Transcript

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the May 25th meeting of the Planning Applications Committee. My name is Tony Filmson. I'm the chair of the committee. I'm also a... I'm also the councillor for Battersea Park Board in Battersea. Now, I will ask members to introduce themselves as they make contributions, rather than go through everyone right to begin with. But I will ask the people on the top table here to introduce themselves. So, Mr. Calder. Good evening. You've already introduced me, haven't you? Mr. Calder, Head of Development Management at Wandsworth Council. Good evening. I'm Gareth Pinwell. I'm the legal advisor to the committee this evening. Good evening. I'm Laura Campbell from Democratic Services. Thank you. I never liked that name, Democratic Services. That means Laura takes the minutes and tells us what we decided after. Good, good. I haven't even gone on to... I know you haven't. I just wanted to, before we get into the business, raise one issue, which is about the withdrawal of St. Anne's, but also... Also, the late papers, there are... There's an error on the map of the first item. We deferred Skeena last time because of issues. I'm a bit concerned about lack of attention. Thank you, Councillor Govindia. Perhaps I can take it in the order I was intending to take it in any way, and we'll get to those items. But when you do that, I hope you will focus on improving the quality of papers for public consumptions, as well as the committee. Councillor Govindia, you are not the keeper of this committee. I know you're used to thinking that you are. You're not. I'm doing it, and that was the order I was going to do it in. And first of all, I ask members to declare whether there are any interests or not. No interests? Right. Secondly, take the minutes of the last meeting. Have you seen them, Councillor Humphreys? Is it OK if I sign them as a correct record? Agreed. Right. Just let me sign them. Right. What I was then going on to say is that the second, sorry, which is it, it's the item five on the planning applications paper, I'm afraid, is withdrawn. I can only give apologies. There was a mistake in the, between the figures in the paper and the figures in the drawing, and I was advised, not sure I needed that advice, because obviously it's correct that in the circumstances we have to take the decision on the correct basis of the correct information. So I was advised to defer it. So if you don't mind, members, that item is deferred. Hopefully we'll get it done next time. I recognise, as you do, Councillor Govindia, that there are one or two errors. I'm just about to come to another one. This is partly to do with the pressure of work in the circumstances that planning officers are very thin on the ground in London, and there's a lot of competition for them. So there's quite a lot of difficulties in that area, and that's most unfortunate. So whilst we're about it, I will point out that the map, and I think this may have been the point you were going to make, the map associated with the application dealing with North Drive 2024-2059 application, is slightly wrong and has been corrected, and is in the supplementary papers, which I'm sure members will have taken the opportunity of seeing. Apologies for that as well. I'm sure none of us like the papers to be wrong. Certainly not deliberate, but a bit of pressure in terms of getting things done and ready for the committee. Now, if I can now move on to, in fact, the plan, the applications, and the paper 25165 North Drive, I'll ask Mr Granger to introduce it. Thank you, Chair. My name's Nigel Granger, and I'm the East Area Team Manager. This is an application for the erection of six sheltered accommodation units. They comprise of four times one-bed, one-person units, and two one-bed, two-person units within the rear curtilage of the existing building. These are single-storey structures, along with other works and landscaping, including works to trees, alterations to outbuildings, and creation of cycle and refuse stores. You can see from the paper that there has been assessment and discussion about applying the right use class, which is important to then applying the correct policy analysis in terms of it not being these units not being permanent class C3 residential units, but sharing the attributes of permanent class C3 residential units. But because of the end user providing care for those that are in need of care and the other details that have been outlined within the paper in terms of controlling those uses, then this is a matter for assessing these potential sheltered accommodation units as use class C2. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and the heads of terms that have been outlined in detail in order to control the use into perpetuity, and they're on page 38 and 39. It's recommended for approval on those grounds. All right. Application for units associated with number 5 North Drive. Any comments, any queries, any questions? Councillor Humphreys. Thank you, Chair. Just a question of fact to start us off. Sorry, Councillor Guy Humphreys, opposition speaker on this committee and the councillor for Southfields in Putney. As you say, Mr Grange, one of the key things on this is the use class and where we can go with the back gardens that we wouldn't be able to go if it was normal residential. What I was trying to find, and I haven't succeeded in doing that, is have you got, and I'll sort of ask this first to give you a chance to have a rummage in your papers and see if you can find it, a map showing how much the garden is being taken up as a footprint with the new development. Is there an illustration of that? Or if not, a number? I couldn't find one in the report. I didn't have time to look online to see if there was one on the papers in the report, or even a number which gives us a percentage of the garden. Obviously, that's kind of key to the whole thing. Certainly. There's, in the external amenity space in paragraph 4.14, page 28, it talks about the external amenity space. I did actually think about this earlier as a question, fortuitously, and I'm going to have to unfortunately work a little bit backwards because there's a total provision of 1,252 square metres of external amenity space, and that's divided into various uses from the rear garden and the activities in the rear. But if we work backwards and take the floor area that's in the region of 273 square metres, I think that we could equate that to be 10% of the overall garden take. Thank you. Council Govindia? Council Govindia, East Botany Ward. Just in the area, the issue of the garden space, in paragraph 1.28, there's a reference to 50 new trees. Can that be correct? I mean, given that this is a large site, but not that large, and 50 trees seem to me to be a lot. I just wanted to find that out. And the second question about trees is that there's a suggestion of translocating some of the trees. Can you let me know whether we have had translocated trees elsewhere, and how successful has translocation been? It's easy to promise, but does it actually succeed, is what I wanted to know. So on the question of the 50 new trees, obviously there are a range between different specimens, so some can be more upright. They don't all have, you know, vast crown spreads, so there are an array of different specimens, all indigenous, and that our tree officers will in future get to. I mean, there's a landscaping plan that shows an indicative layout, but all of this is to be examined at detail when the landscaping plan comes through. But 50 new trees, I mean, there are clumps, there are specimens that are trees that can be planted in clumps, that can survive, that add to numbers, but there are also individual specimens that are much more grand and have larger tree spreads, so crown spreads. So we have to take the tree reports and what's proposed on face value, and we also have mechanisms to ensure that 50 new trees are provided upon further examination of the details. So that is something that can be reviewed and insured at a later date. I don't have the expertise, I'm afraid, to advise on the success of tree transplantation, but as and when specimens come up, I can only hope that the arboricultural expertise is in place to, um, to give the specimens the best chance of survival if they are moved. Yes, Councillor Gavindra? Follow that up, I mean, I'd welcome when, when you are able to share the list of 50 trees and species, I'd like just to think for myself whether that's a good list or not, and secondly, it'd be helpful if you could, uh, through Council's own arboricultural, find out where the translocation has worked elsewhere in the borough, and let me know, because, I mean, I appreciate that. On a slightly separate point on the same application, Jim. Um, I'm kind of concerned in Paragraph 513, this, the, the, the, the cycling provision. So the applicant is required to provide cycling, uh, stands, um, in conformity to London Plan and our requirement, but given that this is a sheltered unit, and given that there are wheelchair units as well, I