Transcript

Good evening everyone and welcome to this meeting of the planning applications committee. My name is councillor Anne Cyron and I'm the vice chairman of the planning committee and I will be chairing this meeting tonight. On my right are my fellow councillors and we will be making the decisions on the cases in front of us this evening. And to my left are council officers and they will be offering us their professional advice and they will be presenting the cases for us and we may have questions for them. And thank you very much for all your hard work in putting together this evening's agenda and pack. At the appropriate time I will ask the objector and then the applicant to address the committee and you will have three minutes and if there's more than one of you you will share those three minutes. Um, and we may have questions of you as well, so turning to the agenda. Are there any apologies for absence? Thank you chair. There are no apologies for absence. Thank you. Are there any declarations of interest? So I have a declaration of interest which is that I am the applicant for the case at 19 Camden Grove. Um, so I will therefore, um, uh, step down at that point and, um, Councillor Hargreaves, um, will chair for that case. Um, are there any other declarations? Um, minutes of the previous meetings. Uh, I have some minutes here from the meeting on the 10th of June. Very long one. Mo, you were here. Um, are you happy for me to sign these? Okay, so without any further ado, um, we will hear the cases tonight in the order that is on the speakers list, which hopefully you should have received when, uh, you came in. Um, and, um, the first case tonight is one Smith Terrace. Um, Fiona, will you be presenting? Thank you very much. Over to you. Just waiting for them to put the presentation on the screen. Thank you. Um, so firstly, I'd like to draw members' attention to the addendum report. Um, for this application, there is an extensive planning history. Um, and I just want to also draw your attention to paragraph 4.7 that details that within the report. Um, works are underway on this site. Um, and planning permission is now sought for changes, including the increase in the size of the outrigger, also sometimes called a closet ring. It's that rear projection, um, changes to the parapet wall and changes at the lower level to create a patio area, as seen on the drawings. Um, so the site location plan is up on the screen now. Uh, Smith Terrace and the property, um, sits close to the junction with Smith Street and it forms part of the Royal Hospital Conservation Area. Here is an aerial view, um, that I think is quite helpful showing the property in its context. Unhelpfully, it's labelled as number 2 there, but you can see the scaffolding around it, um, and the variation of properties along that group. Here are a couple of site photographs. Um, the one on the left shows the door that's referred to a lot within the report and within the, um, objections received. So I think that's an important photo just to point out to you. Um, and here I've included, um, the elevation drawing within your pack on the right-hand side, um, showing the, the new, um, constructed or to be constructed outrigger, um, and the increase in the, both the height and the width. The details of that are at paragraph 6.3, but it's a 300 millimetre increase in height and a 100 millimetre, 100 millimetre increase in width. There's also that change to the parapet wall. The image on the left, by way of comparison, is the previously approved application. That again is referred to heavily in the report and submissions. Here is a section drawing, um, from the previous permissions. So one showing the, the previous extant basement and the previous closet wing. And then importantly, the new proposal that shows that increase in the height of the closet ring. And you can see here the position of that door referred to again, um, in many of the submissions. So planning permission is recommended for approval for this application. And at the appropriate time, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ray. So we have got a registered speaker for this case, um, Jan Rowland. Hello. Um, so you have three minutes, uh, to address the committee and, um, please go ahead when you're ready. Can you hear me? Hi. Um, so I'm Jan. I live next door and I'm here on my own behalf and, uh, the other objectors. Um, this has been going on for nearly six years now. We've been living next to the building site. And it's the sixth attempt of the developers to try to increase the size of the original outrigger or rear extension that they demolished. All previous applications have been rejected by the committee. And one occasion when they appealed the secretary of state, um, and nothing has changed. The, the, all the reasons why they were rejected still stand. And I ask, surely there is a limit to the number of times the developers can keep applying for the same thing, namely to increase the size, especially after the last committee meeting where councillors agreed that the rebuilding of the rear extension had to be exactly the dimensions of the original, together with the committee's condition that the outrigger shall not at any time be used as a terrace or amenity space. And on that basis, we withdrew our objection. Uh, the planning officer says that the increase in size is small, but it's not insignificant. There is no doubt that this increase in height and width will enable the roof of the rear extension to be used as a roof terrace and give elevated views and loss of privacy to all around. Currently, there is a rear door, which you saw on the picture, which is the French window effectively, which was changed from a window, which if the roof height to the extension was increased by the, just the 30 centimeters, this would enable access to the flat roof overlooking my garden, my neighbor's gardens and houses. The developer's intentions are clear from previous applications, all which the committee refused. They applied for railings around the flat roof, a roof terrace and consistently refer to the extension roof as a roof terrace on all plans. If it was so used, and because it is so high, the privacy of the neighbors would be severely compromised. It would offer 180 degree elevated views into the houses and gardens of Smith Street, Tedworth Square, Smith Terrace, and the small courtyard of the synagogue next door, which is used for religious ceremonies and regularly by vulnerable people, particularly the elderly and children. We ask simply that the application is denied and the previous application and conditions stand. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we don't have the applicant registered to speak, so are there any questions for the objector? Councillor Bax here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Your main concern is privacy, isn't it? Yes. Yes. Okay. What conditions would you like to see to protect you and your neighbors' privacy? So, sorry, can you hear me still? So, we just acknowledge that they had an original extension, which they knocked down several years ago now, and that they just rebuild exactly what they had, because the height of it is right at the top of a fence, so nobody in their roof terraces along the row can see, and we're just asking for them to put back what they took down. I can understand that. So, if they built the roof terrace, do you think building a screen could protect your privacy? No. What happened before was they couldn't get out onto the roof of the extension, and the roof of the extension couldn't be seen by the neighbors in Smith Terrace, which is fine. And now what they're trying to do is to raise it up so they can get out of the back door and use the flat roof as a roof terrace, which means they will look all the way down. They'll be very elevated above everybody else. Thank you. So, I have a question, please. You've talked a lot about the roof terrace and how the roof is being raised so that people could exit from the door that was a window onto this flat roof. If we could really enforce that nobody could use this as a roof terrace, could you tell us what your concern is about the increase in height of the 30 centimetres and the additional small width increase? Okay. I've gone off as well. Oh, I'm back. So, yeah, I accept the question. So, these people are developers. They put it in so that you can walk out of a back door onto a roof. They've got all the conditions saying you can't actually use that for anything. But they're going to sell it to somebody else. They may not know that they can't walk out onto it and they'll turn it into a roof terrace. And then I do not want nor do my neighbours want to start falling out with new people that come in because the developers are not going to live there. So, I completely understand your concerns and particularly that it will get sold on and the new owners may not know about it. But do you have a particular concern about the 30 centimetres increase? I mean, I understand the history