. I think solar farms are as well as diversification, they are financial. You can get more money over a 45 year lease for 200 acres of solar panels and you can for growing wheat or animals. It's a bit of both. It's diversification and it's making money for the owners of the land. Whether it's industrial, it's an interesting argument. As somebody said, it is an electrical power point, basically. But it's more than interesting. It's the heart of this question, isn't it? Is this moving so far from farming that it is not farming? Is not diversification? Yeah, I think it's all elements together. So, it's the fact you've got the solar farm, the fact that one of the other buildings on site has been approved as an industrial use. The fact they have got the storage containers there as existing, although they don't benefit from planning permission. And then to the north, there is two point tunnels that have been approved for regenerative farming, but they've not come into fruition yet. It's rather rare. So it is trying to get the balance of everything. With this one, having storage containers within the building, we consider to be going too far away from the farming and going too much into the diversification element. So then it becomes an employment site, and that's in the report, sort of lifted out the criteria for rural employment sites and we don't consider it to comply with that. So hopefully that helps. No, thank you. I think that has cleared things for me. Absolutely. So, I will put forward a proposition that we approve it, but I'm wondering on two things. You say an employment site, yet people rent the container. The farm doesn't employ the people. The reason I'm defending it is because we were all told to diversify once dairy didn't pay, once sheep didn't pay and everything else to maintain the patchwork of the countryside. Now, I can fully appreciate the objectives on their concerns and the change and the clarification on the parish council about the extra use with the road going through Millcomb, but there are other roads as well that come down to there with the crossroads and everything else. So, if you were to put forward because the farm diversification is absolutely that, it can be almost anything to keep the farm afloat. And with what they're trying to do with the soils, that takes a lot more money than trying to do what I call normal commercial farming. So, and I lost my way a bit then sorry. So what I'm saying is that if we could then put it forward for approval by me with conditions for monitoring so that if the village had concerns about the amount of traffic initially as was positioned here. Yes, the containers are normally ex containers from the shipping world and they're brought in. So you've got that initial transport. But after that, if there was a way of monitoring it, which I assume the applicant will anyway because they'll want to see who's coming in and out. Most places that have got them where people use them, they do have cameras up so they know the amount of people coming in. And whether that would appease some of the concerns. So, as I said, I don't know. I don't think we could put that on as a condition. Okay, it was just a suggestion that for conditions to try and monitor from those that objected to appease their concerns. I think if we give permission for the 50s it contains. However, no, we have to accept that some of them will be used possibly daily. And some might not be used for six months or so. That's the name of the game. So I will put it forward. If there's nobody else wishes to debate it. Council web, do you? Sorry. Council. Council web, would you like to move? I'll move for approval then, please. You consider it is farmed diversification. There are concerns, but yes, I put it forward as well. Strictly inside the building. Yeah. You seconded it. Council, would you wish to say? I need to say, I'll get to the point. I'm going to say, Jen, I thought that the public speaker that we had first on spoke extremely well. It was almost like listening to an exposition of planning policies and their application to their appropriateness for this application. It was a very well researched research, and I thought a powerful set of arguments, which effectively said, you should not approve this in accordance with your office's recommendation. I thought that Councillor MACKU started an interest, and it's almost like you can see the cogs going round in some member's heads. If you add glass heads, I see the cogs going round, because he effectively said, we here should consider being champions of the low carbon agenda, which indeed is policy. Not a planning policy, but a political policy of the Council, and you should consider that, and that you should think about whether this application represents a fulfillment of that objective. That indeed is what the applicant and Mr Chadwick, the arguments that they effectively was what they were saying. I thought that Councillor DALCUE, and I don't mean this in the offence, I'm just saying, I thought that he leapt onto that, latched onto that concept very adroitly. And indeed Councillor Morsen followed through with it, and the line of it was, ha! These sainted people seek to move to regenerative farming, and the only way they can do that is if you let them also have storage containers writ large along the end of this little road, along with all the other paraphernalia of more or less industrialisation that's already evident. And so the argument has become, Chairman, one of, shall you run with the planning policies that affect the land, or shall you run with the more emotive argument that says, ha! No, no, we are talking here about how this application affects the people who own the land, and what they want to do. And so I come in the end, Chairman, to, you may have a view on this, is that when I was a boy, when you and I were a boy's chairman, there was a concept in planning committees that said, worse the effect, planning consent runs with the land. It does not run with the people, and I've been bitten on that, where I've been convinced about the merit of the people who wanted to do such and such with their land, and they got their consent by that arguing that. And then, after the thing, whatever it was, was built, immediately sold it to somebody else. And do you see what I mean? So members need to have a mind that planning consent runs with the land, not with the people that could, it could be. It's the second to correct me, that's that old hat that doesn't apply anymore. Thank you, Chair. I would like to answer to Councillor Wood, right? It's no intention to have emotionally manipulation here. It's about storage container, which those farmers don't get rich from 50 storage container. And I don't think personally, I don't think it's something behind this to open, I don't know which in future in that, in that site. So, I believe that, and I agree with what Councillor would say, the previous speakers was against, yes, they have all documented, very enough, right, but also the owner of the farm, the lady that spoke here in front of us. She put on the table her feelings, because that lady won 50 container to keep that farm alive, not to get rich. Thank you. It has been proposed and seconded that the application, the application be approved subject to conditions that will be agreed, and certainly the conditions must be, they must be contained as this application is inside and not outside. All those in favour of approving this application, please, Chair. All those against. Abstentions. Thank you, Chairman. That's eight before five against two abstentions, applications being approved. And the suspicion, would you mention when we were younger, I'm sure there was horse and carts