mean, it just seems to me rather strange that we require almost as a, kind of a, um, computer says so, that's why it must be, a reaction to saying that's the policy, so you must have them. Here's a charitable organisation being asked to provide cycling provision for its clients. None of them will be riding the bike or using the bike at expense, whereas the money could have been better applied elsewhere. I just find that kind of, uh, um, because the policy says we don't need to think for ourselves approach, just slightly dispiriting. I, um, must confess that, uh, I've got some sympathy for that viewpoint. I'd rather thought it myself, but presumably this is because lots of grandchildren are going to cycle in and visit, I wonder. Um, uh, any comment, um, Mr. Granger? Not really. I mean, I, the, the area and location that the, the main, the new built, the new cycling accommodation, the cycle shed is going to be located is hardly, uh, a structure of, of notable, um, significance in terms of how it's made and what it does. It's pretty low key, so I don't think it's, uh, a big financial drain on the overall scheme itself, and it's in a very discreet location. So, um, yeah, it meets a standard, and, uh, that is, that is the, the London Plan standard that's been achieved. Go on. I mean, I, I, I, I find that slightly, as I said earlier, dispiriting. We should be able to think for ourselves. There are going to be people of certain age, and actually certain ethnicity, where the chances of them actually learning, or having bicycled, and therefore continuing to bicycle in their old age is very, very slim. We're asking them to provide a, a facility, which may not be very expensive, or a thing of beauty, but nonetheless, it's, it's going to cost them something. And, and I just think that because we don't think for ourselves, we simply apply this policy and require an organisation that could apply the money to a better use or a different use, which might benefit the residents more. I, I mean, sure, it won't break the bank, and sure, nobody will use those bicycle stands, and in time, you know, they might, uh, um, put them to some other use. We will have ticked our policy box, we'll all feel better for it, but frankly, it, it makes us look a bit silly. Before I jump in and, uh, support Councillor Govindia further, can we, um, I mean, apart from the utility not being very clear, uh, cycle sheds themselves are not usually the most beautiful objects in the world, and disused ones certainly wouldn't be, so it's a, it's a bit of a negative, so, but maybe we're missing some crucial thing that Councillor Humphreys or Councillor Apps is going to put us right on. Councillor, you're coming, well, I really want to give way for, well, the two of you, make up your mind. Councillor Apps. Councillor Apps, Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward. And I can't resist saying that cars themselves are not the most beautiful of objects in my view. Um, I wanted to come on to, um, the purpose of the units. I mean, um, so Mushka Asan is a very well-known charity, does incredible work within Wandsworth, and I'm sure none of us have any doubts about the, um, public benefit of this, but I must admit I did miss the little table which describes the kind of, um, you know, how many private rented, how many social rented, because obviously it's not so applicable in this case. But I was interested to know, do we know the basis of, is this a, is this, um, sort of a charitable unit where people will be for a shorter time, or is this going to be long-term residencies for some people requiring more social care? Do we have a sense of what the actual, um, use of the new units would be? In short, it's more of the use class that we're seeking to capture, because the whole thing has to be regarded, even though they're divided up, and you can say that there are X amounts of units, the whole thing is acting as one planning unit as C2. So it is, it's unlike C3, permanent residential, where each of those units is an individual planning unit. So this is one unit. So that's why the terms, the heads of terms outlined at the rear of the, of the report all seek to act to control this facility as an entity, leaving a lot of the, um, the day-to-day management and not being overly prescriptive, um, to the charity as to how they operate it and who they place into it, because it's their, it's their business. Had there have been, um, a quantum of accommodation where it could then have triggered affordable housing contributions, and then that, that, that, that's heavily nuanced as well in terms of what actually qualifies for, um, for, affordability, uh, contributions with, with nursing homes and, and extra care. Um, this, all of the arrangements go to, to seeking to, it's largely, it sounds opposite in a way of controlling it, but the way it works is to prevent these units ever being permanent residential. Because if they are, they become a single planning unit, and then they would be capable of being sold on the open market. And we wouldn't recommend six units or one-bedroom units in, in a back garden for just general housing purposes. That's contrary to planning policies if it was used class C3. So because it's C2, and because we can control it in that regard as a single planning unit, as an entity, and leave the management responsibilities to the charity, but have, you know, there has to be care provision, they have to be over 55 years old, all of those elements, that goes to controlling this unit in an acceptable manner as a care for, as a extra care facility. So it's, it's about being prescribed, finding the right balance of prescription to prevent something whilst also enabling something. Councillor Amps. And so, do we make that, so the planning permission is conditional on that being the case, but do we nonetheless worry about any sense of precedence of back garden development, which is featured in more than one paper tonight, but obviously the other one potentially being withdrawn? On this occasion, no, because it's class C2, so it's not a permanent, a permanent residential unit in a back garden. It has residential attributes, but they're controlled to be specifically for a person at a particular time of period of their life that requires care, which is very much different to potentially finding or assessing a residential unit in a rear garden. Different policies would come into play. So it's not, this isn't controlled by, it's controlled by conditions, but it's controlled by a section 186 planning obligation as well, which is the strictest level of control that we have. So that's why we wouldn't, you know, we could never condition the heads of terms that are outlined in, outlined in page 38 and 39, they wouldn't, they wouldn't be enforceable. So we have to obtain these particular controls as provisions within a section 106 planning obligation, which obviously, as you'll know, which is a deed on the land and a document that's enforceable through injunction. Thank you. Ah, Councillor Humphreys. Thank you, Chair. I'm afraid I haven't got anything to contribute on the bike shed issue, other than to say that it gave me an idea. I've made a note, a la Councillor Grimstone, I can see a potential illustrated pamphlet coming out, Bike Sheds of Wandsworth, which might be a mass market appeal. My question was a bit more down to earth. Um, I note that all the units are one bed, one person, or two of them are one bed, two person units, but it says in Para 1-7 on page 15 that the, uh, the agents, the applicant's agents clarified that although care staff would not be permanently based on site, they would attend as required and have the capacity to remain overnight where necessary. So we might be restrained beyond the realms of our planning hat here, but I was just thinking where, where will they stay in the main building or somewhere separate? Because obviously there isn't capacity, I don't think the immunity for the people in the homes isn't going to be encroached on by a carer on a camp bed in the living room or whatever it is to make that work. I read that as well and, uh, thought the same. But, um, I have, I've slept next to an injured child at St. George's Hospital overnight, and I think if somebody really did not need that level of care, then a pull-out bed in a living room is something that could easily be provided. So I, I didn't, I thought that's how I thought about it, and I thought it squared up. As long as that was on, as you say, sort of in an emergency situation, not as an ongoing situation where somebody needs reg, obviously they might have to rethink their housing provision if that was the case, right? Right, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Ayers. I'm Finna Ayers, uh, representing East Putney for the Labour Party. Um, mine follows on from Councillor Henderson's, uh, conversations about the management of the caring that is going to be provided. Um, I was concerned, um, I was concerned, I was concerned about the, uh, the, the workers, the care workers, um, have a totally tough time, as I'm sure you probably all know. I