and the conditions that were put on. 30 centimetres is not very much. But, you know, I agree it is an increase. What is your concern about the actual increase in size? Put the roof terrace to one. Imagine we could deal with the roof terrace. Tell us about the 30 centimetres. I just think the 30 centimetres takes it up to the step of the door at the rear. And it just is an invitation to use it as a roof terrace. Thank you. Any other questions? Shall we move on to questions for officers then? Who would like to start? Councillor Baxter. You are recommending the committee to approve this application. Does it breach, to be very clear, does it breach any council policies, this application? The report confirms no. Our conclusion is it doesn't, subject to conditions. And one important condition has been attached with regard to the use of the flat roof as a terrace. So we've recommended a condition prohibiting that. And one of the reasons why we've recommended that condition is because the 2022 refusal that's referred to in the planning history was by the Planning Applications Committee at that time. And they actually refused that permission on the intensification of that flat roof to be used as a terrace. So now that we've got a new outrigger being built, we now have the ability to restrict that use because it's brand new. The previously existing informal terrace is now gone. And so we've added that condition. So I also understand the concerns because if the site is sold, someone may come and think this would be a lovely space to enjoy and utilise through this door. However, the condition would stand and we would be able to enforce it at the appropriate time. Thank you. Can we just stick with the door and the height again, please? What's your understanding of the reason to increase the height if it's not to use the door to get to access the terrace? And if it's not going to be accessed as a terrace, why do we need a door? Why could it not be a Juliet balcony or something else? So the door is already there. So it already exists on the back of that property. And that was because before they demolished the outrigger or closet wing at the back, it was already there and it went on to an informal arrangement. So that's not changing that door. It's not new. The reason for the height hasn't been specified. It doesn't have to be specified. I mean, they could, as per the existing approved situation, you could still step out of that door and onto it. You could assume that it's being raised for comfort. They've given reasons within their submissions. It's to do with head height. It's to do with the arrangement above. None of that has really weighed heavily into our decision. What we've considered is the existing site situation, the history and what's been approved, and whether or not the resultant impact in visual terms is acceptable. And we've concluded against the policies in the development plan that that's the case. Just for information, this bit about when a property is sold on, does that condition stay with it? And that would be part of the sale, if you like, part of the deeds and move with it? Yes, absolutely. It would stay on the property. It's just challenging because we are reliant somewhat on people reporting it to us. Unless we notice it as officers when we're out and about in the borough, that's the only thing. That we don't actively and ongoing check these things. But the condition remains. And they would have to breach it for a period of 10 years to be able to get around it. Actually, Gerard referred to my question. My question is about allowing something to happen with a condition that we don't know if the condition, once the property is sold, will actually be adhered to, and we leave it on the residents or the neighbours to actually continuously come and report to us that somebody broke that condition. Wouldn't it just be a lot easier if we just don't allow this to happen in the first place? I don't think there's a justifiable reason to refuse planning permission because of what's already got permission there. So the difference that you're considering really in real terms is that 30 centimetre increase. So they already have permission to rebuild the closet wing. The door is already there. So that remains. In terms of the planning history, we have previously refused an application for railings to go around it. So we would assume if an application came in for that, that would be a material consideration that would be considered. And the condition is enforceable. The reason we've recommended it, we believe it meets the tests for having a condition. We think it's enforceable. And we think for that reason, it's recommended to you to resolve that concern. So I also have a question, just going back to the history and the appeal. And, you know, I guess I really struggle with this, I think, as Councillor Idris does, because people come many, many times for planning permissions and you just know that there may be ulterior motives. And we just want to try and protect residents from what this might be used for. But I did see in one of the objectors submissions that they made about the last time this came to the Planning Applications Committee. And actually, Councillor Hargreaves was here. And that Planning Committee put on a condition saying that the size of the outrigger or extension would have to be the same size. And I just wondered why that's not binding, why we're not tied to that. And just another kind of follow-on question from that is about the appeal that went to the inspector. Was it to do with the size of the extension? And is that something that we could rely on? Because I agree with you on the basis of policy and the 30 centimetres, it feels very, very difficult to refuse this. But I'm just wondering whether from that condition at the last Planning Applications Committee and the appeal, if there's something there that we could rely on. So the previous Planning Applications Committee put on the plans condition. So you will see on all of the submissions before you tonight that it's accordance with the approved plans. So at the time, as far as I understand it from the objections, reading them thoroughly as well, there was a discussion about what if, what if. Because, I mean, I don't think they've built trust in this area with what's happened over the course of time. And we've said, well, they only, what we're granting this evening is what's based on the plans. So if they build it bigger, they need permission. So it wasn't a case of you can't do anything else. It's that you need permission for it. So that condition means they have to apply for this. And this is now before us. We now must consider it. And the same plans condition would be attached. So if they want to do more, again, we get the control and we'll have a seventh application. I hope that's not the case, but you get the point. And in terms of the appeal, the appeal scheme was different. It was for three storeys. And it was refused because it was, it went almost up to the roof level. And the inspector did raise concerns about obscuring the, you know, the butterfly edge of the roof. And we had refused that also on living conditions grounds, but that wasn't upheld by the inspector. So the scheme was materially different. Okay, committee, well, I think we have to move to a decision. I mean, I really feel for these neighbours and these residents. And it's very difficult when you have a whole string of applications over many years. It's very disruptive. But it's very hard to see how we would be able to refuse this given, you know, it's a relatively small increase in height. It doesn't really seem to have a substantial effect on the neighbours. I think we can probably investigate whether there's anything more we can do to strengthen. Is there anything stronger than conditions that we can add to it, to strengthen it, to make it a lot stronger in the sense that it definitely positively not be, not to be used. And this will, I don't know, is there a way we can say, enforce that developers actually put a note when they sell? I'm trying to, I mean, I'm trying to find a way to make it easier on the residents not to have to continuously worry about being overlooked and their privacy. I don't think there's anything. I don't think there's anything. I don't think there's anything. We couldn't force them to tell the loaner that that's what the due diligence of a house sale, et cetera, falls out of side of planning. But the condition is, as you read it, is plain, it's clear, it meets the tests. So I have no concerns about the wording of the actual condition. Yeah, I don't really have anything to suggest, unfortunately, to strengthen it. It's really difficult, but I have to move to, oh, Councillor, back to you. This is probably one of the difficult ones, because we are here to strike a balance between the applicant's interest and the resident's interest. While the small amount of increase of the building, it doesn't make a big difference, but it improves the quality of the building, the