rather than traffic. If we move on to agenda item, sorry, the application has been approved as matters said. Agenda item 11, castle key, so we say farewell to the executive. You have to move quickly. Mr Knox will present, we have no speakers. I have to wait until they leave. Thank you, Chairman. I don't intend to keep you too long. The application is for the insertion of two windows into the castle key building within memory. Aerial view of the site there, a bit of a wider context with castle key to the north and the town centre to the south. A quick block plan, the two X's on the plan here and here show the rough positions of the two windows to be inserted into the north east elevation. The elevation drawings, so the top drawing is the current existing elevation. The bottom drawing is the proposed, so this window here is proposed and this window here is also proposed. As you can see, this larger window is to be placed inside a faux window that already exists along the elevation. And this smaller window will be placed between a second pair of windows just further along the elevation here, so we'll complete that section. There is, obviously consider no harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the area. There are no impacts on residential immunity and obviously no impact on highway safety and that's all for me. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to propose accepting the officer's report and I'm going to make a joke. I think, relating to this, dare I mention things like window taxes and a £4 billion loss on local government spending. Thank you very much. You may remember the window tax accounts to be, but I don't. Yes, I was not brought up in St Helens where they blanked glass. Thank you. Have your seconder. Thank you, Councillor. I think we need to debate this all in favour of the recommendation. Thank you, Chair. Anybody against? Nope. That's great. Thank you, Chairman. That's unanimous. That's the application. It's been approved. Somebody's coming back in. So, for what it's over to you for appeals. Thank you, Chairman. The appeal summary has ever highlights new appeals that come in, existing appeals ongoing and appeal decisions. Within the list of appeal decisions that happened before the agenda was published, you'll see the allowing of the development of Milcom of 30 dwellings, 35 dwellings, sorry, which officers have recommended for approval. Members refused at committee and the appeal was allowed. Within that, the inspector concluded we didn't have a five-year supply of housing. They did it to be 4.82, therefore the tilted balance was engaged and that the position should be granted. They also highlighted it had limited visual impact or any other issue surrounding it. Around about the same time, we had an application that was refused under delegated powers, but was appealed for nine dwellings on the edge of Hempton, which the inspector dismissed and concluded that we did have a five-year housing and land supply. So, two different decisions coming to different conclusions. We also had an appeal decision in Frankfurt for six houses which were refused on the grounds that it was outside the built-up limits of the village. The inspector concluded that it was inside and allowed the appeal, but did not comment on the five-year housing and land supply. We then had some extensions to an assisted building, which was dismissed because it's caused harm. And at the pub, formerly known as the pheasant pluckers in, or is it still called that? I'm not sure, an appeal was dismissed. This was one that never actually had a decision. We, as officers, considered it to be invalid because it didn't have sufficient information for us to pay or process the application and effectively the inspector agreed with that and dismissed the appeal. Within the written updates, there's an update on the PR-9 application, the development at Tianton, one of the Oxford Special Review sites that you may recall came to committee a few cycles back where they appealed its non-determination. We said what we would have refused on at the time, and because matters hadn't been finally concluded on viability and other matters, there was like five reasons for refusal, but noting that they could be addressed and in the written updates, it's saying that, yes, majority of those will be addressed. The inquiry happened this week. It was meant to be for eight days. It finished yesterday. It started on Tuesday. That's it. Anyve ever kind? No. Councillor Beyer. I don't want to tread on Yantan and Kidletan's territory, so I'm going to be careful what I say. On the update, I just spotted this or listening to other people talking. This question of this Yantan application, which I probably can remember, but not quite, it refers to the 50% affordable housing element in the Kidletan area houses in the Kidletan 4400, which was our Sherwalls offer, I'll call it that, to Oxford City to help them with their housing problems. There's an element of doubt in my reading this, so all I would ask is that the Planning Officers Department and the political leaders across the council discuss this. And think about it, because it's, to me, and I might have got this wrong, this ruling challenges the 50% aim of the council. I might have got it back to front, but I'm not sure. Councillor Wood will advise. No, you read it correctly. If there are affordable rents, then 43% affordable housing can be done. If it's market rents, they are prepared to do 50%. It's an argument that is getting beyond me a little bit. But I thought our policy was to go for 50%. The policy is 50%, but you've, as you know, we time and time again as a VISTA recently, if they can prove that the housing development cannot sustain the level of 106 that we're asking for, which is affordable housing part of, then they can cut back on certain parts of it. And this is where it's a viability argument that developers are allowed. I accept that, Chair, but I thought, and I might be wrong, that the aim of the Kidlinson 4400 was to have 50% affordable. I'd already gone up to London and come back again, but if I've got it wrong, I'm sorry. That's correct. But if there's still the argument, which personally I expected to come forward, and certainly since the price of house buildings as it was rocketed, this is the viability argument that has built as can bring forward in order to cut back on the 106, and it tends to be affordable housing or recreation. Okay, I was just spotted something, that's all. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, the starting point is the development plan and the development plan on the Oxford partial review site says 50% affordable housing should be delivered. And as you know, when we consider planning applications, we have to assess them against the policies of the development plan and less material considerations indicate otherwise. There are policies within the plan and at national level that says you have to take into account development viability. And this was heavily scrutinised, you know, before it went to peel and out appeal, the viability of the scheme. And it's not a case that they're only proposing 10% or 20%, they're closing 43%. And the plus point in all of this is that the proposing all the rent is social rent, not just affordable rent. So that's a significant boost. And maybe if there was some affordable rent in there, it could have reached 50%. But the provision of such a large number of social rent was a significant benefit of the scheme. Thank you, Mr. Second, and sorry for getting political. Do we note the report? Thank you. That concludes the meeting. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Have a safe journey home. See you in March. [BLANK_AUDIO] You