know it personally because I had care workers come in for my late husband, um, and they are very stressed all the time, and they need, I would have thought, one space, and I hope it might be provided in the main house, um, as a sort of staff room, um, and then going on from there, are any of the parking spaces designated for the care workers? I mean, like, like, uh, reserved for the care workers. Um, even the bicycle spaces could be reserved for the care workers. Um, and I'm also concerned that the bedrooms where a lot of the care was, um, and I'm also concerned that the bedrooms where a lot of the care was, um, and I'm also concerned that the bedrooms where a lot of the care will take place don't have a lot of space for the workers. Um, I had to do some, uh, domestic alterations for there to be space for the care workers to work around the hospital bed that my husband needed at that time. Um, and so I'm a little concerned about, um, the bedrooms being just a bit tight as for a care home. Um, overall, though, I think it's a very good scheme. I think the, um, natural lighting is good. It's not a greedy project. The sill heights are low, which is wonderful. I mean, you so rarely see low sill heights in developments these days. So I'm delighted about the sill heights so the old people can sit and stare through the windows at the, um, sparrows pecking around in the garden just outside instead of having to look a long way away. Um, and there's a small detail that one of the hobs is right in the corner of the kitchen, which is not where you should have your hob, but that's a tiny detail. But overall, I think it's a good scheme and I will support it. I imagine the, uh, the pictures on page 10, which I guess one could loosely describe as an artist's impression, um, are not completely inaccurate and going back, I mean, I'm sure they're not absolutely precisely to scale and there's no intention that they should be. But when, I think it was Count Humphreys started at the beginning, said, uh, how much of the space is being used. I, one can get a, an approximate idea there, can't one, from the pictures. And it does look quite nice. I, I, I don't normally make these comments, nor do any of us. But I do think that, uh, people who write in with comments, um, really ought to spend a couple of minutes thinking about their comments. When, when you look at a, a development like this for a purpose like this, and you get comments about the scale and massing, um, coming through, um, I can just suggest that whoever wrote that, they ought to come and try and live in parts of Battersea, uh, if they're talking about scale and massing, um, the various comments here that, uh, frankly, um, do not actually show the objectives in a very good light, in my opinion. I don't know whether other people share that view, but, uh, uh, I wouldn't normally make that remark, but it's a bit extreme in this case. Go on, Council of India. Well, if it's open season to have a go at objectives, um, I, I find it interesting that there are objectives to various applications on this agenda and, and previous ones who have absolutely no relationship with the location. Yes. Uh, and they come from great distances and, and yet they are listed as being objectives and, and taking, making up numbers. And I just wonder whether there is any provision for us to make a, make a judgment about, uh, star rating or something similar to say that if you, if you live, uh, is in case of the next application in Coulsdon, the chances of you knowing anything about that tooting back road is only as you're making your way to Coulsdon rather than, uh, uh, anything else. I do find it sometimes amusing where people live when they make an objection to an application. My favorite objection of all time on this, you may well have been on the committee at the time, Councillor Givindia, no one else will have been, uh, but was an application for something at Battersea Power Station. And you may or may not remember Battersea Power Station, for those old enough, Battersea Power Station starred in the front cover with a front cover, the cover of Pink Floyd, uh, uh, LP, I think they called them in those days. And we had an objection from the Pink Floyd fan club of Australia, uh, objecting to the fact that we might be doing something to the Battersea Power Station. I think that's the most extreme I can recall, but a little bit more local. Um, there's been some concerns raised about the impact on Stretton Park conservation area. I myself live in a conservation area. It has some very special characteristics. Um, and I think most conservation areas do have their own particular character and the nature of why that area is special. Um, could the officers please detail what is special about this particular conservation area in full? I know some of the details are in the report and what impact you think this could have on it and whether or not you think that that impact is mitigated. I can, I can only steer you to the summary of the, uh, the, what characterizes, um, the Stretton Park conservation area. It's, it's quite spacious, but it also supposed to link in with, um, some of the heritage assets with, with the London Bureau of Lambeth. But, um, we do have quite lengthy documents that go into this that I don't have memory of on recall, I'm afraid. And we've got quite a lot of conservation areas, but, um, what the, the proposal, this is harking back to a lot of items we have on the agenda, not least, um, what the discussion relied on, um, last cycle about, um, about harm. And, um, when, excuse me, a proposal, uh, is considered to exert less than substantial harm, what public benefits flow from the development in order to, to mitigate that harm. And the, there are several physical, I mean, it not as stark as, uh, the main item of, of the last cycle. This is, this is a single story. So not for us, the very beginning, it's already, um, at an extremely low level that doesn't particularly challenge the, um, existing heights of the, the garden perimeter wall. So the degree of, of harm, the, the building is still within a conservation area. So we still have to assess. It's not about, the other debate was about the setting. We're actually in one now, so it has to, it's different. We still have, have to assess that degree of harm, it being less than substantial as we've identified, and then look at the public benefits that flow. So in this instance, if you recall, there were three strands to the NPPF, social, economic, and, um, I can't remember the other one, it'll come to me, but, uh, certainly, um, in terms of environmental, there you go, in terms of, um, the social benefits, it's very, very clear what this does in terms of the social benefit and what, um, this could do for the community and the charity in terms of the, the client base. And there are other situations in terms of economic benefits that are, are less. I mean, that, that's, that can be regarded in, in, in a weighing table as a significant benefit. Um, but economic wise, you know, there'd be a small period of, um, of economic, um, activity through the construction phase, the employment of care staff, um, would provide an economic activity and the environmental, environmental benefits, uh, are through the provision of a building with a high, um, percentile of CO2 saved. It's got a very high, um, urban greening factor, which it technically doesn't really have to perform so well in that regard, but, um, it's, it's very good. I think it was 0.66, so 0.4 being required and the landscaping improvements, the replanting. So all of these, these various elements go to act in the, uh, applications favor and balancing that less than substantial harm that's been identified. And it led to officers arriving at the conclusion that that the harm can be balanced and be recommended overall as a application. Thank you. Uh, okay. So, um, council come back again. Yes. Yeah. It was specifically on, on the issue of the energy savings. I noticed on page 30, uh, 6.5, that it says based on the energy hierarchy, that the be lean stage will be achieved, which is great. And then that is due to the excellent insulation. Um, so we're reaching sort of passive, passive, um, building, um, level. Um, but the be clean measures could not be incorporated because there's no existing or proposed networks within the vicinity for combined heat and power CHP systems. As I understand it, that's something that we haven't yet, um, had in any application because that doesn't yet exist in Wandsworth. Is that right? Or is that? It does. There are, I believe my understanding is that there are some parts in, in, um, the Nine Elms opportunity area that, that are set up for it. Certainly what we do is when there's, uh, any new buildings come forward, we have to make sure that they've actually got the technology within the application to be able to connect to it as a very, as a bare minimum. But, um, I, I, I don't want to say yes or no whether the, that there are actual functioning, um, areas. I, I don't know. Uh, but, um, but certainly it's something that's thought about in