quality of the height, the width, whatever. We have seen tens of hundreds of cases like this. But since, in my view, since we have this guarantee, this condition, the flat roof can't be used as a terrace, this is the only thing we could do. In a few years' time, whoever buys this property, they could apply for another application, and we have to deal with this application again and again. This is the reality. I agree with you, and the only thing we can recommend is, the minute anybody is on this terrace or railings go up or there's any change to it at all, to call enforcement or contact your local councillors who will be able to take the case up for you. It's just very difficult in planning terms to refuse something that we know is compliant with policy, and we can't ask you to comment on that. We can't refuse something that we believe is compliant with the policy, however unfair it feels, and it is, so I think we do have to move to a vote. The recommendation is to approve the application at one Smith Terrace. Can those in favour please show? Can those against? And one abstention? I'm sorry, so it's five in favour. So with a very heavy heart, the application is approved, subject to the conditions that are listed. So thank you very much for coming, and keep your eyes open. Thank you. Moving to, do you need anything else? No. Moving to the next case, which is flat two Edgerton Place, number five Edgerton Place. Who will be presenting this? Yes, Miss Rae, please. Yeah, you've got me all evening. Yeah, this is your all evening. Whenever you're ready, please go ahead. Yes, thank you so much. I'd just like to draw members' attention again to the addendum report before moving on. So for this application, it relates to a lower ground zone ground floor flat. The property is within the Thurlow and Smith's Charity Conservation Area, and it relates to the creation of a door to provide upper ground floor access out to the garden and a gate to the rear. Importantly, this does follow a refusal back in December 2024 for a very similar scheme, but this is a revised proposal which has changed the design of the door that is now proposed. So turning to the slides, this is an aerial image identifying the property and the site location plan. This is an existing site photograph to the rear, and as you can see the window arrangement here, and this is the upper ground floor level referred to. These are the existing plans, and I think the most helpful is the front elevation in the top left-hand corner that shows that three window arrangement and the proposed plans. So you can see here, those three windows and the proposed drop to create the new door. So planning permission is recommended for approval. Thank you very much. Thank you. So now we will call the objectors. Good evening. Please, you've got three minutes between you. Please introduce yourselves, and whenever you're ready, you've got three minutes. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Victor, and together with my fellow neighbour Peter, we are here representing the neighbours of five Edgerton Place. I thank you for the opportunity to express your objection to this planning application. First, I'd like to say that an almost identical application was presented and refused, I think, in December, and very little, as far as we can tell, has changed in this new application. We object on the following grounds. One, it will alter the architectural character of the house because the new additional door to the garden, if approved, will become the only house in the communal gardens to have more than one door access to the gardens. There isn't a single house in this communal gardens that has more than one door. That's the first point. This would make it two doors, one from the communal access and the other directly from the ground floor apartment, which is the applicant in this case. There is no precedent for this. In addition, the proposed door will be much grander looking. If you see the pictures that we saw before, the proposed door is at a higher level than the current door. And it's also higher because of the window, the ceiling heights, whereas the one from the common parts has low ceilings. It's a discreet door. This will make it like a grand door that would, in fact, make it look like it's the main exit door to the house, which it isn't. And it's sort of very odd looking. The way I wrote it was, we'll throw off the architectural balance and harmony of the house within its surroundings. Number two, the new door will ruin the communal patio as it opens directly onto the center of this small furnished patio. This furnished patio is part of the common parts and is currently used by all tenants at Five Edgerton Place to sit and enjoy the garden. The new door will certainly affect the current enjoyment of the communal parts for the neighbors as it will render the patio completely useless because it's right smack in the middle of it, the door. Then, right. God, I thought I'd written so much more. I can't believe I'm done. And so the issue of the, one thing is the issue of the architectural character, which we can debate pros and cons. I think it changes the balance. And then the other issue is the, the, the interference with the communal patio, which we all use and sit and enjoy. We have furnished, we have furnished, we have pictures of that. I don't know. We put it in the application, but then didn't appear where we are enjoying the garden and we sit there. And by opening this door, it completely ruins the patio and renders it useless because it's right in the middle of it. And it, in effect, it makes it so that that little small patio becomes a private property of the ground floor flat. And, um, and currently there's five of us in the building and five of us who chipped in. We've used this communal garden furniture to enjoy the garden. And this would disappear because of it. And, um, let me see. And your three minutes is up. Yeah. Yeah. I would, I urge you to look at the photographs that were submitted in the opposition so you can see the layout of the patio. Thank you for listening. And I especially urge you to vote against the proposal. Thank you. Just, just a few, a few seconds. I'm sure we'll have questions. My name is Peter Arbuthnot. Chairman, thank you. Um, without trying to repeat what Victor has just kindly said, my feeling is that this is a wholly unnecessary project. This door we're talking about. Not the internal repairs and amendments he wants to do. This doorway is wholly unnecessary as an existing stairs and steps two and a half meters away, which gives perfectly good access for flat two into the communal gardens and the, from the common parts foyer, which all the rest of us in the building use. This is an overseas owner's absence, uh, who has been in this flat or owned this flat for a year, but hasn't actually been there. None of us, I'm afraid, have yet met him. This is the collected mail that I do. I sort the mail every day, including, I may say, mail from yourselves. I'm so sorry, I do have to stop you because we've got to be strict about three minutes. I'm sure there'll be questions, so. Okay, I must, I must say one or two things. I'm sorry, please, I've made effort to come. Um, this is a vanity project. And despite you having turned this down in December. Please, I think we're well over time now. So I'm sure the committee will have questions and I'm sure you'll have an opportunity. Please ask me questions if you can. Any questions? I should have said earlier that this, this, um, item is actually in my ward, but I haven't discussed it with anyone, so I haven't made my mind. Uh, my question is actually, um, uh, would you like to elaborate why you are not happy with the, uh, plan? It seems to me that the, um, the architect and designer for the client is trying to sort of bamboozle the planning department by implying that cutting into the railings and creating new stairs parallel, two and a half meters away from the existing ones, is not in any way affecting us, the other occupants. Um, he says it's not interfering, whereas it very clearly does interfere and create a loss of amenity for all the rest of us who've been for many years. I've been there since 1971. Um, for many of us, this is the communal patio area where we sit, talk, drink, have cups of tea. My grandchildren play with their soldiers. It's absolutely affecting our loss of amenity. I really do feel this is wrong that a new doorway, when there's an existing one, two and a half meters away, and as Victor quite rightly pointed out, nobody else in this Egerton Place Gardens has two doorways. Everybody has one. Why should this building be allowed a private vanity project doorway? Thank you. Thank you very much. Just really a point of clarification for me. The picture where you have you enjoying your tea or your coffee, um, presumably if the applicant was granted permission to put the door in, they would have to get permission from the freeholder or from the garden committee or whatever to, to, to knock a hole in the railing and come, come through. So if we granted permission, that's not the end of the story, is it? Correct. The Wellcome Trust are the freeholders, and it's quite right in what you say. They may well, of course, themselves turn down, even if you did grant it. Um, I hope you don't, but if you did, they may well reject it later. But we can't be certain of that. Any other questions? I, because I'm going to ask the officers this. I just want to absolutely confirm that there's no other building on this, uh, Crescent that has access to the communal gardens like this. I walked around this morning to double check, triple check, because I know Victor's done it as well. I walked around this morning, um, number two has one doorway, number three has a doorway, number four has a doorway, we have a doorway, number seven, eight has a doorway, and so on. Everybody has one. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. What if a resident applied to have another, a similar door, if they are, let's say, ten metres away, a few buildings from this entrance? Do you have, whoever lives in the basement, do you think it's reasonable to grant the application? I'm so sorry, I apologize, didn't quite understand. So if, if somebody applied who was not that close to the main door, uh, to the garden, there are, let's say, two or three buildings away from this entrance, do you think it's reasonable to grant the application? Um, personally, I don't, actually, I know the geography of the Crescent, having been there so long, I know all those flats well, it would be impossible. Um, we are one of the very few buildings where there is a communal, we're number five, six, we're called five Edgerton Place, but actually we're two buildings that were not together in 1930s, five and six Edgerton Place. We have a big communal foyer and everybody has doors onto the communal parts. Many of the other buildings, two of them are private, whole building, private, top to bottom, therefore they're not likely to be building a second. Um, number four, next door to us, it would be, there's one flat on the ground floor, they couldn't possibly create a second doorway. Number three, where Sanford Henry lives, um, actually his is the only flat that has access. Everybody else has to go round through Yeoman's Row where they get a little fob from the Wellcome Trust to access from Yeoman's Row. Actually, nobody else could do the same sort of thing as being applied for at the moment. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move on to questions from officers. Um, Councillor Idris. Hi. My question is, uh, what's the difference between this application and the one we refused before? Thank you. Um, it's, it's very, very similar, um, except the design detail of the door, um, previously it was for like a two-leaved kind of squat, I'd say, door, um, sitting underneath it. And now it's, it's been designed so it sort of continues the existing window and, and lengthens it. So right, you know, it, it looks more like the existing window with a panel below it rather than replace, than keeping the top part of the window and having a two-leaf door. That's the main change. So refuse, sorry, refuse did the, the first door because of the size or because of the door itself? It was, um, I can actually read the reason for refusal which is probably really helpful because this is going to be your material consideration, very pertinent to this decision. So the introduction of a full-length door disrupts the visual rhythm of the rear elevation, creating an imbalance that would contrast with the more traditional and existing window and door arrangement present within this building. And then it quotes the relevant policies. Thank you. Um, can you just clear up this bit about whether other properties have a similar door from a single flat, not from a communal door from a house? So in Parra 8.2, objection number three, you say that the similar properties have direct access to communal gardens. Well, they, all the properties have access to what we're talking about is whether there's an individual access from an individual flat. And are you saying there are others like this? Or is that not very clear? I think there are others like this in the conservation area. But on Edgerton Place, um, I would absolutely take what the speakers say to be, to be true, if they've said there's no examples. I think what the office is saying here is that there is still a variety at the back of that particular group, just by its very nature of being a crescent and you've got different openings and so on. But I would, I would believe the objectors when they say that there isn't two on a single property. Just, uh, thank you, Madam Chairman, just reflecting on the reasons for refusal for the last application. I mean, looking at the designs, it seems to be, to me, that the same reasons apply here. I mean, the door is very long and it looks like a single entrance. I mean, I'd just like to, if you could perhaps expand on your officer view as to why this door, it might have had minor amendments, but why that wouldn't apply here. I think that, that would be a valid conclusion for members to reach this evening. You, you need to give due weight to that very recent permission. Officers, um, just explained in the report at 6.3 to 6.7, it was, it was looking at the balance and the change in the design that was key for us. So, now it still presents kind of the existing window arrangement with the sill dropped. But, I mean, you would be within your gift to reach the same conclusion as last time. Thank you. And just to explore that point a little bit further, because actually I don't see a massive difference between what's proposed here and what was refused last time. And I have a question about, I mean, this is obviously the back of a building and these are very grand, very, um, special buildings and we should be looking to take care of them and preserve them. And, and particularly because there's a communal garden there, it's to just check my understanding of this. I mean, it's very visible. It's not like the normal back of a building where, you know, perhaps, you know, not as important as what might be happening at the front. This is very, very visible. So, I, I kind of feel that this addition of this door compared to what's there is, it's not architecturally very beautiful. It's definitely not an improvement. Do you think we can add weight to the fact that it's more visible being at the back of the building than would normally have? Uh, yes, it's, um, increases the public views, the number of people that will see it, the contribution it makes to the conservation area and the, you know, it's, it's borderline public, the views at the back there. Um, it's not wholly private because there are so many people that would be able to see it. So, that is a reasonable thing to conclude. Officers have just come to the conclusion that the new design dropping the sill on balance was acceptable. Um, but the photos from the objectors are, are also helpful to demonstrate that. Well, I mean, my feeling is, um, it's definitely not an improvement. I don't think it's massively different from what was previously, which is a material, uh, consideration. We've heard that the views are more public because of the communal garden and the use of it. Um, do we feel ready to move to a conclusion? No. So, the, um, recommendation from officers is to approve the application at Flat 25 Edgerton Place. Can those in favour please show? And can those against? Refused. Let's discuss some refusal reasons. Um, Ms. Ray, help us based on the discussion. Absolutely. I think the same reason for refusal as previous gives you the strongest case, um, because you've applied due weight to the recent, uh, decision. Can we say something about the back of the building being more public than would normally be the case and the contribution to the conservation area because of that? I think that it would be really helpful if that was minuted, um, because if they, the applicant chose to appeal, um, then that would form part of our case when we defend the committee's decision. Okay. Councillor Hargroves. Thank you. Is there any merit in putting, uh, uh, anything in about it spoiling the access to the, the communal garden or is that, that a separate issue really? It, it's, it's, whether it falls into the planning, um, legislation is, is where we've got blurred lines. Um, so I, I wouldn't include that and especially because there was that recent permission. That's the strongest reason before you. So do you have what you, if you could just have a proposal. Oh yes, of course we need that. Who would like to propose? Councillor Idris and, uh, Councillor Hargroves to second. So we're now going to vote on the motion put forward by Councillor Idris to refuse the, um, permission, um, for the reason that Ms. Ray has given us. Can those in favour of that please show? Thank you very much. So those are all in favour. Um, thank you. Um, we will now move on to one canning place. Um, I always