Transcript

Welcome to this evening's meeting of the planning committee. Unfortunately, not all the clocks in this building seem to be telling me the same time so as well as it has been late in starting. My first duty is to read the fire precautions because we do have a lot of visitors to hear with us this evening. In the event of the fire alarm sounding, leave the room immediately and proceed downstairs by way of the main stairs or follow any of the emergency exercise. Leave the building and follow the signs for the fire assembly point which is in old church path on the pathway between the rear or the east of public car park, library end, and the churchyard. Can I just remind members and guess please, if you've got mobile phones, could you please either switch them off or put them on silent so he was having any interruptions. Right, for the sake of this evening's meeting, we have one temporary substitution. We've got a council artist, a man who hears a temporary substitute for councilor to read food. You're most welcome, Minister. We have two applications in front of us tonight, but first of all I must review the declarations of interest. All members present are required to declare at this point in the meeting as soon as possible thereafter any disposable pecuniary interest and/or other interest arising under the code of conduct and respect of any items of business being considered at this meeting. Do I have any such declarations, please? No? Okay. Thank you very much. We will move on then, members, if we can, to the reports from the area sub-committers and if I turn first to the east area planning sub-committee held on the 8th of January, I would like to propose this. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to propose the report of the east area planning sub-committee held on the 8th of January, pages 5 to 8. Thank you very much. That's 3, 4, 5. Okay. The report noted. Yes. Thank you. And then we have the south area planning sub-committee held on the 10th of January, Councillor Burley. Thank you, Chair, I move the minutes of the south area sub-committee held on the 10th of January. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's pages 7, 8, and 9 of paper agenda. This report noted. Thank you very much. We now move on to item 3A on your agenda, which is application 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 0, land at Mulsey Industrial Estate, Mulsey Avenue and Armfield, close to West Mulsey. Members had the opportunity of making a site visit here yesterday morning on the 5th of February. The application was promoted to the committee by Councillor Anderson to consider the scale of the proposed buildings, hours of operation, parking, provision and potential impact on the meanity of the neighbouring properties. So first of all, can I please ask the officer to introduce the application, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Application 2023/2340 is for a development comprising six detached buildings for flexible use between light industrial, Class E, Part G, general industrial, Class B2, and storage and distribution B8, with car parking, landscaping and associated works following demolition of the existing buildings and structures. One update sheet was shared with members on Monday that included changes to conditions 2, 5, 12, 17, 18, 23 and 25. The majority of the changes were alterations to or additional wording that do not alter the intention of the conditions. Condition 17 and 18 have more significant changes. Condition 18, which was the proposed hours of use, would be removed. Section 17, relating to the noise assessment for the proposed units, would require a noise assessment to be submitted prior to first use to demonstrate that noise would not exceed LA-90 at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. The assessment would identify if any mitigation measures were required, which could include controls on timings of deliveries and was of use of the buildings. The assessment and any measures would have to be approved and written by the Council. This change has been made as the end users of the units are not currently loaned and therefore the conditioner allows for restrictions to be put in place before the future users occupy the site. On the screen now is the location plan. The site is located along the northern edge of Molesy industrial estate. The whole site is a 1.8 hectare area that currently hosts three main units, which are all vacant. The existing site currently provides 7,354 square metres of space, which has a lawful use of office, warehouse and light industrial. The proposal would be for 8,635 metres square of space. Here on the proposed site plan, we can see that the application site is two parcels of land that are connected along Armfield Road. Area 1 at the top here is bound by Molesy avenue to the north, central avenue to the east. Both roads have residential dwellings on them and Armfield Road to the west. Area 2 located to the southwest of area 1 at the end of Armfield Close. Area 2 is also bound by residential dwellings to the south and west. Here to the south of area 1 is further industrial units. The principle of the development is considered to be acceptable subject to the material considerations as the land is already strategic employment land. The redevelopment of this site would redevelop these vacant plots, revitalising the area and offering multiple employment opportunities and securing the site for future commercial use. The elevations for the six buildings are on the screen now. So units 100, which has three individual units within it, 200, which has four units in it, 300, which has another three, which is another three units, and then the larger units in area 2, which are 400, 500, and 600. The elevations for the six buildings have been shown here. The units have an industrial type design with colour palettes to mitigate their appearance from unit 600 and 500. The full considerations of the appearance of the development is set out in paragraph 35-59 of the committee report. The proposal is considered to be beneficial to the character of the area as it would redevelop the current vacant site. There are some concerns around the northern face of unit 200 and its presentation to Mosey Avenue and the prominence of unit 240 on the corner of the site, and these should be weighed in the planning balance. Moving through to the site sections, we can see the relationships of the proposal with the surrounding residential properties. The top two plans show the relationship with Mosey Avenue, with the residential dwellings being to the left here and to the right here. The third is central avenue, with the block of flats here to the right. Sections 4 and 5 show the relationships with Monks Avenue, with the residential dwellings here and the commercial units behind, and then the bottom sections here show the relationships with the dean. Following the amendment to unit 600, it was considered that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The proposal has been considered by Surrey County Council in terms of highway safety and capacity, who have raised no concern subject to the necessary conditions. Officers are aware that there is residential concern regarding additional traffic in the local area. The submitted transport assessment gives worst-case scenarios that would see an increase in the number of trips and an increase in the number of HDVs, with a reduction in the number of trips at peak times. The transport set statement goes on to say that the more likely average scenario where the site is occupied by a range of uses that have been applied for. The proposals are predicted to result in a larger decrease of two-way vehicle movements during the same hours. The transport statement concludes that the development proposal would therefore have a beneficial impact in terms of traffic compared to the existing. In terms of parking, the site would provide 70 parking spaces and 70 cycle spaces. The tricks data in the transport statement shown in the images at Paragraph 81 of the committee report show that the site would not result in an overflow of parking onto the surrounding residential roads. The proposal would provide by a diversity net gain and is not considered to have a harmful impact on the nearby designated sites subject to the necessary conditions. The site is also considered to be accepted in relation to flood risk, again subject to the necessary conditions. In summary, it is considered that the proposal would not result in material harms the amenity of neighbouring properties to capacity and safety of the highway, parking to biodiversity or flood risk. The benefits of the proposal are that it would revitalise the application site within MOSI industrial estate and secure the future of strategic employment site as well as offering future employment opportunities, and these matters are given significant weight. In terms of the impact on the character of the area, the proposal would redevelopment of the site. There are some concerns about the impact on the street scene. Overall, it is considered that the result is in a limited benefit of the scheme. It is not considered that this would outweigh the benefits provided. So on the basis of this and in light of the material considerations, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the development plan and accordingly is recommended for permission tonight. Any members who would like to ask the officer any questions of a technical nature? Right, I just saw Council Burley first. Thank you, Jim. Do we know how long the three vacant units have been vacant for? And my same question is the three existing units that are vacant when they were occupied. How many employees were in the three units, do we know? And I didn't pick it up from the report, unfortunately, about how many employees will the new scheme employ, please, thank you. I actually don't know how long the sites have been vacant for, but potentially you might be able to put that to the agent this evening, and likewise I don't know how many employees were employed when it was in use. The report does contain information about the future number of employees because the end users are not known and the uses are flexible, the number of job varies, I need to check the exact number. I think it is roughly between 130 and 250, depending on the end users. Thank you, Chair. Just a question, do you have an image of what it currently looks like for members to see what the, what currently is there at this site? And second of all, my question is to the, what have most of the objections honed in on specifically, is it traffic issue, is it obviously the appearance issue, thanks. I don't have an image of the current site, obviously we had a site visit only one in the week, so I don't know if you were able to view it yourself at another time as well. The representations are summarised in paragraph 28, they vary between the impact on the design over development of the area, impact on neighbours, concerns over light, air noise pollution, industrial smells, traffic, parking in the area, insufficient parking provision, roads already being dangerous, noise and pollution. I think it is quite a long list, I don't think I can read it all out, but it is there. Thank you, Chair. Thanks so much for a very detailed report as ever. Can you just confirm for laypeople, the concept of LA-90, please, thank you. I'm not a noise officer, so I had to write it down, so he's just there with me while I find the right, the definition that I've got here. So, LA-90, as defined by an acoustics definition, it is used to express the background noise level. The background noise is the level which is exceeded for 90% of the time, or put another way, the sound level is only lower than the LA-90 for 10% of the time. You could think of the LA-90 as a backstop noise level which the sound really goes below. So, the intention of the condition is to prevent against excessive noise against the average background noise level. As I understand it, I'm not a noise specialist. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can you tell me how many actual parking spaces there are on this site? I'm just thinking of employees, I'll be expecting them all to cycle there, or public transport, and if not, where are they going to park their cars? Thank you. Can I just check? You mean the proposed parking spaces? So, there's 70 parking spaces proposed and 70 cycle spaces proposed. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm not a member of your committee, but as it's in my ward, I feel I need to say something on the matter. And what I've listened to to my fellow Councillors already— Councillor MURPHY. Councillor interjecting. There's a question, or is it a statement? Sorry. Okay. The question right there. No question. Okay. The question I will say for later. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? That's good. Yes, of course. Thank you. Could you just clarify, on the southwestern corner, you know, when we're on the site visit, well, on Monday, it's all shaded in a lovely shade of green, and I've looked at the conditions where it talks about landscaping. It only mentions trees. Should members ignore the green area around—is it unit 600, I can't remember. And also, there's a tiny strip at the top as well, should we ignore that element of green? Is it just the trees that we're talking about? It's my first question. And the second one is, on the cross-section where you've got—I think it's number 10, the dean. There's a tree. Is that tree existing in the dean's property, or is it part of the site? It's the—that one there. I think it's the bottom right one. There's a tree in there. So is that existing? Was that proposed? And does the landscaping around unit 600, if you could prefer that for members, please, thanks. I'm just going to deal with your second question first, because I've got that on the screen now. So this tree here is within the boundary of the site. And when we saw on the site visit, there are no trees on the site at the moment. This is currently a car park, so that tree is part of the proposed planting scheme. And then in terms of landscaping, so this is the proposed external materials schedule, and the grass area is part of the biodiversity net gain. There's going to be grasslands planted in there. I haven't got the landscaped planting scheme, but that is the part of it, yes. Perfect. Thank you very much. Okay. Any other member? I've got any questions for officers. Okay. Members, we have, I don't mind, there's two public speakers on this application this evening. We have Mr. Terence Gough, Mr. Gough is here, okay, who's going to speak on behalf of the objectors and Mr. Chris Dodds, do we have Mr. Dodds here? Mr. Dodds is here, who will afterwards speak on, as the agent of response to the application. Mr. Gough. If you'd like to, perhaps take a seat a little further forward. Okay, when you're comfortable, Mr. Gough, okay, Mr. Gough, you've probably been told that you have three minutes in which to address the members of the committee, they may wish to ask you some questions afterwards. When you're ready to speak, just press the red button and we'll hear you learn clear. My name is Terry Gough, I live in the Dean, Wes Mulsey, and I'm here to object to this proposal, proposed development on behalf of the local residents. The 13 proposed units together with the 24/7 usage, including bank holidays, will considerably intensify the use of the site and the disturbance to local residents, where there are already significant traffic issues. Also, the additional noise levels of vehicles, any work being carried out, and additional lighting would be unacceptable to local residents, especially between 7pm and 7am. The air quality assessment concentrated on increased traffic on main roads through Mulsey, Hampton Court and Wharton, but it did not mention the residential area where the site is located. The total units, 400, 500, and 600, will overlook surrounding low-level properties, in particular the bungalows in the Dean and Monks Avenue, and would have the result of the loss of residential amenity. The piling works required during the construction process of these units could also cause structural damage to nearby residences. Unit 600 is planned to be put on the World Use Car Park area, where there are no existing buildings where planning permission has been refused in the past on free occasions. This unit will end up being only 15 metres from my bungalow, and as the end use is unknown, any impact assessments can only be considered as a rough guide. The landscape plans put forward are totally inadequate, and will take years to mature, and will not compensate for the size and scale of the proposed development and the additional land that they will occupy. Given the impact this application will have on the local area, it is felt that there should have been a wider consultation and a longer time to respond. A petition submitted supports a wider objection than those invited to comment and illustrates the strength of feeling more widely. The plans include the addition of single yellow lines in Mosey Avenue on the factory side of the road, where parking is already dangerous. Double yellow lines and resident parking controls will be necessary to control the parking situation. The Planning Conservation and Heritage Consultation Letter, dated the 16th of November 2023, continues to raise concerns with a heightened mass impact of units 220, 230 and 240 on Mosey Avenue, and that these are also located near the road and existing buildings. Despite similar rejections raised by residents, nothing worthwhile has been done to address this. To conclude, this is a major redevelopment which impacts not only on the immediate residents, but Mosey and the surrounding areas. If this proposal goes ahead in its present form, the impact on people's lives will be considerable, and we as the residents will have to live with these negative impacts are not the developers. Thank you very much, Mr Gough. Can you explain what life is like living where you are at the moment, in terms of overlooking and how the current establishment and units there affect where you live and your fellow residents, please? Yes, currently I overlook a car park, or the car park back to me, and it's the car park to the industrial state, and there's no buildings on it at all. In fact, it's been a car park since 1959, and three planning applications were refused, one in 1963 and two in 1964, and it's ironic that the planning applications that were refused were for low-level garages, and that even predated when the bungalows were built in the Dean, so it seems quite strange that we're looking at a two-story building now overlooking bungalows. Thank you. Anybody else? No? Okay, Mr Gough, thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much, and now we have Mr Gough, we're going to speak to us on behalf of Mr Gough. Okay, don't you represent the applicant, so are you similar, they have the three minutes to address the committee, they may wish to ask you some questions afterwards, so whenever you're ready, press the little red button and go away. Good evening, and thank you for letting me speak in support of this application tonight. The applicant, Logicor, is pleased to bring forward this application for the regeneration of existing vacant employment site. It will support languages' economic growth. Logicor is one of the largest owners of industrial and logistics premises in the UK, and through these proposals aims to attract new occupiers and jobs by delivering new purpose-built and highly sustainable modern employment units that the MOCI industrial estate in place of the vacant and dated buildings on site now. The planning policy context is supportive. The MOCI industrial estate is identified in a development plan, a strategic employment land, making it a focus for employment development in the borough, where intensification of use is supported. The MPPF gives a substantial and significant positive weight to reuse of brownfield land and supporting economic growth and investment, respectively. As owners of other properties at the estate, Logicor have a long-term interest in the site and are committed to being a good neighbour. We hope this is recognised, including through the revisions made to the scheme, in response to feedback received, and in the interest of limiting impacts on residential amenity. For example, in responding positively to points raised by officers both at pre-app and during determination, they have substantially reduced the size and scale of Unit 600 and Unit 500 and moved them away from their nearest neighbours. Additionally, they have committed to a condition that ensures the development will not increase noise levels above the existing background levels. Technical reports have been submitted, resulting in all statutory and non-statutory technical consultees raising no objections to the proposals, subject to appropriate conditions and planning obligations where necessary. The conditions and obligations will deal with the management of parking and vehicle movements and securing sustainable accessibility improvements to the site. Measures to protect the amenity of nearby residents, including from potential sources of noise, air quality pollution and lighting are secured. Improvements to the site's drainage and green infrastructure provision will be delivered with substantial improvements to biodiversity, with a 127% gain demonstrated. Construction environmental and transport management plans will also effectively control potential disruption during a construction phase. In short, logical and doses your officers' comprehensive report, which demonstrates that the proposal is compliant with the development plan and with national policy, and that each and all technical matters have been appropriately dealt with. We hope that members recognise that the considerable merits of the proposal and the efforts made to achieve reoccupation of this vacant brownfield employment site and respectfully request that planning permission is granted in line with your officers' recommendation. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Dodds. Thank you. Last question. Shall I? Anyway, could I ask you what discussions did you have with the residents around the surrounding area on the border side of things? Can you switch off to it? Oh, sorry. We haven't had any discussions of the neighbours. But we did undertake pre-application with Council's officers, and there was also pre-application undertaken with the highways' officers, and so that formed the sort of pre-application phase. Do you think they would have played a lot of scale of massive work? Can you put it back on again, Trev? Oh, sure. Yeah. Would you think there would be a reaction of the residents in the area with the scale and the mass of what you're trying to do? Can you switch it off, Trev? I mean, I think we recognise from the outset that the scale of massing was something that we needed to be taking to consideration very carefully, and that formed part of the pre-application discussions with officers, and following the pre-application scheme that was submitted. There were changes made, particularly to unit 600 and 500. Unit 500, for example, was moved further away from the boundary and reduced by a metre in height. Unit 600 was reduced by half a metre, and during a determination period, it's also been pushed 15 metres away from the nearest resident, which is 10, the dean, at the request of officers. So there has been a lot of work gone into protecting the immunity of residents. The applications also supported by a range of technical reports in terms of noise, light impact. There's a very light, sunlight assessment also undertaken, and they all demonstrate compliance with the appropriate guidance and policy. Thank you, Jay. Can I be a third to come back on it? Thank you. Councillor BIRLING. Thank you, Chairman. Mr Dodds, the youth class is quite broad in terms of what, sorry, difficult to see, isn't it? My apologies. I have to speak in the microphone. The youth class is quite wide, but clearly this represents a big investment for your clients. So, I'm assuming that your client has some idea as to the type of tenant that the buildings will take. Can you give us any idea as to what types of use will be going on in the various units, please? Thank you. Yeah, I mean, the range of uses proposed is relatively broad, albeit focused on employment generating uses, but that's sort of done on purpose, so that our client logical has got the best sort of chance of seeing these potential units occupied, and ultimately by limiting the use of those buildings, that sort of restricts the potential occupiers that might come here. But that notwithstanding, the type of units proposed are sort of reflective of the type of occupiers that logical or consider might move here. So, for example, I think there's a lot of concern about the B8 use and the potential for a large sort of distribution warehouse use, but the nature of these units is that that is not what is proposed, and a large sort of distribution warehouse operator would be looking for something considerably larger than the units that are proposed here. So, it's more sort of localised distribution in terms of that element of the B8 use that's proposed. Okay, so clearly, with a smaller warehouse unit, I understand that point, but very specifically, depending on the type of tenant that you have, will determine what type of, for example, machinery they would require. Now, I fully understand and get the condition that is in place to assess the noise before occupation. But can you give us any more specific idea as to the type of tenant that you will expect, please? I think it's difficult to say what