the future, but they're typically for major applications. Okay. Mr. Caller. Yeah. There, there are examples where on, on the Ram Brewery, it was, was looked at, um, as I think there is one for the first stage. It was meant to be linked up to further stages, but there's been problems, uh, with the adaption to different ownerships and the movement across, because they tend to work better in a more central, central location, uh, such as ones with town or in the Nine Elms area where there's a lot of development going around. On this sort of location where you're set away from a lot of things, it's, it's almost impossible to achieve because you can't get that balance or enough units to, to be involved in it because it's quite expensive. And I think a lot of them have been discounted these days because, uh, a lot of them are based on use of gas, which obviously doesn't help at all if you're trying to be more sustainable. Okay. Well, I think it's a rather good scheme. I think most others do as well. So, um, is, is this application approved, uh, by, by one, seven votes to zero? Okay. Thank you. The clerk has told me off and I deserve it for not taking apologies right at the beginning. So do we have apologies? Apologies from Councillor Boswell and apologies for lateness from Councillor Coakley. Okay. Um, right. So moving on. Oh, by the way, I think some people in the public gallery were here specifically for the application we've just considered. Um, yes, indeed. That means we've accepted it and it's going ahead. Um, I hope that's okay with you. And that's it as far as North Drive is concerned. So if you want to leave, I mean, you're welcome to stay, but, uh, if you want to leave and you are indeed leaving, um, I think some of you are coming through, through here, are you? Thank you. Your comments are appreciated. Do come through here because I think some of you may have slight mobility problems. Thank you very much. Do you want to give them a few minutes to have to recess? Yeah. Right. Moving on to application number two, uh, the Elms Tutingbeck Road to redevelop, no, extend, improve, shall we say, uh, this unit with the addition of six flats. Uh, can we have an introduction? Certainly chair. Okay. This is an application, um, to essentially win six new flats out of, um, an area underneath the existing building, um, the Elms at 45 Tutingbeck Road. Um, it's a, it's an undercroft. So it's, it's accessed from grade, um, from Tutingbeck Road. And there are two garages. So it's not a basement. It's just a, an undercroft. It's a space underneath the, uh, the existing building. But, um, you can see it was constructed in 1966 from the, um, from the planning history in page 49. And the, the area underneath it historically, I mean, at one point you could get some rather small cars in there, but there are, uh, uh, piers, structural piers all around that, that lower ground floor area. And the sides have been traditionally used or certainly more, more recently used, been used for storage, whilst, um, the, at best you could have, you know, parked just a couple of cars. Um, um, certainly not a large four wheel drive affair, uh, but, um, uh, a more conventional car in the, uh, the lower area, but there was no formal setting out of spaces or anything like that. So it's, uh, it's, um, proposed to convert that space into two, one bedroom flats, one, three bedroom, uh, flats and three, two bedroom flats. And along with that, um, there would be the excavation or, or it's, it's more of a, uh, whittling away of land around the lower ground floor, if you understand where I'm going, because those areas are being exposed to insert new windows with some roof lights, um, going into these areas as well for amenity spaces for these new flats. So, uh, also the front elevation is proposed to be, uh, remodeled and, um, basically made good with more appropriate materials to give that front elevation a new lease of life and make the whole building look a bit more, um, up to date and visually appealing. So this proposal is, uh, is recommended to be approved with conditions. All right. I must say it reminds me a little bit of, um, um, I'll get drummed out of my party for this, but it reminds me a little bit of the hidden homes, uh, which is the one successful, um, uh, I thought, uh, sorry, uh, no, uh, one of the very few, but I'd say the only one of the successful house elements of the previous administration's housing policy. I remember, I mean, there are undercroft developments all over the place, um, certainly in, in parts of my ward. And I remember one particular, uh, um, Labour representative opposing them very strongly on some grounds or other. And I thought then it was very mistaken view. And I think it's now a very mistaken view, but they were very good. And this looks similar. And any comments from others? Councillor Humphries. I would agree with you chair. Yeah. I think it's, as Mr. Granger said that it's, it's, it's ticked the box as far as making it look visually much more up to date and appealing from, from where it was. I just had one slight concern and you, you, you referenced it earlier, but about the parking. So as it says in 10.4, so that's all going to go and there's going to be no parking on site. I just, I just wonder, uh, what the arrangements are. Cause I think if the existing residents of the building, if they use it, it doesn't mean they just by default losing their parking space. If that's where they, and I understand under like the London plan and all the rest of it, it was a new development. We wouldn't have any parking at all anyway, but in the expense of losing existing, is that just a generic thing or is it, as you say, it wasn't marked out for particular bays, for particular flats or anything like that, but I just wanted to, I wasn't sure the status is, is in the existing residents are sitting tight and staying. This is adding on more people around them. And it, and would there be any impact on those existing residents who have had a parking space or have got accustomed to having a parking space and now won't? I don't, I, I, from what I've seen, um, I've been past the site a lot of times. I've never seen those roller shutters ever, ever moved. And, um, from what I've seen, um, from images that the office has taken from, from site visit and also the applicant's images that a car being parked in that lower, in that undercroft just hasn't occurred for years and years and years. And I think the, um, the not, and that's coupled with a few things. There's ownership that people, um, actually don't, are just not owning cars and, um, that there was some un, it was a little bit of a free for all out the front. So, uh, you know, there was an arrangement out the front, but I certainly don't think it's, it's akin to any of our estate improvements or additional homes in our estates where, you know, there's a real specific need for, you know, employment purposes or anything like that. Um, I don't think it's, it's comparable in that regard. So, um, and, you know, in terms of impact, obviously, you know, the, the overarching, um, London plan and our, our policy is, is about car restraint. So we're certainly not going to, uh, lament the loss of some car parking spaces. Okay. Thank you. That's the biggest impact on the parking, probably with the fact from the Sainsbury's next door, where people won't be able to park there and nip in and buy their pint of milk, et cetera. Again, I mean, uh, Councillor Govindia. Thank you. Sorry. Uh, the, some of the objectives, particularly those living on Louisville Road, um, commented on the balconies being inserted and the rear elevation. I looked at the drawings and I couldn't see any balconies. I could sort of almost see effectively French doors with, um, sort of glass balustrades. Is that, am I right? And are they wrong in thinking that there are new balconies being inserted? Well, they're right. And you're, you're wrong, unfortunately. So if you look at the building, it was described as an H shaped building. I think it's a very, it's a, you know, it's, it's, it's a rather rotund H shape, shall we say. So if you look at the rear elevations, there are two projecting elements either side, left and right. And there, there's a small recess. So the six units in between the recessed elements would have very small four square meter projecting balconies inserted one above each other in the center section. So that's where they are. What, what you were looking at, you were trying to spot them on the, the slight, the projecting elements, but they're Juliet's or, or flush balconies as Mr. Calder has a very big thing about Juliet balconies. So, um, so yeah, there, there are small balconies. In, ah, Councillor Apps. Thank you very much. Um, given, um, that Councillor White is not here, I feel I must take on, uh, what he would have said, which is that, um, so for one time only special, um, that all of the properties are private, there's not even any, even any intermediate rent, let alone affordable rent. Um, it's disappointing in a context where, you know, the cost of living is making it very