forget. Um, yes. When you're ready Ms. Ray please. Thank you very much. Um, again just want to draw members, uh, attention to the addendum report. Um, this application is for a replacement garden room, much larger in size, um, on this listed building in the De Vere Conservation Area. Um, the, uh, image in front of you now is an aerial view of the site. Um, you'll note at paragraph 6.5 of the report, we, we do place a lot of weight on the site and, um, the context around the site. And I think this image is helpful to, to demonstrate what we're, um, saying is a material consideration in the case in relation to the rear of the property. Turning to some more slides. These are the existing site photographs. You can see that the existing building on the right hand side and a view out to the garden from within it. And some existing plans, um, survey drawings of that building. This is the proposed site plan, uh, which shows the footprint of the new building, um, before you this evening. And there's the proposed plans and elevation showing the design and size. The section drawings are also helpful, um, whilst they're not perfectly lined up in terms of their position and size, you can see the existing structure, um, from those images and the proposed just here. Officers are recommending approval of both planning and list of building consent. Um, and we haven't received an objection from our, uh, heritage officers on this one. Thank you. Um, so we will move to our, um, um, we have, um, an objector and, um, the applicant. So we will start with the objector. Mr. Miller, um, thank you very much. You've got, thank you for waiting as well for the previous cases. Um, you've got three minutes whenever you're ready. Thank you. Uh, thank you. Um, I'm the owner of number two Canning Place and I'm speaking on behalf of the occupants and neighbors who wrote in opposition to this large garden structure at one Canning Place. Uh, I'd like to address the responses by the planning officer to the comments by the objectors in section 8.2 of the planning report. First, the scale and mass are completely out of character with this conservation area and not, to quote the report, a discreet addition. The proposed brick building would replace a small wooden reading room, be nearly seven times larger in volume and cover nearly 50% of the garden. This clearly goes against the character of the unbuilt rear gardens on the rest of Canning Place. Previous approvals for garden rooms, for example at number six Canning Place, were limited to much smaller structures covering only about 15% of the garden. A bathroom was not allowed and other conditions were imposed. In addition, when permission was granted for the existing garden room at one Canning Place, there were similar restrictions to size, use and drainage. I draw the committee's attention to plan number 1917-11 in the pack, which shows the current reading room. Uh, it's dashed red, uh, barely discernible by the way on the plan, which gives a sense of the size of this building relative to the existing garden room. Second is the impact on neighbors' light and amenities. Uh, the adjacent house at 1A Canning Place, which is a low-built property, and contrary to what the council's design and conservation team may say, the current occupant is certain that the increased height and mass would block significant amounts of their light from the west, as the building would be nearly 50% higher than the current garden wall. In addition, this new structure will be seen from the houses on number two to Fort Gloucester Road, which will use the, lose the benefit of existing greenery. Third, the environmental impact. The paving over much of the garden, removal of established trees, the replacing of permeable areas increases flood risk to neighbors. Uh, while I suspect the green roof will not last long in the drought that we've had over the last six months. There are also concerns about noise. In addition to the shower and toilet, this yoga room could easily be used as a bedroom or party space, bringing disturbance from amplified music. If approved in current form, this application will set a very dangerous precedent, undermining past decisions to protect gardens in this conservation area. Residents of Canning Place and elsewhere, whose applications for conservatories and house extensions have been rejected, would see this as a green light to build oversized structures into their own gardens. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject this proposal as it stands and impose strict conditions. To limit its size in line with past decisions and restrict its usage to ensure it doesn't become an extra bedroom or party room. Therefore, conditions about noise and amplified music should be included. Uh, lastly, I'd like to thank, uh, Michael Bach. I don't think he's here this evening. Uh, who's Chairman of VARA, who I'm sure you know well, for his help and suggestions in bringing our concerns to the committee. Uh, I know that he and VARA are going to be paying very close attention to the decisions made here today. Thank you. Thank you very much. And now we move to the applicant, um, Mr. Clark. Um, you also have, uh, well, actually just over three minutes, um, whenever you're ready, please. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, chair, councillors, and officers. My name is Adam Clark, and I'm speaking as the agent for the applicant in support of the proposal at One Canning Place for the erection of an enlarged but modest replacement garden room. I would like to begin by thanking officers for their careful assessment of this application, which has been thoughtfully developed and refined in response to feedback throughout the planning process. I would also like to thank the planning officer and conservation officer for making a site visit so that they could fully appreciate the proposals. The scheme before you is a revised proposal that deals with initial objections received and feedback from officers. One Canning Place is a grade two listed building within the De Vere Conservation Area, and we fully acknowledge the significance of its historic and architectural context. From the outset, our design approach has prioritized preserving that character whilst making sensitive and sustainable improvements to the rear garden. The existing timber structure on site is of limited architectural value and is in a state of disrepair. The proposed replacement will use high quality materials, incorporate a green roof, and feature a modest roof lantern. These materials and elements are all in keeping with both the listed building and the wider conservation area. Officers have rightly noted that the structure will be largely concealed by existing high brick boundary walls, and importantly, it will retain more than half of the garden as open space. I would also like to draw members' attention to the significantly larger and more dominant neighbouring outbuilding at number two Canning Place, which is visible from multiple vantage points. In contrast, the proposal before you is smaller in both footprint and massing, and sits discreetly within the garden without imposing upon neighbouring amenity or the character of the area. Officers have confirmed that the design revisions, including the reduced height, repositioning of walling away from the walkway to adjacent property 1A, and inclusion of a green roof, addresses previous concerns and past objections. The proposal now sits comfortably within its surroundings and preserves the setting of the listed building. Neighbouring amenity has also been carefully considered. The design avoids harm to light, outlook or privacy. The arboricultural impact is minimal, and the inclusion of tree replacement and soft landscaping has been secured by condition. Surface water drainage will be improved through green roofing and permeable materials, aligning with the Council's flood resilience policies. In summary, this is a modest, high-quality and policy-compliant proposal that improves the function and appearance of the garden, whilst fully respecting the site's heritage and setting. We hope members will support the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer's recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent. Thank you. Thank you very much. So now we will move to questions. Councillor Whedon-Sands. Thank you, Madam Chairman. A question quickly to the objectives. I note in the report, two things really. I note in the report that the proposals were amended during the course of the application, and it says that the increased boundary wall height along the eastern side adjoining number 1A has been removed. So it's reduced, and it's reduced the overall height. Firstly, you know, are your concerns calmed at all by that? And the second point is to do with flooding and drainage. And there's a condition in there that you might have seen that includes not just the green roof, but landscaping, which includes permeable paving only. And does that reassure you at all in terms of your concerns about