type of, what exact type of tenant there will be, but going to the noise point, for example, the noise assessment assesses the absolutes sort of worst case scenario in terms of occupiers in order to assess the worst, the potential worst case noise impacts. So in that scenario, it has assessed sort of the whole site effectively being occupied as B8 warehousing. It also establishes, based on the nature of that type of user, a worst case noise level. And in doing that, it makes them really sort of worst case assumptions, particularly in terms of deliveries and movements, for example. So it assumes that there will be the same level of deliveries during the night time as the daytime, which won't happen and isn't something that this type of unit would facilitate. So in doing that, it is sort of particularly robust, but the reason for the updated condition is to effectively say that logic or will commit to not increasing the background noise levels, the existing background noise levels as a result of the development. So regardless of user, that is the restriction that the existing background levels simply will not be breached. Thank you. I'm a big believer in transparency when it comes to playing and you talked in your statement about being a good neighbour. But by all accounts, you haven't engaged with the local community and the only discussions you've had with the planning officers in your pre-application and submission of your application. If there to believe that you are acting in good faith and good sentiment with that, why has no meaningful consultation with the locals taken place? Well I think basically we were instructed to submit an application to move forward as quickly as possible. And the view was that the best and most effective way to do that was to discuss with officers who would have a good understanding of this potential issues and not withstanding obviously from our own professional judgement. We could recognise the potential issues. So appreciate that we haven't actually engaged with the local residents, but the point was really that logic or are here to stay, they're not a developer who's going to build this and then leave, they will be the owner of this site, and ultimately they want to work with the neighbours, but equally they have put forward proposals to intensify this strategic employment area and they've put forward proposals that they think have the best chance of being occupied in seeing this sort of investment and job creation here. So basically you just decided to rush it through regardless without, I mean truly the best people to have an understanding and to inform your decision and actually help you to come to a better decision about where you would sit in the local community and what is best for the local community at the locals and yet you've decided quite deliberately it would seem to not take that opportunity, your words to rush it through, I don't see how that's good for the local community and going forward, how that is going to sort of foster good relations, I'm struggling to see that, I'll move on from that, Mr Chair. I've got another point, can I just, Mr Dodds is not here to be with Mr Dodds. Another thing, sorry, I was going to be like Colombo, can you just clarify, you said about the distance between the space at number 10, the Dean, can you just clarify whether that was increased to 15 metres or by 15 metres? So yeah, the space was increased to 15 metres at the request of officers, so originally we made a submission that was supported by the sort of daylight and sunlight assessment but also by the Council's own SPD, which includes the 25, 45 degree rule, so the original submission was made on the basis that it was compliant with the SPD requirement, however, during the determination, officers suggested an appropriate distance would be 15 metres from the dwelling, so we did what officers asked us to do basically. Councillor interjecting. Good evening, the contentious issue seems to be around unit 600 and unit 500, I'm looking at this aerial shot that's up there and I'm looking at the pressure on the roads of the parking in central avenue and is that multi avenue, the one along the top, yeah. So you're building on an existing car park and you're increasing the amount of units, how do you think that, how do you understand that you've provided enough parking spaces for this type? Well, the area where unit 600 is proposed is effectively an open area. It's been used for open storage of vehicles rather than sort of parking in its traditional sense most recently, but the parking proposed has basically been led by the Council's own parking standards and they've been accepted also by the highways officer. The transport statement sets out why the number of parking spaces being proposed is being proposed and it also runs a parking accumulation exercise which effectively shows that at all times and during the peak times in particular there is capacity within the car park and the car park is only over a sort of 79% capacity so it doesn't suggest that there is going to be an issue in terms of on street parking stress but in any event, as you've pointed out this is an existing issue and as part of this proposal in terms of improving the existing issue, the development will deliver the yellow line painting, a long-arm field close, a long mostly road, a mostly avenue sorry and a long sensual avenue so that those existing pressures will be removed. Thank you, Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Councillor MURPHY. If I could just ask, you're actually constructing these buildings, are you then, because each units are going to be different, are you actually going to fit those out because the needs will be very different from each unit, for instance, if one is actually being used or an office-type facility, it will be totally different from an engineering background. So, what I want to understand is these are all, they are units that people can actually obtain. Do the people who are going to obtain them, fit them out to their requirements completely or are you going to put any extra soundproofing in, if in fact it's an industrial unit? Because we actually do have, we are looking at the environment here very, very closely on noise and pollution, so it's very important for us to understand how much you're going to be prepared to do, so are there any extra tweaks that you can actually do to make this building very sustainable? So yeah, I mean, Logicore will build these units out and they will remain landlord effectively, so when an occupier is identified, if that occupier has any sort of specific requirements and for example, if those requirements are going to generate any potential for noise impacts, particularly from plant and machinery, but also HGV movements, that's where the updated condition 17 kicks in and effectively requires a noise assessment of those specific operations so that that commitment not to increase the background noise levels can be maintained effectively, so the noise assessment will have to be submitted to demonstrate that that will be the case. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you Chair. Just a couple of quick questions if I can, Mr. Firstly, about the condition about the background noise, is that a condition, forgive me, it's in the detail, if I've had a look and I can't see it, is that a condition that will, you'll accept not increasing the noise above the current peak or the current rolling ambient background noise, because clearly if you're going to work at three in the morning, the ambient noise at three in the morning, currently, it's a lot less than the ambient noise, say it, six o'clock. Yeah, so the condition refers to existing daytime and nighttime background noise levels, so it will take measurements of both and effectively it might be able to breach the nighttime noise level at night and vice versa for the daytime. And then secondly, you've alluded earlier to the point you stated earlier that the type of user is not going to be doing around the clockwork, heavy intensity, but I note that you've resisted the restriction for operating hours and then isn't that an inconsistency? Sorry, I didn't say that they wouldn't undertake work during the night, but the point was that they're not going to be a sort of large-scale distribution warehouse, where there's a sort of shift pattern, so there's very little difference between a daytime and a nighttime operation. The nature of these units is that there might be some requirement for nighttime working, but again that's why we've proposed this condition, so that even if there is some limited working that just can't increase the noise levels above that background level, so that's why that condition has been proposed really. Thank you, Chair. I would feel better if Mr. Dodd and your company represent, if you went away and discussed with the residents that live local and hopefully come up with a solution that would work for both of you. Thank you. Okay. Right. Is any other member got any questions? No. Officers, do you wish to respond to anything that you've heard in the questioning or the presentation? I think it picked up on that. I thought it was relevant to respond is that the height of the trees to be installed across the site have a minimum of 4.5 metres at installation, so they will be of a significant scale when they are put in onto the site as part of the landscaping scheme. That was all the anything I wanted to make. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Right. We have now opened the debate, but we don't have any member actually on the committee from the relevant ward, and we've noted the presence of Councillor Popham. Councillor Popham, do you wish to speak to this? I give you the opportunity, as I usually do, to award member. No, that's okay. I just offer it as a, okay, who would like to start? Okay, Councillor Burdie, I thought you might. Thank you, Jim. Thank you. I would really like to support this application, because I welcome the investment in the borough, and I welcome the employment. But I'm really struggling with, you know what I'm going to say, with units 600 and 500. They are, they are really, really close to, is it Burns Close and the Dean? Is that right? Have I said that right? Burns Close. Burns Close. Right. Thank you. Thank you. And it seems to me pretty evident that the immunity of the residents in those two residential areas is going to be quite significantly impacted by units 500 and 600. I don't really have any problem with the remainder of the site. It's very specifically units 500 and 600. I acknowledge that the applicant has, on officers' advice, increased the separation to 15 metres. But because we don't have any, any certainty is the type of use in units 500 and 600. I genuinely think that the residents of the two roads that I went try and pronounce again, they are going to be significantly affected in my view. So I'm really, really struggling. I'm trying to find a way to be positive because of the benefits, because of the economic benefits, because of the employment benefits. But just the gentleman that spoke, who lives on the Dean, I think it is. I really understand that concern and I really bothered that building on what is currently a car park in an area which is immediately next to residential areas. To my mind just looks at a step too far. But as I say, I'm really trying to find a way to be positive about this so I'd welcome other members' thoughts. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Almerwadi. Thank you, Chair. Normally, that's my job to be positive and to shine a positive light on this. But I do share, I do share the same concerns regarding unit 500 and unit 600. It is particularly close. However, I would say on the whole, I am broadly supported over this application for the reasons stated before regarding the economic benefit. Part of me also does think, obviously, this is an industrial estate and the residents, obviously, they are aware that they live next to an industrial estate and there's obviously going to be opportunities where that industrial estate will require to expand or get bigger or improve in any ways. I think from looking at how it looks at the moment, just on Google Maps and in street mode and see how the actual site is, I think this development should be welcomed because I think it is slightly run down and I think any investment should be welcomed. So I do have concerns because they are very close on what was a car park. I appreciate that. But I think this wide application offers more to benefit than it does. I think, particularly from an appearance point of view as well, thank you. Thank you. Councillor CUMBS. Thank you, Chair. I visited this site today and had a jolly good look round on which I couldn't come on the side visit with other members but did have a good old look. As Councillor Bearly has stated, it is unit 500, unit 600, which are the ones which pose a problem to us. But, that said, when you look at the actual structure of the road layout and where the units are and the fact that the entrances are going to be the other side or the further side from the boundary to the close, which I will not try and pronounce, it is going to probably be about 25 metres, I would have thought of a guess with a wet finger in there. So if we did refuse this application tonight, my personal feeling is we would be very, very liable for having our knuckles wrapped by an appeal and that is what worries me because this is an area which we have designated in our plan as an area of industrial work, development for employment, to keep the area, keep our borough vibrant and I think we would be looked on under very dim light if we refused this tonight. I think we are beyond dodgy ground. I completely understand that the house is on the back, backing onto this and will not take the same opinion but at the end of the day we have to make tough decisions about the whole borough, not just one specific road which abuts one person who is obviously going to be affected by this and I am not saying that is the right decision but that is my personal feeling how we should plan this this evening but I am obviously prepared and open to listen to anybody's comments on this application. This is not something to be taken in a flippant manner, this is a very serious decision we need to take tonight and I completely understand both sides of the equation. Thank you guys Councillor Wells I think you were next. Thank you Chair. I did go on the site visit with colleagues on Monday. The area generally and I welcome residents who are clearly passionate about living at this location but if we look broadly at the area it is run down and I think an empty industrial estate is exacerbating the situation by putting investment into the location one would hope that the net benefit would be beneficial to the residents who hopefully will see some vibrancy and return to the environment. I note and I welcome that 127% I think it was by a diversity net gain. I think if I have read the ecological report it was because we are starting at almost zero so a qualified welcoming to that but the unit 600 which is currently a car park if one was living near there one would anticipate if the industrial estate were actually in use lots of ingress and aggressive vehicles to that location. It is currently a disused car park but I think that as Councillor CUM says quite aptly put it the net the impact of its location one would hope would not be too deleterious to the residents and I think the screening as planned although sometimes full maturity is still 4.5 metres which thanks to Councillor Harman has indicated as 15 feet so that is quite significant from an outset and I think I agree with Councillor CUM and the empathy as well that he has for those who are objecting but I think the net benefit would hopefully be beneficial in the longer term. I agree with all the speakers that have spoken so far I just had the feeling that this could be achieved if those buildings were manipulated slightly and that was one of the reasons that I was asking the question earlier on of the people who were actually going to wreck them because this all depends on how it is built and in fact how eco-friendly they are. If it is done with everything that we in fact want to do locally by insulating and making sure that in fact everything complies with local plan I think this could be done looking at it very quickly just where the offices are are in the wrong place that could be turned round and in fact it could mitigate the noise so you would have offices there rather than the industrial unit so I think with a little bit of tweaking this actually could be made very substantially acceptable but I would urge the developers to actually speak to people because I think that gives you two avenues one it helps you and your then look on by the local residents that you are helping them as well so in one sense I think this is a good thing because most of the buildings there are ancient they look awful they are not environmentally friendly to say they are very least so anything new you have there has got to be better than what is there at this present moment in time and I think with a little bit of innovation that actually could be turned round and look really good so that is what I feel at this moment in time thank you. Thank you, Councillor MURPHY. I agree with Councillor Ms Turner in that I think there is a lack of imagination in the way that this was drawn and it was also unfortunate that when the Council said effectively 15 foot that is exactly what they went to. I also disagree with Mr Coomes and Mr with Harrison because you are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of your own home so to say well if you live by a pub and suddenly the pub is taken over as a rave joint you have got no reason to you know object I would rather feel is and I have actually sat on the licensing committee for that one so I know it happens. I rather feel that is not fair and you know for many years that was not the case and I also feel that as far as saying we would get our knuckles wrapped we are a democracy and we are entitled to represent the residents and say this isn't you know what is right for them. What I think is really unfortunate about this fact is this site is absolutely unanimous would have any objection whatsoever for units 110 to 330 and it is a shame in a way that it was not actually sort of submitted in two halves so that they could get unit 600, 500 and 400 right while they went ahead and developed the site which clearly is there to be developed and you know it could benefit from it. So I think there are other things to be taken into consideration here and the applicant was not only speaking for himself he did say who was representing all of the residents in that close so I think it is not just the voice of one man. Okay thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Dodd to you. I always hate this bit when someone in Council repeats or someone else to say but I have written it down I think it is important that if we say it is an industrial site and it is already an industrial estate that residents nearby just have to suck it up. I don't think that is the right sort of attitude especially if it is the wrong sort of development everyone has kind of raised various concerns about the location of 600. We also had this presented with concerns about the increase in mass and bulking which is sort of in built in the officers report on the street scene around units at 220, 230, 240. We have had a situation where the objector has indicated that basically the locals are amenable to consultation but there has been none and we have had that from the applicant quite brazenly saying you know we just wanted to push it through. I don't think it is right that we just sort of ignore people who you know they live next to industrial and say it and just say that is it sorry we want to put this in just because there will be a benefit because of it. I think a more imaginative collegiate approach to this application would have helped everyone is clear that there is a desire I think from Mr Gough on behalf of locals to engage with the applicant but that hasn't happened and I am really disappointed that there has been a missed opportunity. Thank you, Councillor Stary. Good evening thank you. I echo some of the other committee members who question the height of units 500 and 600 because of the impact on the neighbouring roads. It might have been better to have had office type accommodation or studio accommodation that is lower that could still provide industrial type units but of artistic nature or a sort of a non-heavy industrial nature. I just think it is a slight missed opportunity for the neighbours and like everybody else said they should have been consulted and it would have been far more harmonious situation. Thank you, Councillor Mr Luna. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that every sort of box has been ticked to make this sort of grant permission application and just because that is the case doesn't mean to say all of it is right. I am just wondering whether the units that are contentious, i.e. 600 and 500, could be limited in their use at the weekends by a condition. I will ask officers to come back on that one, Vina. If I can ask them to come back to their ending comments and then we can have a chance to revisit the debt if you wish, that I will move on to Councillor Ulmerti. Thank you, Chair. I apologise for my long surname, I know it could be a bit of a mouthful. I think I feel as if maybe I have said it has been misrepresented. The point I am trying to make is that the residents who live here live next to the industrial estate. So there is obviously going to be an industrial estate be there. I don't think it is unreasonable to accept that the work carried out there will be related to an industrial estate. I am surprised that the residents will welcome the investment and I think the improvement of what it looks like because I agree with Mrs. Turner's points. Some of this hasn't been very thoughtful. The officers should be of place. I think that shows the lack of the disconnect between the consultation with residents. That being said, our job is to review what is presented in front of us. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that they live next to an industrial estate. So if they don't like it, then they shouldn't have lived next to an industrial estate. I know that sounds quite blunt, but that is the truth. But anyway, I will leave it there. I am sorry, I am sorry. Anyway, that is all I have to say on it. I appreciate, obviously, it is around 605, which I have expressed, but that is all I have to say. Thank you. Councilman. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of points, really, taking on the point that I think in fairness, the applicant in proposing to develop what is an industrial estate is more doubtlessly improve what could potentially otherwise be there because the noise, consider it, the noise conditions that will apply to this if passed don't exist in the moment. So it is a disused car park. If it became a used lorry park, vehicle park, it could generate a lot more noise than is currently there, both daytime and nighttime. So that is to be welcomed. I echo everything that Councillor CUMS has said about the regrettable impact on the rear view of some of the residences, and that is something we will just have to wrestle with as a committee. The overall view, I think, is a net gain. As one of the attendees has just indicated from the balcony, they currently enjoy living next to a car park. The question we have to wrestle with is that a legal right? Do you have a right to view over a car park or not? It is designated as an industrial site, which can be used as such, not just as a disused car park. Scale and mass, although noted in the report, I think the officers have done a good report on this, and should be congratulated for bringing this first to consider, and I don't think we can reasonably hold it against the applicant for not slicing it in two and submitting it, because these applicants, they want to put a plan in place. I'm normally the first to say and hold applicants to task for not engaging with residents about applications. This is slightly different because it's not. They're not bunging 15 houses per acre, in which case you'd expect a lot more consultation about the size and shape of the houses. They're asking to redevelop a light industrial site, the light industrial usage that's better. It's a net gain. I'm struggling to find a reason to refuse noting the regrettable concerns that cancer wells also share, it's about its impact, and if I were living on one of the houses that back to look in the car park, I would feel I'm sure as equally aggrieved as those who live there now, but I'm not sure that would be a defendable grievance in reality. And as Councillor Turner has pointed out about the raising the issue of parking stress for the unit and the positioning of the offices in the units, as I understand it from these, the parking, these aren't light retail units, they're going to be inviting members of the public to and from on a regular basis. They're light industrial units with limited office space, with sufficient parking, just provision for the workers who are going to be there. So I'm struggling again on the issue of parking stress. So I think I'm reversed into the situation of being supportive because it's a net benefit, a net gain, it's better than what is there now, and it's appropriate. And some people will feel aggrieved by that, which is regrettable, but it doesn't change my net position. Thank you. Any other member of Mrs. Turner? Councillor MURPHY. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'm not certain how to go about this, but this needs to members here this evening. We all know that this is a big improvement on anything that is there at this present only in time. And I would like to have the opportunity for the developers to take a little bit of time and rethink this. Is there – and I am struggling because I don't know how in fact we go about this. Is there any way that we can ask if they would re – can we postpone this and ask them to rethink it? I know it's a tall order, but I just feel I'm saying what most properly other members are feeling. We actually feel that environmentally, and going forward, this is far better than anything we have had up to this time since this estate was actually – this industrial estate came into being. What we would like, I think, are a few tweaks to actually help the people who are living there at this moment in time, so they are slightly protected. Now, I don't know – I don't know if this is possible. That's why I'm asking it, because I can say this because I've been here a long time, and it will be difficult for somebody who is new to our trousers. I don't know of a way around this, and therefore I'm asking officers for guidance, really, because I don't know if there's a way around it. So I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, if we can be given some guidance, is there a way around this, where we can solve this problem? Because I think we are fundamentally in favour of thinking this is a good idea, but we would like it to just tweet. Thank you for listening. I'll come to you in a second, Councillor Pougham, if I may. I'm just thinking about what Mr. Turner has just said. We have an application in front of us, and this is the application that we have in front of us tonight. I'm always very loathe to suggest that we defer an application, and really, truly, I get the impression you're looking to defer as much as anything else through almost a redesign of the thing, and I'm a little bit concerned about that. I don't know if our legal officer wants to put any input into this, or defer straight over to the planning officer. Yes, I would have to say you need to be really looking at your reasons for deferral on this matter, and is there any specifics you're looking at in that deferral? A redesign is very different, because that might even amount to new application rather than amendment, but I'll refer to Paul on that sort of side of things. Yes. Can I ask, Mr. Faulkner, please, based on what the legal officer has said. Thank you, Chair. Yes, in terms of, Councillor Turner refers to tweaks, so it's difficult without understanding what level of change, because to me, what's been, what I'm hearing the committee saying is, effectively, it's the whole of units 500 and 600. Now, if that was to be completely changed, as Victoria Stappen has said, that would be a significant change, which would be a new application rather than an amendment. So, unless Councillors had any indication that there was a small kind of, literally, a tweak which could be amended very quickly, would be subject to consultation and come forward in, it would probably be able to be done to the next committee, so that there would also, I'd also raise, as officers, that delay could lead to the applicant going for non-determination appeal and the risk of costs against the Council. Those would be the options, and the other thing in terms of, if you're looking at tweaks of removing a building, as Councillor Doz has pointed out, if you remove the whole building and put that over to, for example, car parking, the noise assessment identifies that the parking and HGV movements is the noisiest activity that might occur on the site, so there would be concerns from office point of view. Thank you. OK. There you go. Mrs. Turner. I'm not going to argue this one for too long, but Mr. Turner, yes. OK. When I say tweak, what I mean is that if you look at unit number 500, it, I'm only a mere woman. I know that. Don't say that. So, if that office, in fact, could be used to go to the other side of that building, which I wouldn't have said was a great planning move, I think that alone would actually make a great difference just on that planning up there. I don't know, I'm playing the game here, but I think, no, I don't want it all redesigned or abandoned, but I just want a thought of where a wall can go. I think Councillor CUM wants to come in on this point and then ask the officer to respond. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Fogner took the word to my mouth, and I think we've got to be very, very careful here this evening. We have got to decide this application on what's in front of us. We can't design it for them. We would be actually hung, drawn, and quartered if we did not determine this. We have got to determine this, either for or against. I know it sounds harsh, but otherwise we'll be wide, laid over, and I'm sure Victoria Statham would agree with me. We would be absolutely up against the law, we'll be crucified. It's about putting additional planting and screening around units 500 and 600 that we could put in as a condition, and plus as well as greenery, screening and acoustic fencing. The landscaping scheme is already agreed. It's here on the screen with the planting shown. There was actually planting proposed right along the boundary, originally near number 10, the Dean in the back of Monks Avenue, but when we reduced the scale of units 600, the planting was brought in slightly, because one of the residential concerns was actually the planting closer to the boundary would result in overshadowing and blocking out what light they do have already. So I appreciate the amendments that you're trying to make, but we sort of have tried to consider some of that. What about having consultation with the neighbouring properties between or the applicant had consultation with the neighbours, and it all agreed to have consultation with the neighbours, sorry I'm just been informed to have been agreed by officer, so it's part of the recommendation in front of you this evening. Any further discussion would probably require the application to be deferred, but who wants to come in? You do. Okay. So it would be within the gift of members to put forward a recommendation to amend the condition, so rather than details as agreed you could require landscaping details to be submitted, which would come forward as part of a condition discharge application, but those would not normally be subject to public consultation. So as far as that might allow the applicant, before they submit those details to talk to neighbours as part of preparing for that, but as Ms Addison has said, the issue there is that if you put a lot more trees there, then is that built of trees, does that become quite overbearing to neighbours? But members could consider an amendment to the condition. Okay. Councilman, in addition or as an alternative to changing the condition about the landscaping might be the actual structure of the elevation on Unit 500. So before work is commenced, that the facing structure, the cladding, if you like, is conditioned also that there'd be no windows on Unit 500 and recognising them with the point that Councilor Turner's trying to achieve. If you put offices on the southern side, you could put windows on it and the windows are going to overlook the back garden. So I just think if we condition possibly the cladding face of that wall to remove the impact of the scale and mass, that might just go some way to ameliorate the view. All right. Councillor Harman. Thank you, Chair. I wasn't going to say anything, but I'm listening around to what the members have been saying and the way it seems to me is the concerns are both non-consultation with the residents and also some of the landscaping. I think if you were to put trees between the building, which has been moved back in between, that's going to probably create even more lots of light than moving the building away itself. So it's clear that members have got sympathy with both the applicant and the objectives. And the only way I can see that this is going to be a safe way out is, in my opinion anyway, is to refuse the application and give the applicant the opportunity to then come back with a different application and possibly consultation with the residents. Thanks. Yes, Councillor. Yes, last point, or just noting that point, I just think, careful what you wish for, because you can determine this application by refusing it and find the applicant appeals, because we don't have sufficient grants to refuse, because I'm not sure the lack of consultation with the neighbours is sufficient grounds to justify a refusal. Surely, we have to look at what is there in front of us, whether it's been, you know, the county is a horse designed by committee. So whether we've got a horse or a camel in front of us, that's what we have to judge, rather than how, rather than how the picture arrived, it's the merits of the application in front of us. And I just don't see that we have regrettable, regrettable as it is about some of the negative impacts on some of the neighbours, and I'm not sure we've got enough to refuse to. I'm afraid I tend to agree with you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Did you find a question, did you answer my question about the conditions of operating hours? We can, we will come back to you on that one, and the officer has got it on his list. No. Okay. Question? Thank you. I'm not going to, you've heard, we've expressed sympathy with the neighbours. I think there's a lot of fear here, because we don't know what's going to go on in the units, so there's lots of what-if, what-if, what-if, which I totally understand and get. I go back to the original point that Councillor Burley made. This is a really important, it's in our local plan, strategic employment land, and whatever is going to happen, something is going to be built here. I think we have to be very careful about if members are going to refuse it, you've got to think very carefully about what those reasons are. We can't refuse as does Councillor Mann said on lack of consultation, my goodness, otherwise every planning application in this chain would probably have been rejected, and I think it is an advantage. I know people have been talking about the car park, but as you would have seen from site visit, it is a disused space. There is nothing there, and as Councillor Wels said, it is not an area of beauty in any shape or form. You know, obviously for the residents at number 10, the Dean and Monksway, etc., you know, they have had nothing, they have had open sky there, and so having anything there must feel very threatening. But I think these on the whole have been well designed, I don't think we are not architects, we are not trained to do this, our job is to determine the application in front of us, and I weighing up the harm versus the benefit, you know, potentially I think it is 137, I can't remember, to 247 extra jobs in the borough, it is not to be sniffed at, and so having listened to the debate and I was in two months, I am moving more towards in favour of agreeing with the Office of Recommendation that we should be granting permission tonight. Okay, thank you. Councillor POM, did you want to come back? Thank you, Chair. It has been banned around pretty well here tonight. I just feel that if we don't take this opportunity in another way, in that sense, I appreciate the industrial state coming, the jobs it is going to produce, and improve that the quality of life of people around there. But at the same time, if you have got this big place looking over your back garden and that, it is where we should be, and I do believe, you know, we should defer this application to the next planning meeting, so hopefully that the developers and the residents would have thought something out, thank you, Chair. No, I am sorry, I can't take a speaker twice. I am sorry, I cannot take a speaker twice Mr Goughlin, that is the standing orders of the Council, so I am sorry, I can't do that. Yeah, I ask the officer first to come back on the point, should have been raised. Thank you, Chair. Yes, as highlighted by officers in the report, but also by the committee, it is clear that one of the key considerations for members to take a view on is the impact of this development on residents, particularly on Monks Avenue and the Dean, to the south of the site. In terms of the position of, yes, it is an existing industrial estate, yes, residents do live next to industrial estate, but it is, and that is a material consideration of what is the existing situation, but that doesn't justify any harm, and so members have to take a view on would this scheme result on more harm than the current uses could have an impact. Another difficulty is that the existing use and the impact isn't as clear because it is vacant, but if it was just brought into use with