difficult for people to afford the kind of full private rent or private buy prices. Um, was there any discussion about having some available for even intermediate rent within this development? And if not, why? And as I have explained to Councillor White on numerous occasions, that this is a six unit scheme with a trigger, trigger for affordable housing being 10 units or more. So we have no policy scope to, uh, to, uh, to require any of the, these units to be affordable. I'll just add to that. Yeah. If it had been within a couple of years, we might have looked to, because the totally would have gone way above the, uh, the, the threshold, but the original building was built in, I think 1969 or something. So there's a, it's a bit of a disconnect between those and we wouldn't be able to pull them in to be one development. The owner's obviously trying to, uh, get as much value as possible and why not? Um, I was wondering whether in the pre-application discussions they ever talked about going up a floor and having a floor on top? I can't say yes or no. I wasn't party to the, uh, pre-application discussions. I was dealing with other matters. Right. Okay. Any other comments on councillor? I think councillor Ayres was... These flats are really rather good. I think they're dual aspect, which is quite clever on an inner city site like this. Um, they've got reasonable circulation of rooms. You don't have to go through the living room to get to the bathroom. Um, and I think the bit at the back where there's the cycle storage for those two backflats is really cunning. So well done. Um, I, I like this scheme. Good. We're not objecting to the cycle of storage on this particular occasion. At the back, there's two, four bicycles parked at a room level. Right. Councillor Amps. Thank you very much, Chair. Um, I had a question about the amenity space. Um, it seems like the amenity space is basically the same for each, um, property more or less. The one bedrooms have 10 square meters as do the two beds and the three beds have slightly more of 15 square meters. Sorry, this is 8.4. Um, is that usual? And although it meets the, um, I, I believe it meets the kind of bare minimum is, would it be better if there was a better spread of that? Would that make it a better scheme? If you're looking, are you looking at the table on page 64? Apparently, yeah. Um, no, I mean, the, it's all about meeting these, um, these amenity space standards. So our policy requirement is, is, uh, explained, um, on the right-hand column and this proposal meets all of those. It's, it's nothing really to do about spread. It's just basically meeting what the policy requirement is. And in some cases, uh, where the layout has been favorable and more patio space due to, um, due to light wells, et cetera, uh, has, they've been able to exceed, exceed some of these standards at 18 square meters. What we don't tend to encourage, um, with developments such as these is very, very large amenity spaces for quite small flats because they can encourage, um, larger gatherings of people that sometimes in, in situations in, in sensitive parts of the location of the site and or in elevated places where we certainly don't want that as sound could obviously carry and be amplified. So this is perfectly, um, within policy parameters and, uh, yeah, it's, uh, another reason why it's recommended. Okay. Any other comments on the ELMS? No. Is the planning application approved? Agreed unanimously. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Seven votes to zero. Sorry about this, folks, but I'm going to adjourn for five minutes, um, and I'll be back. Okay. Um, if we can move on to item three on the planning applications paper. And that's the proposal for a pocket park in Swoffield Road. Um, Mr. Richards. Thank you, Chairman. The application is for, um, a pocket park on a site which is currently a vacant nursery. That was the previous use, children's nursery. Um, it was actually, um, handed back to the council in 2020 and subsequent to that in March, uh, 2024, um, the residents submitted a petition, um, to the councillors, uh, requesting that the site be turned into, uh, a local pocket park for leisure and activity for children in the main. Um, um, this was presented, uh, by Councillor Paul at the time and agreed to. There were 279, um, signatures on that petition. So there was a great deal of local, um, support for this. The council went out and did a feasibility study on the potential for that particular use, um, which has led to the proposal that has been presented to members this evening. Um, the details of the application speaks for itself really in terms of the benefits that this will bring to local residents. There have been quite a few objections associated with it, largely to do with, um, um, things to do with, um, safety of children at play, road safety, um, any impact on pollution, um, for children being close to the road and so on. Um, while all of these are, um, relevant concerns, um, I think also in terms of antisocial behaviour, there was quite a lot of, um, concerns about that potentially. Um, but as you see within the report, all of these issues have been, um, addressed quite thoroughly, um, by not only planning officers, but our consultees as well, um, in their responses. Um, in particular, you will note that the, um, that the Met Police have commented on it and made recommendations in terms of, um, ensuring that safety and security is, um, um, um, um, maintained at the site. The park would be, um, maintained and managed by our parks department. Um, um, um, the, in terms of, um, safety, I think there's quite a bit of concern about children, safety close to the road. Um, um, the gates have been designed, um, in line with relevant British standards to ensure that they are soft closing, um, and that they are inward opening so that, um, this reduces the risk of any children, um, running out onto the road or being able to, to, to, to leave, um, the park unaccompanied. Um, generally, um, this is anticipated to be used mainly by local residents and their children rather than anybody traveling from afar. So, there have been a few concerns raised about parking. Um, but it, it really is meant to be a local facility, more like a doorstep play facility, really, where parents would probably take their children probably before or after school, before dinner, um, and on the weekends, and also for older people to go and enjoy, uh, a bit of peace, perhaps when the children aren't there. Um, there are a couple of benches provided for people who aren't going to the park with children, who want to sit away from, uh, the play area, but then there are benches designed within the, um, planting, um, proposed so that parents can sit nearer their children to watch them as they play. Um, the play provision themselves, the details have been submitted, um, and, uh, they are quite minimal in terms of impact and, and scale. Um, there were some concerns originally, and I think in the report we reported that, um, it was going to be dog free, but subsequent to that we have had, um, and this is reported in the late papers, um, that it won't be, um, a ban on all dogs, because I think we are a nation of dog lovers, um, but the actual play area isn't, is going to be a dog free zone, so dogs aren't allowed to be on the play area, um, but otherwise they've confirmed that, uh, any litter or dog litter can actually be, um, placed in the bins that are proposed to be there as well. So, um, in, in general, all of those concerns, it's, it's hoped that that meets everybody's, uh, needs, really, as far as a park is concerned. Crucially, uh, there are 11, uh, very well established plane trees on the site. These are all to be retained, um, which is, uh, wonderful, because any other potential use of the site, uh, such as structures or buildings potentially would harm those trees, um, both at root level and, um, in terms of their crown and potential, uh, growth. In addition, these are seen to offer, um, good mitigation for any concerns about pollution, pollution, but they also give, uh, adequate shade, both in sun and, um, more, uh, uh, well, less clement weather, I should say. So, generally, I think this is one of the most positive applications that I've had the pleasure to bring to committee, and, um, and so the recommendation, um, is to approve. Can I just confirm, you said the Met Police were happy with it? Yeah, okay. Um, sorry, I was just going to say subject to certain conditions. So, there is a condition attached for CCTV, um, provision details to be approved, but there is also, um, there is also a condition in respect of, um, setting up potentially, well, sorry, forgive me, not a condition. It's just been confirmed by the Parks Department that they would be very interested in setting up a Friends of the Park group with local residents, um, so that they are, because it's so well, um, observed, if you like, across the street and around, that, you know, that we would, uh, that we would be able to pull together, uh, a Friends of, uh, a Friendship group, or whatever you call it, or local group that would get involved in, in, um, uh, in the care of the Park. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any comments, any views? Councillor Owens, Councillor Govindia. Thank you, Councillor Owens and Northcote Ward. Um, I, I did enjoy reading this particularly, um, obviously the, the design, but the, um, different types of plants that are being proposed in the saving of the plane trees. Um, I just had a, a couple of questions, because I couldn't see in the papers, you don't have the sort of the set layout of, um, the play area itself, and I do recall we had a, um, a new play area in my ward just pre-pandemic, and there was quite an extensive consultation. I realize you have, have had one, and obviously there was one date last year, I think, when people could go along and have a look at the plans, but I'm not entirely sure, uh, and there is a bit of a difference between, um, a play area for five-year-olds and a play area for 12-year-olds, um, exactly what it is, but I appreciate if, uh, that is something that is coming along a bit later. And just on the dog-free area, would that, would there be some sort of boundary to stop the dogs going into the play area? Um, because I haven't got the, what the play area, I've got a little bit of the tower, um, which is in, in the plan there, but I was just wondering a little, if you could hear a bit more on that, um, and I'm sure my colleagues will want to talk about the boundary wall and antisocial behavior separately. Thank you. Thank you. Um, in terms, in the late items, um, a plan for the dog-free zones and dogs on leads areas, so there would be signage or indication. People would be made aware of the fact that they're not allowed to take or allow their dogs to run onto the, the, the play area, really. That would be, that would be the, the plan has been provided just to indicate that the play area is not to be, um, um, dogs aren't allowed there, but elsewhere on the park, people could bring their dogs as long as they are on leads, I think. Okay. Okay. Okay. Council of India. Thanks, Jim. I'm sort of looking at the Wands of Society comments about the boundary wall. I mean, it's unfortunate that the design, uh, and those who designed it haven't done enough work to celebrate an old structure and retain as much of it as possible and try and, uh, uh, make it a feature of the new use. It is very unfortunate. It's the, probably the only distinctive bit of, uh, wall on that road, um, and harks back to the previous use of not only this site, but the, uh, quite a large site there, which is, uh, um, used for, for, for as a workhouse and so on. Um, I mean, it's not a showstopper in terms of planning application, but it's definitely a, a criticism of those who, who propose this application as well as those who design it, that they have taken no regard, paid no regard to the historicity of this place and celebrated something of the features, retain as much of it as possible and, and so on. So that's all I have to say. Interesting. Um, any other comments? Council Apps? Yeah. Um, so Councillor Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward again. Um, very pleased to see this application coming forward. It's been a long time coming. Um, and obviously it came around after the result, partly of Councillor Paul's, um, a petition that was handed in, which showed wide public support. And I suppose it shows the problems with when you actually get into the particulars and with a planning process, it's harder to get that level of engagement that you can with a, with a wider petition. Um, I also was interested in the remarks around the Bastille Society about retaining parts of the wall. Um, I thought that if we, if that could be, if there could be an advisory or if we could ask them to look at whether or not that'd be possible, but perhaps you can tell us it's not. However, I think there's a lot to welcome here. First of all, the biodiversity, looking at sensory plants as well, and to make it, you know, very kind of inclusive, um, part and also really pleased to see, um, that we've got porous, um, paving stones, which makes such a big difference in terms of at a time when we're at risk of droughts and floods, of course. Um, and also just to add, um, on, I was really pleased to see the close inspection around when community concerns came to light around crime and disorder to see that's really been looked at and planned into the design to try and avoid that. But I think it's important that CCTV is employed, um, if, as and when needed as well, and where it's needed and that we keep that under review. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, were you going to say something? Go on. I'm just going to respond a little bit because both councillors have raised the issue of the wall. Um, I visited the site fairly recently with, um, the planning officer just to inspect this aspect because, um, um, you know, we also care about heritage and features that are, um, historic around these old sites. Um, and, and that was a lot to do with seeing whether or not, because it's a partial, the wall is to be lowered in order to make it more visible, actually, and more, um, more secure, if you like, for people to be able to look into the, um, into the play park, um, for security reasons. We, we looked at the wall, and I know our, our officers in conservation would have looked at this as well. Um, but the wall is in pretty bad condition with a lot of, on the corner where the feature is that the ones with society refer to. Um, there is some decorative brickwork at the base, um, that we picked up on, but it would be very difficult to retain all of those, um, as it stands now. There may well be an opportunity for us to retain a lot of that wall as part of the development, because I think there's a lot of, um, there's a sort of a pattern on the base of it. Um, but it's a balance between, um, you know, retaining historic elements, if those are in fact historic, and actually making this, uh, a safe and functional park for, for the proposed use. On the flooding aspect, I think, um, currently the site is, uh, largely hard standing or covered with, with buildings. So, what is proposed will ensure that, uh, there would be a better, um, uh, drainage associated with that. And also, um, we are in a flood zone too, but actually our, our records indicate that the site itself isn't subject to flooding. Um, but in any event, this is going to improve matters as far as that's concerned. Um, and I think that was it. Okay. Councillor Govindia, Councillor Humphreys. Um, Chairman, it might, uh, assist the committee to know that for last 30 years, I walked past this wall, perhaps, um, 10 times a week, if not more. At no point have I seen that wall move or pose a risk or danger to anyone, although there is a much later wall belonging to the housing department, which is covered in Harris fencing at the moment, and has been for several months. Despite the presence of very mature 11 trees, this wall is solid as it solid can be. It could be much, the, the, the bottom, the base is wide and, and, and the panels, maybe you need to cut into the panels in order to allow for surveillance of the play space. But the idea that this wall poses a risk or a danger or is unstable, my God, for 30 years it hasn't been, and I cannot believe that it is at risk. There may be features in it that need repair, but to just dismiss it as something that, uh, because it needs to be lowered, we can, we can forget about it, is just short-sighted. Councillor Humphreys. Sorry. No, no, no. Councillor Humphreys. Thank you, Chair. Um, I echo those concerns about the wall, I have to say. I, I, I think, as you say, it's, I appreciate it's always a balancing act between trying to get the amenity we want now and, and the historical side of stuff, but I would urge officers, and I'm sure they will anyway, but, but to try to make sure that every possible bit can be retained, because I think it's, it's, it's, it's, it would be a shame, you know, it's, it's meant to be a space for young people, and if young people don't understand about the heritage of where they grow up and where they're living, it's, it, the two should be able to work together as best they can. So, I understand there needs to be moderate modifications made to it, but as much as possible that could be retained, I think everybody would appreciate that. Um, that wasn't actually what I was going to ask about. Um, we all welcome, we all, obviously, I should, should, shouldn't need to say, we all welcome, uh, new green spaces and play spaces and things like that. We never have enough of them and it's, it's, it's, it's very welcome to see that. I do slightly worry in this application that with the attempt to try to get so much in for everything, we've got the dog bit and we've got the children's bit and we've got the thing about ASB and all those issues. Um, a lot of the rationale behind how those things can be made to work is, is, is predicated on the aspiration and the hopes that various other people are going to contribute. So, I, I, I would like to know