flooding? Thank you. I had a long chat with the existing owner of 1A Canning Place yesterday, actually. And he was quite flabbergasted that the fact that the immediate garden wall was not going to be increased, that would not affect the impact of a much higher structure, which is basically 50% higher than the current garden wall. So it will still have material impact on his light, even though that wall has been removed. To your point on the drainage, the original application for the garden house in 2019 stipulated that there would be a very large water butt of up to 250 liters to take the water off the small roof in the existing structure. I don't see how basically a green roof, I don't know where the water is going to go if there's no rain for six months, while most of the water will have to go somewhere. I believe on the plans it's going to go into the drains and not into the garden as such. So that water's got to go somewhere. And I don't want it going into my house. Thank you. Councillor Idris. Thank you, Chair. My question is to the applicant. Can you walk us through how you're going to mitigate flooding and alleviate the gentleman's fears? And also, I'll ask the next question afterwards. Yes, certainly. So, yes, the flood resilience is that there is a green roof and there is also water butts to collect the water. As well as this, there is a rain garden, which is essentially an area of deep planting. We've commissioned a full flood risk assessment report that details all of the measures in there. And we are bound by condition to comply with that. So we're not discharging into drains. And I understand you are removing a tree and replacing it. How many trees are you removing? One only or two? Yeah, there's one tree to be removed and we're proposing further planting to mitigate that. And again, that's bound by condition for a full landscaping pre-commencement condition. Is it going to be replaced like for like or is it not? Yeah, I think the species is up for final sign off by the landscape officer. Okay. And can I request you actually include pollinators in your planting? Yeah, absolutely. There's a full landscape design been included in the initial application anyway. But that has been conditioned to give further detail. But yeah, the applicant is committed to doing that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Again, to the applicant, please, on the green roof. You described this as a large but modest building. I'm not quite sure how it's both. But anyway, the roof garden clearly is crucial to the whole drainage. How are you going to maintain that? And how is it going to be irrigated? Because green roofs are notorious for lasting a couple of years. People lose interest and they die. But this can't die because it's crucial to the whole drainage of this building. So how is it going to be maintained? Yeah. So the green roof will be a type of seed and planting. So it shouldn't need constant irrigation or constantly feeding. It's pretty much self-sufficient. But the green roof was actually something that was added on as one of the revisions because it was originally drawn as a lead roof. But we suggested that because we thought it would be a better solution, help drainage and also be a better outlook from the properties beyond. I have a question to the objector. So perhaps it would be helpful to put the aerial picture up. I just wanted to ask about what's happening next door. And, you know, we have to think about the setting of this, the listed building, the setting of this much larger garden room, given the fact that it's a listed building. But I think it is relevant that there is something quite large next door. And I just wanted to, it's very hard to see it on the picture. Sorry. It's very hard to see what's there because of the greenery. But on the plan, it does seem to be quite a big structure. So I think, could you just describe to us what is there? Absolutely. So that building was built in 1860, between 1860 and 1862. It is on the London plans of 1862. It was built as an artist studio. And it was subsequently turned into our kitchen, I believe, about 25 years ago. It's actually quite an important building. I don't know if any of you have heard of F. W. Pomeroy. He's the architect who did Lady Justice on top of the Royal Courts of Justice. That was actually done in that studio. So I don't think the applicant can point to a very historic old building from 1860 to basically as a segue into putting a very large structure into his own garden. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we'll move on to questions from Ms. Ray, who is our officer team tonight. Sorry to keep asking you questions. But actually, just to follow on from that. And we do have to think about the listed building and whether something like this is appropriate. And we've heard some numbers being given to us six, seven times larger than it currently is, 50 percent higher. I mean, it does eat up a lot of that green space that is in the back of this house. And I think it is important to understand what's next door. But I think, you know, the explanation I found helpful because, you know, are we going to allow the whole row of these houses to have developments, 50 percent of their garden? And I would just add that, I mean, it is a listed building, but just in general, I mean, residents are not keen on these things. I get lots of complaints about them. They're ugly, even with the green roof. You know, we've got such limited green space in our borough and in this area. I think we should be working quite hard to preserve it. So just give me one second, Councillor Idris. I just wanted to put that to you, Ms. Ray, like it talks about it being a discrete addition, but seven times and 50 percent higher. It doesn't sound that discrete to me, particularly in a listed building context. We've definitely concluded it's discrete within its context. So the critical thing here is if this was a property further down Canning Place or elsewhere in the borough, I mean, it may well look oversized because it's got a very large footprint in relation to the house. But when you look at this particular slide, you must take into account the material planning considerations. And within this context, you've got a different built form to others. So when the aerial view that we've asked to have back up on the screen is really helpful. And that is a historic studio building. That's correct. It's had alterations over the years, but minor things that it was there. But that does create a, you know, a solid enclosed boundary on one side. And on the other side, you've got properties on Gloucester Road. You've got 1A. It's the way it's clustered down that particular part of the street is why at 6.5. We've said those site circumstances mean that a building of this size is okay in context. I don't think we can say it's discrete. I mean, I think we might be able to say it's in the context of buildings around it, but it's not discrete really, is it? My view would be it is in that context, purely because it's lower than the buildings, all the buildings adjacent. It does retain some space and sense of gap, which is a key part of the local plan policies. So in that particular site circumstances, I'd be comfortable that the word discrete is appropriate. In many others, it wouldn't be because of its footprint. But the footprint, the scale, the massing and the height is all linked to where it is and whether it's appropriate. So we think it preserves the conservation area and the setting of that building. And just to understand about permitted development, I know that wouldn't apply here because of the listed building status, but what would normally be allowed under permitted development in a garden? I believe it's 50%. If you're referring to Class E, which is part of the general permitted development order that lets people do things without permission. But yeah, you're absolutely right, Councillor, that it wouldn't apply here because it's a listed building. Okay, thank you. Can we just look at the comment about light to 1A? I sense from what was being said that that was sort of hearsay and an assumption without any specific measurement. Have we got any measurement on that? And what is it if we have? I think that's a really good question because 1A is in close proximity and the officer has had a change to the drawings to respond to that context. And probably the most helpful drawing in your pack is the north elevation that shows just how we've got a small set off and then the boundary wall. So, I mean, there would be a change, but then it's within the context of buildings around it as well and the outlook would be, you know, the backdrop of other developments. So again, we are comfortable with that relationship in that particular setting given the existing boundary walls. But it would be higher, but we don't think it would be harmful. Potential use of that building, that isn't anything we can look at in relation to the planning application, is it? I mean, you could add a condition