the existing buildings, there could be far more traffic movement, there could be a far more noise with no hours of use restrictions at all on any of the uses at the moment. It has been pointed out that there hasn't been consultation between the applicant and local residents. It is something that encourages through the Council's state and the community involvement, but it is encouraged. There is no requirement, and that in itself wouldn't be a reason for a refusal of a planning application. In terms of Councillor Layna's comment and ask about, well, could the hours of the use that we can be restrict by condition? The condition 17 has amended in the update sheet. What is proposed is that once the end-use is unknown, to identify what mitigation is required at that stage rather than when it is unknown, that within the wording would allow for hours of use to be restricted if it can be demonstrated that it is necessary. It is a part of the difficulty with any condition that is put on a planning application. It needs to meet a number of tests in national policy and guidance. It needs to be necessary. It needs to be related to the development. It needs to be enforceable. In terms of the way that the noise levels and has been talked about LA-90 and other technical terms, the idea is that in terms of being able to enforce it is that if you were to take a noise reading at the nearest residential properties that are affected, such as other properties at the Dean and the other surrounding properties, Moles the Avenue, a whole range of different properties, it goes above a certain level that would be agreed as part of the condition, then the council could enforce and say, no, you need to stop the use because you are conflicting with a condition. In terms of parking stress has been raised as well. Parking requirements is about a maximum standard. While it might be below the maximum, the transport assessment identifies that the level of movements the parking would be sufficient. It's difficult without any evidence to prove that is that incorrect, but that's done following a methodology and if it was to go to appeal, it would be difficult to justify that that's incorrect unless we had other evidence to prove otherwise. The question is there was talk about the offices. Now I think in terms of it's not particularly clear on the plans, but my understanding is that the offices are at a mezzanine level, so they're actually at higher levels and you'll see on some of the elevations that there's windows at first floor level only, so I think the difficulty would be if you moved the offices to the south to keep the noisy activity within the building away, then you'd end up having to have windows, so unfortunately that probably wouldn't be a simple tweak that we could try to address that issues. So I think it comes down to is there an acceptable relationship to clean terms that debate about units 500 and 600 to the nearest residential properties? So we're looking at what's the distance? Through the application, offices raise concerns about this and it has been extended. As the applicant pointed out, in terms of the council's guidance is that if you would take a 25 degree line of sight vertically, if the building doesn't hit that line, then the outlook in terms of light would be acceptable. That's talking about light, but these buildings are to the north. So in terms of actually loss of daylight sunlight, there wouldn't be any because the light goes from east to west around to the south. It's more a question of is it overbearing? So in terms of the separation distance as offices, and I think the heights, it's quite a shallow picture of the eaves, I think, at nine metres. So you're talking about it's more than a free story building, but is that unacceptable at that distance? So the view of offices is that it would be acceptable. There would be some mitigation in terms of some tree planting. Others could choose to amend the landscaping condition to review that and decide as to whether that would be something that there would be a need for additional, and that's something that we could, as an informative, encourage the applicant to discuss with neighbours before putting in details to agree such a condition, to discuss with the neighbours is there something that they might prefer to see that might kind of help alleviate their concerns. I think that hopefully covers all the points that were raised, but I think it really does come down to is there harm that you can identify the conflicts with Councillor's policies, particularly in this case in terms of the humanity of neighbours. Thank you. Okay, members. I think Mr. Faulkner has answered all of the questions that came up in the debate. I have heard the idea of deferring this for some sort of consultation. I have to advise that I don't think that anything here can be changed by deferring this. The major alterations or the alterations tweaking as they were called earlier could not be done against what is in front of you tonight and would require further application. I think that's probably right, Mr. Faulkner as well, so I think you would be delaying this entire application probably by several months because a new application would have to be submitted, that would have to go out to further consultation, would have to go through the entire process again. The chances that the applicant and I'm not putting ideas in the applicant's head, they don't need me to do that. My own view is that they would go straight off for non-determinate, or yes, for non-determination if you deferred it, and all right, that might take them a little bit of time, but you know, I've got to probably counsel against that, but it is up to members here tonight. If anyone is going to move refusal on this application, I will need some very, very strong policy-based reasons for doing so. Everything has got to be policy-based, as you well know. I just can't accept that you want to refuse it without those very strong policy reasons behind it, so I leave it open for a moment if anybody wishes to, any member of the committee wishes to move anything. I'll take that as a no. So the application has come to you this evening with an officer's recommendation to grant permission, so I'm going to ask you, by a show of hands, of all members of the committee present, all those in favour of granting that permission, please. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. All those against? One, two, three, four. Any abstentions? One. Okay. So, remember, thank you very much. Application 2023 to 340 Land of Moles, Industrial and Stateless Moles in Armfield Close has been granted planning permission. Thank you very much, members. We will now swiftly move forward, if we may, to, I think it's paid probably 61 of your agenda, but it's Application 2023, 3210, which is the Cobham Skate Park Leggen Mountain Playing Field off downside bridge road. The application is in front of you tonight, basically because Elmbridge Council is the owner pre-hold owner of the land on which the skateboard is situated. So, first of all, I'll ask, if I may, Caroline, would you like to introduce the application to us, please? Thank you, Chairman. This application is for a replacement skate park at Leggen Mountain Playing Field off downside and bridge road in Cobham. Here you see the site outlined in red, which fronts and is accessed via downside bridge road and is located to the north of the existing allotments and opposite Holy House car park. This is a picture of the existing skate park to be replaced, which is currently outdated and feel in and in need of modernization. It consists of tarmac surficent with steel ramps and railings. This is the view of the site from downside bridge road. Here is the proposed site plan. Outline off the existing skate park is outlined in yellow. You'll see the proposed skate park will extend into the green space to the west, to the north of the existing skate park. It will connect into the access, which runs through the center of the playing field where cycle park in, that's where the cycle park in is proposed to be located. It will also connect into the existing public right of way, which runs to the south way off the application site with two connections here. One common oak tree is required to be removed to accommodate the development, however two replacement trees are to be planted to mitigate this impact. These are illustrated up here. All other existing trees on site are to be retained and protected during construction. Here is the proposed dimensions plan. The skate park will take the form of ongulate and concrete surficent used to create various platforms with grass bumps surrounding the outer edge. At the bottom here, we have some proposed sections just to show how the site would be laid out in terms of the various various platforms. The proposed skate park is to be finished in a natural gray off-white color with color, some color flashes and some element for visual aids. And here is the proposed 3-D visual of the park for illustrative purposes. A total of 184 letters of support have been received with 57 from the carbon area. In addition, 11 letters of observation have been received and two letters of objection. The letters raised in the representations are addressed in the committee report and the committee update sheet. The proposal is for the replacement of existing skate park in an area of open space with falls within the green belt. As the skate park has a greater footprint and includes some land raising to create landscape bumps, it would have a material greater impact on the openness of the green belt thus would amount to inappropriate development. The applicant has put forward a very special circumstances case. And considering this case, officers have given weight to the existing condition off the skate park, which is feeling and in need of modernization. It will also remove visually giant structures from the green belt, including steel frames and platforms and replace these with a design which integrates more naturally into landscape with grass bones. The new skate park will provide a much improved outdoor sport and recreational facility for the community, including young people that will increase usage and would also improve health and well-being, which is one of the main objectives of the MPPF. The new facility will also have improved in facility and for all rider disciplines and considering riders of less able deposition. The proposal supports the continued use of the land for outdoor sport and recreation, which the MPPF supports on green belt land. The paragraph, 105th day of the MPPF states, local plan authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation. These matters are considered to be afforded significant weight on when taken together are considered to amount to a BSE, a very special circumstances case that would outweigh the harm to the green belt in this instance. The proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to all other matters. No objection has been received from consultees. On the basis of the ball and light of the material considerations, the proposal is considered in accordance with the development plan and recommendation to grant permission has been recommended. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. I don't remember how any questions counts as well. Well, apologies, Chair, and everyone, I've got a few questions if that's okay. Firstly, I understand the application is in the name of Martin Elbon, and yet it seems to be implied that it's on behalf of the Cobham Village Partnership, which is a CIC community investment company, and yet land-zoned by Enbridge Barrow Council. So can you just confirm that first of all, who the applicant is, and then I've got some following questions, thank you. So in terms of the applicant is Cobham Village Partnership, which is Martin Elbon was the applicant's name, and then on the application form, there is the company name, which obviously has them put through in terms of the report, but yet to confirm that they are the applicant. So in terms of they are a community group that have been set up, and they have applied for funding from Surrey County Council, and to benefit from that funding, they are required to set up as a CIC community interest company. So just in terms of that's only open for community-led schemes to benefit from, and in terms of consultation with the Council's Green Spaces team, they have been inputting into the scheme from the very initial stage, offering advice, in terms of specification, health and safety requirements, and yeah, in terms of, yeah, they're fully on board with the proposal, and yeah, are supportive of it. Thank you, Caroline. Just to confirm, once the skateboard park has been completed, ownership, liability, risk assessment, public liability insurance, all those kind of things pass over to the language borough council, and also in terms of conditions for the application, obviously some of these conditions are going to be incumbent during the process of building out, but in relation to, say, the ACID competitor trees that have a five-year maintenance provision, that would then pass over to the language borough council at completion. If you could just confirm that, please. Yes, and Allen Bridge and Council upon completion will be taken on for liability and maintenance off the new skate park, which is the same as they have liability and for maintenance off the existence skate park, so that nothing will change in that regard. Sorry, what was the second part of it? No, I think the second part was, because obviously, a common village partnership, the applicant, they're going to be building out, and therefore there are going to be some conditions that are going to be inherent during the building out process. At what point does their liability to comply with the conditions fall away, and Allen Bridge Borough Councils take over, and then subsequent to that, may as well as the question now, say the ACID competitors die, and I want to make sure that they are replaced. Can Allen Bridge enforce against Allen Bridge Borough Council? So, legally, we can't enforce against ourselves, but obviously, in terms of due to care and acting in the public interest, it would be the green spaces team, the clues in their name, they will be keen to ensure that there's any replacement tree planting if required. Okay, thanks, let us dealt with that, and just going to the substantive elements, which is the inappropriate developments in the Greenbelt, can I just confirm, because I've been plowing through the MPPF and also Farrah and Co's advice on very special circumstances this afternoon in between work. Is it 154B that constitutes the inappropriate developments, i.e., this provision of throughout or sports, but that provision is an exception only as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Greenbelt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it, and because it's not preserving the openness of the Greenbelt, it falls to be an appropriate development, and then, in terms of very special circumstances, am I right in thinking that there is no definite list of what constitutes very special circumstances, it's essentially decided on a case-by-case basis, and we have found, in this case, that the very special circumstances apply. Yes, is the simple answer. So yes, in terms of outdoor recreation, the test in the MPPF is that provided it preserves openness, so as soon as you put any development above ground, because there is a change here, it therefore fails the exception. And then just following on, the very special circumstances are the fact that there's an incumbent already existing skateboard part, which is obviously approved previously, we're going to be improving upon it, and it also produces outdoor benefit, and all those other kind of social and health benefits. That's right, the very special circumstances are set out in the report, as Councillor Wells has set out. Thank you. Any other member? We'll have a question for the officer. No. Okay, well, we have here this evening Mr. Elborn, who is representing the applicant. Mr. Elborn, you have the usual three minutes to address the committee, they may wish you to ask me something afterwards. Good evening, and thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to speak on behalf of the proposed skatepark project. My name is Martin Elborn. I am not a skater, nor do I have any commercial interest in the construction of the proposed skatepark. So why am I involved in this project? Back in 2020, Surrey County Council launched a program called Your Fund, which aimed to fund local projects which supported communities as they emerge from COVID. I, as a representative from the Cobham and Downside Residents Association, along with resident representatives from other community organisations in Cobham, agreed that the idea of replacing the existing, outdated and rapidly deteriorating skatepark on the leg of Martin Field in Cobham would be the ideal project to pursue under the Your Fund program. As a section of our community, whose education, employment prospects and mental well-being suffered disproportionately during COVID, as well as living in an area with limited facilities for the young, a project to support the younger generation was thought to be entirely appropriate. As recently reported in the national media, COVID lockdowns have led to the largest increase in childhood obesity in decades, as activity levels plummeted. We are also aware of the negative effect, mental health and anxiety issues are having on the social cohesion amongst younger members of our community. Delivering a challenging state-of-the-art skatepark is therefore seen as a means of supporting our younger generation in many proven beneficial ways. Indeed, the excitement generated by the idea resulted in over 200 individuals contributing to the professionally managed design consultation process. In order to take the project forward and to comply with your funding criteria, an umbrella organisation was established and registered as the Cobham Village Partnership Community Interest Company. Working together with the Ombreich Borough Council green spaces team who owned the land and also supported by an independent consultant, we competitively selected Maverick Industries as our industrial partner and it is they who submitted the planning application as our agent; Maverick have extensive experience of designing, constructing and delivering modern spray concrete skateparks across the UK. You will have seen the extensive support shown for this very inclusive project on the planning portal, support from Cobham residents and those in the surrounding area in addition to that from the local police and church representatives is both heartening and a justification of our decision to promote the project. It is hoped that committee feel likewise. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Ombreich. Members, is anybody have any questions for Mr. Elborn please? Right, Councillor Wells. I really knew that. Thank you Martin. I just got a couple of questions for you if that is OK. I have received an email which suggested that you all come village partnership were invited to hold a public consultation prior to submitting the planning application and refuse to do so. Would you like to come back to me on that point, please? Sorry, thank you Councillor. The issue of consultation, I would just like to make the committee aware of the consultation that took place, particularly having sat through the last planning application. In May 2023, a professionally managed online consultation tool was published to capture the views around the potential new skate park design. Notification of this consultation was made not only on social media, but via posters which were distributed by the applicant to local Cobham shops, including coffee shops, the sports shop and the post office. This consultation process resulted in 217 respondents expressing their views and contributing to the design process. In September, October, having finalised the design alongside consultation with Elbridge Borough Council's Green Spaces team, a pre-application inquiry was submitted to the planning, following a site visit and consultation, advice and guidance was received, researched and incorporated into the planning application. The full planning application was submitted on the 24th November. It was validated and published on the portal on the 21st December. On the 22nd December, the application launched a further consultation process by emailing local organisations, highlighting the background to the application and offering to address any questions, concerns they may have and/or for their members to submit their comments via the planning portal. The organisations included the Stoked Avenue Residence Association, Cobham Conservation Heritage Trust, Cobham and Downside Residence Association, Cobham Football Club, Cobham came Chamber of Commerce, all the local churches, all the local schools, the local police, local councillors and the Surrey County Council Community Link Officer who covers Cobham. This of the success of this part of the consultation process is the fact that close to 200 people responded to the planning portal. In summary, the consultation process has therefore been effective in capturing and reflecting the views escape part users and also allowing other users of the leg and button field to express their views. Remembering, of course, that over 98 per cent of the area of the leg of Muttonfield will still remain unaffected by the proposed escape park and available to walkers, joggers and other youths. Thank you, Mr. Elba. Mr Chairman, the customer I was asked was about an email the Councillor received. As that is now in public domain, I wish to respond to address the issue of misrepresentation. Inaccurate and misleading information published in the cover. I'm going to stop you there. I think the question was asked. Are you satisfied with the answers you've had, Councillor Wells? You are. Okay. I don't think I really want to bring any other controversial areas into this, Mr. Elba. At this moment in time, if you don't mind, Councillor Wells is happy with the answer that he's received to his questions. It stands at the moment. Thank you very much indeed. Are there any other questions to Mr. Elba? Yeah, go on then. So, just one further question. One of the principal concerns, not specifically planning related, apologies for calling in Martin earlier. I must disclose if I haven't already, I haven't already, but I do know, Mr. Elba, through being part of the CDRA. One of the concerns raised, not specifically planning related, is antisocial behaviour. I think it's arguable either way the benefits of the Skable Park and I'm sure it would be addressed in debate, but there has been reference to a Dorchester Skable Park, which has significantly improved the such behaviour in Dorchester. Such Skable Park is located in the full court of a police station, which obviously supports behaviour in that particular location. I know that Inspector Dean has supported the application. It's very rare that you get a police officer making representation on the planning application, but he did mention that it would be worth the developers linking in with the designing out officers. So, Mr. Elba, is that something you would be prepared to undertake to do going forward? Thank you, Councillor. The committee should be aware that I've had follow-up exchanges with Inspector Dean, who has provided me with the contact details in order that we can link directly with his designing out crime officer. Thank you. Councillor Mann, you had your hand on one. Actually, my point has been well covered in the, I suppose the only question is, why am I wrong with Tom Cobbley, because you seem to consult with everybody else. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? No? Okay. Okay. Officers, do you wish to respond to anything, Mr. Elba? No. Okay. Well, we have some cotton councils here. Who wants to open up? Councillor Mann. Thanks, Chair. I'll open up and I'll declare an interest straight up, because I also know Mr. Elba and the applicant. I think, actually, it would be worth the committee being open to consider some issues that we say encompass planning, rather than focus exclusively on it, because of the nature of the application. But just as a background, just to embellish which will help position my view on it, as a background to the Cotton Village Partnership, when I was prior to being a Councillor, as Chair of the Cotton Chamber of Commerce, I represented the Chamber of Commerce in the meetings that Mr. Elba noted. In fact, the local residence groups asked me, I asked the Chamber of Commerce to arrange the convening of the groups. So I think, on the background of that, we should congratulate, I don't know if anybody else has got any experience of dealing with the orphan, sorry, the arm wrestle that it becomes. So I think we should congratulate, not just Mr. Elba and all involved in the Cotton Village Partnership in actually navigating to this state, and recognizing that we'd like some last year to be discussing the situation that we've got. Representing the community, I'm sure, Councillor Wells and Councillor Stephen's who's not here today, has experienced a wide range of input from various residents about a range of concerns which actually aren't planning, but there is a concern abroad amongst the community that because this is Elbridgeland and the application is being funded by Surrey money, that we can't just proceed to nod this through because it seems to be a good idea that we need to give a broad area to the concept of whether we should have escaped parking rather than just whether this particular one is subject to planning. Because