it's going to be for definite that we'll have the CCTV rather than it's going to be something that we will, you know, try to do or maybe do once in a while or whatever. I think if that isn't there from the beginning, it won't take long for people to know that it's a place where things could go on that we wouldn't like to see. So, I wouldn't want this great thing to be spoiled and in a, a couple of years' time we're thinking, oh goodness, it's a right old mess and it's being misused and all the rest of it. So, I think we need to make sure we can do everything we possibly can rather than just hope that we're going to get a friends group and hope that the dog walkers won't go in there. To be honest, I know in, in, in, in my patch and, and Mr Richards is right, we've got, you know, nation of dog lovers and all that, but a lot of the more recent dog owners, unfortunately, aren't as civic minded as they should be. And I, it reminded me of when we had that walk along the new Linear Park at Nine Elves and there's all this lovely new planting, which is, some of it has been ruined and the, the landscape architects were promoting the fact that the dogs were running around there and it was being abused by some, some dog owners, not all dog owners. So, again, the, the wish and the hope that dog owners will, will respect it and not, not, uh, take the dogs where they shouldn't go and all the rest of it. There isn't a wall and all the rest of it. I, I, I just wonder if we're not being a bit optimistic and we must need to do everything we possibly can to make sure those things do happen rather than it just being a wish. And then it isn't really possible, feasible to do it in real life. I must say your experience and perhaps cancer given is, is rather remarkably different from mine. Um, I, I can remember walking down streets in, uh, well, particularly lower line gardens. I used to live in Albert Palace mansions when you were pretty lucky to get home at all without putting your foot in dog. I would have thought overwhelmingly people are much more responsible about dogs than they ever have been. I mean, they're not perfect. Uh, some people still are not, but it was used to be a completely different order. And on, if we took that argument, we'd never have pocket, pocket parks anywhere. And what, what's so wrong with the pocket parks that exist in the, that I know of, they could all be, they could have, sorry. I mean, you guys have your say. I don't have my say very often. I'm saying it now. Uh, you, uh, you can be against everything easy enough, but Mr. Just going back to, um, um, the wall, there is going to be, I was quite interested in what, on site of the wall, it's in, in a sense, in a design sense, it's in two halves, isn't it? There's the lower half, there's a kind of line rounded and from what I've seen. Uh, we take, are you thinking that the top half would go and be replaced by railings and the bottom half would be as far as possible kept? Is that the kind of general impression? Um, yes, because I think as, um, well, as I saw on site anyway, there are very distinct elements to the existing wall. Um, and so you could actually integrate the new design with elements of the existing wall, certainly. Um, you know, there are, it's weathered for sure, and there are certain elements of it that do look, um, in poor condition. I didn't suggest that we were, you know, that it was to be, uh, that it was at risk or that it was, uh, beyond, um, beyond, uh, a lifespan that could, could be, um, retained for future, um, use. Um, I could suggest that you, we put an informative to, onto the, the, the recommendation to ensure that we, that further discussions are, are undertaken, um, with officers. I think there's a grunt alongside me there. Does that mean, Mr. Gordy, you thought an informative might do help? Well, not only that, but we could get Councillor Govindia to survey it, because he seems to, to be an expert in such matters, but yeah, I, I, I think a, um, an informative just advising that to any chance of further retention of that, that, uh, that, uh, Mr. Calder probably knows, uh, that I'm not a surveyor by profession. I'm happy to give him the advice, but I, what I don't want him to do is certainly say, we can't take that advice because he's not a qualified surveyor. So be careful about what you think I can do. But what I can say, and going back to Ms. Richards, the, the, the, the top bit of the wall is a recent, more recent addition to the Victorian bit. Yes. And so you can get rid of the top bit, because I don't think it's distinctive enough. Yes. And you could probably, you might need to lower even the Victorian bit, but you can do it sensitively, so that as much of the panel, and perhaps take a bit of the panel out, and then create a new, smaller panel. It's just thoughtfulness. I think the informative makes that quite clear, and I'm sure Ms. Richards will take those comments. Right. Subject to that, is everyone happy with this? Count Sanfres again, you, you coming back on? No. Okay. Is that agreed, then? Unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and moving on to, uh, uh, Skeena Hill. Uh, again, Ms. Richards. Thank you, Chairman. Um, this application was deferred from the last committee. Um, this was due to, um, an error on our system, which didn't, um, notify residents who had objected and had an interest in the application, um, of the fact that it was coming to the planning applications committee, um, which was, and it was the right decision to defer it to enable, um, those residents to make any further comments if they wish to. Um, also at the time, there was, as part of the objections in any event, there was a lot of confusion between what had previously, uh, been, uh, refused by officers and what had then subsequently been dismissed at appeal and what then had been approved and what was now being proposed. Members will note that an addendum report has been, um, prepared, which hopefully clarifies these, um, in illustrative form, which is easier than actually trying to describe it in words, which I think seem to confuse people more, um, with all the various measurements and so on. So if you turn to page 104, you will see figure one and two, which show the, um, and this is in the main addendum report, not the late items. Um, so you can see that the figure one and figure two are of the scheme that was refused. Um, and you will note that this proposal, um, included, uh, a rather large, um, and a hipped extension to story, which was considered, uh, too large in terms, from officers' point of view and bulky, um, in this context and particularly in terms of its impact that it would have had on the the neighbouring property at number 38. Um, also you would note that the, um, the back extension and the terrace also extended to a deeper and, um, uh, depth, sorry, deeper depth, um, than what is currently proposed. On page 105, you will see that figure three and figure four show you what the, um, side extension has already been approved. Um, that was a separate application and that has been approved and is also extant, which means that the applicants could actually implement this and build this in any event. And when you look at figure four, which shows you, uh, the extent of the side extension and the terrace, these remain the same, these are now the same as the ones proposed under the current application. And so in any event, whichever way you look at that, that those elements, um, that are still at that garden level and, and, um, uh, opposed to number 38, these could still be implemented because these have already, you know, these have been approved. Okay. And then, sorry, I just want to clarify on page 106. This is actually an illustration for you of what is currently proposed. So again, you will note that figure five shows the, um, that the, uh, first level, uh, extension and how that would appear relative to the main house and also from the street. And again, you will note the side elevation shows that the, um, extension has significantly reduced in scale because it now sits below the eaves of the main house and also has been set back from the front, um, to, to, to take into account the impact that that would have as you view it from the street and the overall impact that it would have on the conservation area. It's hoped that the addendum report has clarified matters, uh, sufficiently for members to take a view on the application. Thank you. Sorry, I thought you had finished. Um, any comments or is agreed? Councillor Govindia. Thank you. Um, thanks. I've, I've had a correspondence about this, uh, uh, with Ms. Richard, so I'm happy with some of the things she said. The one remaining question from me is about really the expanse of the brickwork between the application site and number 38 on the, the new site extension. And the concern from the neighbour is that, uh, at the, in the last application which was dismissed and refused by us and, and also, uh, the refusal upheld on appeal said, uh, that the, the kind of blank, the brickwork expanse was oppressive in a lot. And I think it's been