that the use must be incidental to the main property. That would be reasonable. That would be reasonable. So then they couldn't use it as a separate building or a self-contained unit or something like that. I was listening carefully to the objectives and I understand the concerns about, you know, the yoga space could have amplified music and so on. But it's a residential property, so we wouldn't be able to prohibit those kind of things. It would be difficult to, you know, enforce and say that that was reasonable and necessary and just turning back to those planning tests. So an incidental to the main house condition could help with the use issue. Just a smattering of points, really. Firstly, I thought it was interesting that you said actually it might not be acceptable further down Canning Place. But I guess my view would be, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. At this point, it's far more visible to all those properties along the Gloucester Road. You know, all those houses and all those windows will look down onto it and can see it in a way that actually if it was, you know, further down the road, I think it might actually be more hidden away. So I just thought that was an interesting interpretation. I mean, I have several issues that I think have been raised by Councillor Hargroves and others in their questions. There are scenarios here that I think make me feel rather uncomfortable, such as, you know, if it's bought by somebody who is overseas and the roof isn't maintained, what powers do we have to ensure if that green roof is key to preventing flooding that that is maintained? You know, you've got the roof is glass, is that right? There's a sort of a glass opening, I mean, concerns again, because you've got all those windows looking down to it. In terms of the use, light pollution, if that was turned into a party room and, you know, there was a disco ball and all sorts of things and you had strobe lighting there and all those windows are being disturbed at night. I mean, what sort of, how can that sort of be prevented? There are a few, you know, I mean, just other than the mass, I mean, I think it's really too large for the site and, you know, I have concerns about the size and bulk, but in terms of actually the practical uses and the impact it could have on the neighbours, I guess my reading into it is almost the opposite of offices. I think I take all your points. The one thing I'd mention about the roof being maintained, we could add a condition on that, that would be reasonable. With regard to light pollution, we haven't raised a concern, but I take your point and I don't think there's a question there. It was just, yeah. But is there anything that could be done? I mean, you know, we hear about noise complaints. I mean, I've had, this is in my ward, I have had noise complaints, lighting complaints, for example, about the hoarding on a building just around the corner from here that's gone up and has been lit up with advertising. You could get similar issues with lighting. I mean, is there anything that could mitigate against that? I think you have, the properties on Gloucester Road, I think, would be far enough away to not feel the effects of that roof light. In terms of the windows that directly face it and would see it, it would probably be the adjacent neighbour at number two that would get the best view of it. But in the context of the roof lights that are on the existing studio building and on the properties behind, again, I don't think that would be so unreasonable. If they left the light on it, it's going to be domestic lighting. I wouldn't expect strobe lighting, and I don't think we could condition it, but I do take the point. But I don't think we could refuse permission on that basis. Just a general observation, just looking at that proposed site plan, that roof window is really quite large. When you look at it, assuming that is to scale, that's quite large. Observation of question there, isn't it? It looks large for the area that it is, and therefore that would have an effect on light. Yeah, I think it's helpful seeing those drawings in the back. You can see it in relation to the size of the overall building, and the upstand is shown on the south elevation as well. But that's, I mean, that's your planning judgment. We don't have any concerns about that, but it's your planning judgment. Okay, colleagues, and I think we have to start moving to, oh, Councillor Winters. Very quickly, if I may, Madam Chairman, with your leave, the objectors mentioned a number of conditions that they wanted. I mean, I think, I'll be honest, I'm leaning towards voting against. But, Mrs. Ray, if you could perhaps touch on some of the conditions that were requested by the objectors, so that if it's approved, what are the things that they were requesting, things that can be included? I think the things I've kind of noted down as being reasonable conditions, you could add, would be that condition about the incidental to the main property use, a condition about the sedum roof and maintenance. We could secure details of that, just so that we can understand and subsequently enforce if it wasn't looked after down the line. I was also thinking details of the SUDS measures. We could secure that. So, we do have some information within the submission, and we have the condition around porous materials. But if that was a particular concern, it would be reasonable to do that. And also, I've noted down details of pollinators. We could add that within the landscaping. So, they're the four things I think we could safely secure, and they would meet the tests. Okay, colleagues, well, I think we have to start moving towards a decision. I mean, it's a very, very tight site. This is a listed building. I mean, these are beautiful, these buildings. It's a very, very nice terrace. I think what we've heard is because of what's next door, it's a more unusual site. And given the context, you know, a building of this size would probably be okay, but I think it's quite large. I think it's too large, personally. I've had these before, actually, in my ward, in listed buildings. And there is a mix of inspector reports. It is all to do with the context of the listed buildings. So, it's a very subjective decision. But this structure is quite close to this listed building. So, anyway, that's my thoughts. Any other thoughts, or shall we move to a vote? Just very quickly, Madam Chairman, I mean, I completely agree with everything you've said. I tend to take the view that, you know, an 1880s building can't be, you know, we would not grant permission for every house on this road to have the size of the artist studio that's next door. So, my personal view is that that shouldn't be used as something in a way that, if it were in a more modern extension, it would be. I share your concerns. I think, to be honest, in my view, also, the proposals are too large. And for that, I'm going to vote against. Okay. So, colleagues, the application is recommended for approval. Can those in favour please show? And those against? So, reasons for refusal, Ms. Ray, please help us. I think, from your discussion, I would say it would be to do with the building's height, scale and footprint, failing to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and setting of the listed building and group. I think that would be the summary. We would delegate the final wording to us, but I think that probably applies to both the planning and adjusted for the listed building. Is there something that, and we talked a little bit about impact on living conditions and this kind of rather large roof light and how tight it is with 1A. Is there something you feel we could put in about impact on living conditions, given how enclosed this space is? If that's the conclusion you reach, you could propose a second reason for refusal on light pollution in relation to the roof light. It's also the size of the structure, because it's going to be much taller than what's there, and that does impact on 1A. So, yeah, it is more difficult to argue because of the relation, so I would recommend having it as one reason for refusal, so talking about living conditions in relation to the proximity and height and the addition of the roof light, rather than having two separate ones that would be more difficult to argue. But you feel we could include it? Yes, I mean, if that's the conclusion you've reached. So, the motion proposed by Councillor Whedon-Stands is to refuse planning permission on the basis of the two reasons that we've provided. Can those in favour please show? Thank you very much. So, that is refused. And we need a list of building. Thank you, Ms. Fari. I always forget. So, let's move to the list of building consent, which is... Here we are. And for that one, it would not include the reason on living conditions. It would purely be on the impact of the list of building. Okay. So, the recommendation of the list of building consent at one canning place is to approve the application. Can those in favour