the view of a significant, but I think minority element in the community is that we shouldn't just be seen to nod this through because they want an airing of their concerns. Just an update on the, because I'm sad, I spent some time this afternoon analysing the responses because one of the comments, because there's only two objections, one of the comments notes that apparently the majority of those in support are from out with the area. Well, that's not true because of the 188 applicators of support, if you look at the postcode 130 or KT or associated postcodes, so very close. It has got interest from, you know, a firefielder's Barcelona and Scandinavia and many points in between and I'm not sure of their specific relevance, but it has, and I think the other point to recognise is that a problem by virtue of its geography normally benefits from reduced levels of language infrastructure, so it's to be welcome to an extent that this language infrastructure would also attract people from not just KT and postcodes, it's a welcome investment and recognition of the needs to support the community of Cobham. And with my other hat, as a BID member, I know the business is a very supportive also of anything that A, brings infrastructure into the centre of Cobham, but also gives a focus of attention for, you know, that demographic, I don't mean that pejorative, I mean that anybody in the 30 basically, because I suspect it won't just be six-year-olds, it'll be the broad spread of people who are enjoying it. And as Councillor Waz has said, anecdotal evidence suggests that I recognise there is a concern in Cobham that Cobham has a graffiti problem, whether it does or whether it doesn't, there is a concern that it does and that the skateboarding community is likely to develop that problem, anecdotally that suggests that a better used skate park is a likely to be self-policing and I can hear the hoots of division in my ears as I say, self-policing from some elements of society, but it's welcome and some of the other observations I would note about the colour and the jarring colour, because of the grass buns, I suspect some of those jarring colours, unless you're going to hover over the site, you're not going to notice that it's concrete, precisely because of its design. And as the applicant notes, whether it's, currently the correct skate park uses about one and a half percent of the LEGO Martin Field and this one is going to use two and a half percent, although some people will say it will be four percent, either way it's a very, very small percentage of the LEGO Martin Field and it would be, in my view, an improvement and I think of those supporters, an improvement compared to what is there at the moment and one of the other comments that's been raised is that the current skate park is heavily disused but I'm not surprised because it's A out of date and B, ultimately, dangerous so it's been disused. So what we're faced with is an application to put a very welcome and even those who have negative comments broadly welcome it, investment in inter-carbon. So winding up, I think it's, sorry, I'm just doing my job as a community cancer, representing the people who have said to me what they once said. So it's different, I can't find any reason to oppose it, I think, recognising the concerns, the only thing I would suggest is that it might be worth an informative to add weights to the suggestion that the applicant deals with the, and lazy with the police and the building out problems, but also passes on to Elmbridge, the requirements to monitor oversight and monitoring of potential problems that might be brought on by the development of the skate park. But aside from that, I think it's to be welcomed, I think it goes away. Councillor Perly. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor, I was just pulling your leg, by the way. I was just pulling your leg, by the way. But I think I might actually talk about planning this, if you'd be pleased about. For me, in all seriousness, the benefits are obvious, before I was on the screen. For me, this is about fundamentally and principally about whether very special circumstances have been demonstrated to overcome, to mitigate their harm to the Greenville. To me, it's clear that they have, and so I should be supporting this application. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor ADRIANNE. I'm happy to support this application. I would say that I walked Kingston a lot, and I passed the skate park in Bushy Park, and there's never any antisocial behaviour there, but that's because it's locked at night, and I'm just wondering at this application that it's open, so I'm wondering whether that might encourage more antisocial behaviour, because it's not quite fencing around it, that I can see anyway. Could you answer that? Yes, there's no fencing proposed, and that would have more impact on the Open Stegring Council. Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I'm sure you would all expect me to actually speak on this. I remember the first one going in, and when in fact we actually had some very good problems with the current one, I was a portfolio holder, and I had some very sleepless nights because I know how important things are. If you've ever been to LA and you go along the boulevard there, the whole front is covered in skateboards like this, and they're used all the time. And I only wished that this Council had the money to actually provide something like this. As far as I'm concerned, it's a very big thank you, I would like to say, for the people who've taken the initiative to take this forward and develop this, as a Council, there is no way that we could possibly have afforded to do something like this. Now, if you're going to do something, you need to do it properly, and I think that's really important. And although lots of our communities would like this, there is no way that we could afford to do it. But if you're going to do something, you do it properly, and you've heard me say before that Excel is one of those things. Now, in fact, we can't put an Excel in every part of the borough. So this is something that really is important to Elmbridge. It doesn't only affect the young. People who prepare to do snowboarding actually use this sort of facility. I don't actually snowboard, I don't give a ski anymore, unfortunately. But this is really important because it actually gets people out, it's an activity. When we're talking about antisocial behavior, you often get antisocial behavior because those youngsters haven't got anything to do. By providing something like this, we are actually covering a vast number of youngsters with something they can go and do, thoroughly enjoy, and dare I say, wear themselves out and hopefully not hurt themselves. So I really do appreciate this, and I would like to say a really, really big thank you for the people who have been involved in this and taking it forward, because we couldn't have done it without you. And for us to take this on board when you've done all the hard work, I'd like to say a really, really big thank you for at Elmbridge. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor S Carrie. Thank you, Chair. When I saw this on the planning application, I actually just smiled and thought, do you know what? This is possibly the best news I've seen since I became a Councillor, and I totally support it as an advocate of supporting good mental health in the young. As you say, COVID was a terrible time, and I'm just so happy to see this. My son used to have a skateboard, and I admit that I fell off it several times. The only thing, therefore, I would say, is that it would be useful to have a notice up there saying, do wear a helmet, I still want the bump, but I think any sports club that, you know, we all know how good sport is for mental health, and how good it is to be outside for the young as well. So to have this, I think, is brilliant, and I've often looked, actually, at the old racetrack around Brooklyn's and thought, why don't they turn that into, you know, a skate park? It would be brilliant. So maybe make that your next project, but again, thank you. Thank you. I'm right, I'm getting a baby of hands up, next one I have here is Councillor ONES-BARTY. Thank you. Yeah, it's only sure. I think it's nice that we use our position to show gratitude to such a lovely initiative, and it's nice to see that tonight. And I think Councillor Turner hit the nail on every point she raised. You know, as a younger person, I don't skateboard, but who knows? And I think it's, well, on the anti-social behaviour point, I think you're more likely to have an anti-social behaviour in areas that lack investment, and that a bit derelict and like, for example, the current one we have. So I think it's a great initiative, and I think it's really nice that there is broad appreciation here to the people that have made it work and the funds provided by Surrey. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor DOGS. Thank you, and a non-scatter. I think it's important that this application did come before the committee, regardless of whether it's Elmerichland and the very special circumstances, which I'm happy this is OK with. I just think when we're talking about behaviour, I think actually can we just talk about pro-social behaviour rather than anti-social behaviour, because this is where we should be looking at. It's too often, it's stereotypical cliches, but, you know, kids, let's be positive, you know, we're all been positive, and let's be pro-social behaviour, so yeah, brilliant, love it. Thank you, Councillor DOGS. Councillor DOGS. I echo everything that's been said. I love the design and the undulating nature, rather than the fencing that is currently there, and I think when the first skate park went in, it was lovely to see youngsters and sort of parents and grandparents taking young children on scooters and not just skateboards. So I welcome it, and I think a huge round of applause to everybody that's got it to this point. Thank you. Councillor JOHNSTON. I actually learned to skateboard at the old cotton skate park, and a decade and a half ago, the first political cause I got involved with was to improve skate utilities in Elmerich, so it really is so nice for us to come here, and for everyone to have such positive reaction to it. Thank you, everyone. Thank you very much. Any other member? Councillor WILD. Thank you. No, I mean, it's great to hear all the Councillors in support of this. I think the two principal issues were asked and answered by Martin, so thank you for doing that and doing it so comprehensively. I think Councillor MANN addressed all the surrounding issues very well, and Councillor Burley appropriately explained what he didn't really explain, but he indicated that the very special circumstances to override the inappropriate developments on the Greenbelt were met, and I think that I'm going to just reiterate that. I think a problem, many people's perception of a problem is that there are lots of very well-heeled people all going to private schools. It's not the case. There is quite a lot of social deprivation in there, and without facilities and things to do, then less pro-social behaviour can take place. So I think with the all-weather pitch at the Cobham Football Club now, the Cobham Ripley Club, which goes from strength to strength, the Scouts, which is burgeoning, and now at the Skateboard Park, we're providing lots of opportunities for young people to alleviate the mental health issues that pervade, and also the physical health issues, which only today I heard one significant number of under-fives suffering from obesity and dental issues. So I think we've given this a comprehensive look out from both planning and non-planning perspectives, and I would also like to say thank you very much, Martin, for all the hard work and endurance that you've done. It's not really the forum to blow smoke, but I think it's warranted in this case, so thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, members, everybody? Yeah? All right. I'll just ask the officer to come back and respond to anything. Yes, so just the one point was the suggested additional informative of members are satisfied to add an informative that the applicants encouraged to liaise with the Designing Out Crime Officer. Sorry, please. Okay. Okay, members, the formality, I think, application 2023210 has come to you with an officer's recommendation to permit, can I please see by show of fans of all members present, those in favour? Okay, anybody against? No? Any abstentions? No? Good? Okay. Okay, so application 2023210, landscape, Martin, playing field is granted permission. Right. Thank you. And members, that brings us to the end of your agenda for this evening. Thank you very, very much for your attendance and for the quality of your debate. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]