reduced but not substantially. That's the, the judgment of the neighbour. But just as we want her view on how, um, the expanse of the brickwork in the flank wall between 38 and 40, uh, now will be. I think the most, the, the most significant, um, element between the two schemes really is that the entire hip roof element has been completely removed. The, um, first floor extension has also been reduced in overall, um, depth as you would view it against the main wall. So the bulk of that projecting, if you like, nearer to the boundary with number 38 has, has reduced as well with a pitched roof that sits below the eaves. So that is significant as far as officers are concerned. In addition, um, as set out in, um, the, the, the addendum as well as in the, um, late items, um, the depth of the rear extension itself, um, um, um, is now 5.4 metres. So there has been a, um, uh, a reduction there of, um, half a metre. Um, so overall you have to take all of them in the appeal decision. The inspector was taking into account the entirety of what was going to be added onto the side of the building, including the roof and the expanse on the side. And so in its totality, the inspector agreed with officer's view and assessment that yes, it was going to be, um, too, um, overwhelming and unablely for the, the residents of number 38. We consider the amendments to be, uh, sufficient in terms of, um, overcoming, um, that objection. Um, and in addition, they have been, it has been reduced in length as well from the back. Um, so again, um, as the, uh, late item sets out, the objector has again raised the issue of, of, of impact on sunlight and daylight, um, on the garden. Um, I think it's quite clear if you were to look at the plan, which is, uh, on page, this is in the original, when you see the location plan on page 110. And those of you who are familiar with Skeena Hill, the Skeena Hill on the north side, so all the gardens are north facing, the layout of the plots, they sit in pairs, each house is set in pairs. And because of the curve in the road, each one has a slight step in them. So the objectors property sits approximately four meters in front of the application site, which means in turn at the rear, yeah, the, the, the rear of number, um, 40 then extends further rearward than the back of number 38. So it's inevitable almost that anything that would be built at the rear of number 40 would in some way have, uh, a more visible impact for them. Having said that, the orientation of the buildings, things as such that, you know, there is limited material impact in terms of daylight, sunlight, because the, the sun would have set almost as it comes round to the garden area. So overall, officers consider this to be acceptable now. Obviously, Councillor Govindia has had constituents or concerned people saying the opposite, whether he agrees with them or not is another matter. Is the application agreed? Agreed. Can I just say that I had a letter this very late this afternoon, far too late, um, for, to be taken into account about the people of 38 having talked to the neighbours and think they they may have come to a compromise of some kind or other. Um, I haven't ignored that. It's just that we have to make a judgment on the application in front of us. If those negotiations between neighbours work successfully to everyone's satisfaction, then I'll be delighted, but we have to decide on the application in front of us. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to, um, um, number six, eight, Victoria Mews. Any comments at all, or just everyone happy with the Councillor Govindia? Just a little confused about the construction management plan. I think in the body of the report, it suggested there wasn't a need, and then there is a condition that there will be one. That's, that's all I'm sort of concerned. I just want to make sure that there will be one, given that this is a cul-de-sac where I would have thought that removal of spoil and delivery materials and all that will be quite a touchy subject for the neighbourhood and a plan would be a very helpful thing for everyone concerned. Do we have any comment on? Um, the condition actually relates to a construction and environment management plan, which is associated with ecology and lighting and so on. Um, our transport officers did not require a construction management plan on this just because the site itself, when you look at the plot, um, there is sufficient, um, space on the site itself to take any spoil and so on and park any construction vehicles and whatnot. So it wasn't considered necessary in this case. Also, it is a private muse. Um, and so it's not public traffic that, that actually would be, uh, interrupted in this. So this is a particular site that can actually deal with that. I mean, I appreciate Victoria Muse is a private road and there won't be private, uh, public traffic on it. But the issue really is it's still a narrow road with, uh, with a limited number of users. But if there was an approved ingress, egress and exit, uh, arrangement for the construction vehicles, it would, it would be useful for the neighbourhood to neighbourly and they know what's happening. And so long as it's happening in accordance with that, at least there is a solution. Otherwise, you could have rows about the lorry blocking my drive and all of that. I mean, I just wonder whether there's any way in which we can be slightly more, uh, indulgent perhaps, uh, to the rest of the residents of Victoria. Well, I think we are talking about indulgence in a very, very small area, isn't it? We're not exactly in the neighbourhood relations business, so sometimes we are, we very nearly are. Any comment? I think the, I think the difficulty would be in, in terms of, because it is a private road, I'm not sure whether or not we would have powers to actually enforce any of that in terms of, of comings and goings, apart from at the entrance point where the public highway is. And so we wouldn't actually, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm just basing that on, on my understanding that really construction management plans are associated more with a public highway, which we are able to, um, control. Mr. Newbold is quaking at the thought of having to enforce this. Um, we understand, Council of India, but yes, yes. Um, understood. Can I, sorry. So can I suggest we will, maybe, maybe we'll look at doing an informative asking them to, to look at accessing on egress into the main road, not in Victoria. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Well, subject and informative, everyone happy? Agreed, agreed, agreed unanimously. Thank you. Move on to Mr. Raybold. Um, um, and I, and I'm inclined to think of the first one as being in my ward, though, isn't any longer, um, about the flu in the wrong place, obvious. Well, sorry, I mustn't prejudge. Um, but everyone agrees with the recommendation? For a flu. I thought it was the one thing that was bound to be utilitarian, anything else. Okay. Okay. Okay. Subject to that, uh, literary, um, objection, which I'm sure Mr. Raybold will take note of at future reference, uh, move on to Norroy Road. Any comment about Norroy Road? Sorry? Uh, you comment? Go on, Mr. Raybold. I can do a brief overview if you want. I'll keep it super quick. No, I think... Is that a late item? No, I think... Is that a late item? Yes? No? Sorry. I'm being... Mr. Calder is suggesting that we need to mention the late item. There is a late item, indeed. The neighbour next door did, um, make a comment that, um, there was an error in the report insofar as the report referred to, uh, two-storey extensions at the rear of other properties in the street, and they're not, in fact, extensions, the original parts of the building, but it doesn't have any bearing on the officer recommendation. Right. Everyone agreed with the recommendations? Agreed. Move on to treat preservation order. That's the next in papers, is it? Actually, the next in the sequence it is, is it? Um, uh, can I say to the democratic services, I don't know whether you're responsible for this, but the planners said that they weren't, um, the photographs as they come out, um, um, on the, on the version that the members get, are completely, uh, uh, well, putting it as, uh, as obscure would be a very polite way of describing it. It's a red arrow, doesn't it? Yeah, that's right. So can we ask the democratic service of, if they're going to do this in future, would they make sure they do a better job? Do you know what I'm talking about? We'll show it to you if you want. Um, I'll show it to you afterwards. Thank you. The photographs are just terrible. But subject, assuming that photographs show trees, which is a, is perhaps a questionable remark, are those tree preservation orders accepted? Agreed. Agreed. Thank you for that. And then we move on to the decisions paper. Noted. Closure of investigation files. Noted. Closed appeals. Actually, I was going to ask something, but I'll leave, I'll ask that afterwards. Closed appeals, anything? Noted. Okay. Thank you. And good night. Have you seen these? Thanks, though.