please show? And those against? So, that's also refused. So, we need a motion to refuse the listed building consent for the reason that's been given, the one reason that's been given by Ms. Ray. Councillor Whedon-Stands and Councillor Idris to second. So, the motion is to refuse a list of building consent at one canning place. With that one reason, can those in favour please show? So, that is refused. Thank you. Do you have a chart for us, Ms. Ray? No, if you could remove the presentation, that would be brilliant. Yeah. Yeah, take it off. Thank you. We have no speakers for this case. Will you show us a chart or shall we... Yeah, we don't have any presentations for you for the speaker cases this evening. I just wanted to mention one thing on Dawson Place which is related to the submissions you would have seen. So, security seems to be a real concern by objectors. And whilst this can be a material planning consideration, given the sort of size and position, we've given limited weight to that in our assessment and we do think the proposal is acceptable. So, draw members' attention to the addendum report, including an additional objection, but we are recommending approval. Thank you. Just a question on that. Would security be a planning consideration? Yes, it can be. It's just how much weight you would attach to it. So, for this application, it's a small ancillary structure attached to the building and we don't think that presents serious or significant security issues. So, we've attached limited weight to that. Yes, thank you, Michelle. Yeah, just this is definitely a shed and cannot be converted into a room at some future stage because it seems all connected in it. A shed you normally imagine is completely standalone. This doesn't appear to be that or am I reading the plans wrong? It appears to be being used as a shed and it's that kind of structure, but we wouldn't prohibit its use as a room. People use, I mean, sheds as offices and all sorts. It would have to remain in residential use ancillary to that property, though, but we can't insist that it's for storage of garden tools. They could use it in any way they want. You mean they could attach it to the rest of the house? I mean, given the nature of the structure, I think it would be difficult, but they could, yes. They could demolish the walls around it and incorporate it into their property without permission. They'd probably need building control, sign off for that, but the internal changes to facilitate that wouldn't need planning permission. And I think officers, if this was before them as another room, I'm not sure we would have an objection to that in principle. That's because of the setting and the, it's very discreet, you can't really see it, and it's very small. Is that? That's our view. It's adjacent to the boundary wall that has a trellis above. It's set back from the rear face of the building. It's unfortunate it was done without planning permission. That's always very unfortunate. Yeah. Okay, councillor Idris. I'm not sure if I've read somewhere if it has an officer visited and confirmed that it is just being used as a shed and not potentially something else. Yeah. An officer has visited the site. I'm not sure if they've actually been inside the structure, but it appears as such. So it looks like boarded with like a white material and a, it doesn't have like a glazed door allowing light into it. So it doesn't look habitable, but I mean they could have something in there that isn't a shed, affiliated with a shed. Okay, I think we can move to a decision on this. I mean it is very discreet. You can't really see it unless you're looking at it from the top floor and it's quite these things without permission. But are we ready to take a vote? So the recommendation is to approve the planning application at Flat 1A 17 Dawson Place. Can those in favour please show? Thank you. So that one is approved. Thank you. Oh, next it's me. I'm going to leave now. So we're looking at the application for 19 Camden Grove. Who would like to present this? Fiona, who would like? You. Thank you. So this application doesn't have a presentation. We have no speakers. It's before you this evening because Councillor Huss-Siren is the applicant. The application is for discreet air conditioning in the butterfly roof and officers have no concerns with the proposal subject to conditions. And we've received a noise report demonstrating that the noise levels would be acceptable in all respects. So officers are recommending approval. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions, the officers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, we've dealt with hundreds of cases of IEC installation and the rules are basic, so we know what are the conditions and regulations. And I don't see any harm in approving this application. Thank you very much. Okay, in that case, then, I think we can move to a vote. And it's recommended that the committee grant planning permission with the conditions listed. With those in favour, please raise their hands. Anybody against? Any abstentions? That's carried. Thank you. Thank you. So the next application is at 6 Hesketh Place. No presentation as there are no speakers, but this application is before you because the RBKC are the applicants. And you'd see in the submissions the discrete placing of grills within kitchen areas. We're recommending approval. Thank you. I mean, this is obviously part of our continuous plan to upgrade and improve our social housing. I think we can probably move to a vote. So the recommendation is to approve the application at 6 Hesketh Place. Can those in favour please show? Thank you. So that one is... And now we move on to 500 Kings Road. This is an advertising... Thank you. Just draw members' attention to the addendum report. And then we don't have a presentation for this case. It's for a temporary advert fixed to a shroud. Happy to answer any questions. So I have a question about this one, which is that this is an extension of time on an existing permission because the building work is taking longer. I guess it makes me feel a little uncomfortable because obviously this could go on indefinitely. This is an expensive piece of advertising. It might actually be more cost effective to leave the advertising there and not finish the building. What's the planning position on how long this can be there? If we were to grant, can we put some kind of stop date for it? How does that work? Good question. We've got condition six on there that limits the time period for eight months. So we think that is a reasonable time frame based on their submissions to complete the works, remove the shroud and take the advert away. But it would be helpful for officers to take note and for it to be minuted in our files. The committee are concerned about ongoing advertising at the site, given the history. So it would be great if that could be noted. And I guess, well, I mean, what if they come back in eight months and want the same thing again? What happens then? It would have to be considered again afresh and we'd have to consider whether it's appropriate. We may probe more about, you know, what is the delay, what's going on and so on, and whether this is prompting action or not. So that is a valid question and something we would have to explore. But it's at the moment not unreasonable, we think, to have those additional eight months. Councillor Hawkins. But just to, is there anything we can put in granting it that deters or prevents it just coming back for another few months and then come back for another few months? Because this can be a tactic, can't it, just to continue something that's supposed to be temporary? We could probably add an informative, actually, to say the applicant is advised that the committee raised concerned about the length of period. We can delegate, we can delegate the wording to officers, but an informative could be added just to highlight it more than anything else. Informatives, what weight do they carry? I mean, I'm always concerned, it's either a condition or it's not a condition. When is an informative, not a condition, etc.? They're not conditions, but the condition we have is on the eight months, so that is fixed and binding and enforceable. The informative is more just to flag, if this comes around again, we may have concerns about it. But, yeah, I think that's what I would recommend. I wouldn't recommend refusing now, because we haven't got any evidence to the contrary that it's not, you know, for reasons that it's delayed. But it might be just prompt the applicant, if, you know, it is delayed, and they really do need some more time, they need to put a case together for it to convince the committee next time around. But don't we know if they're delayed, for instance, if they come back again, and there is no work that needs to be done, then we will find out? I mean, we also have ongoing monitoring as part of our planning enforcement. We do a proactive monitoring of adverts that are up with shrouds, and we do look at them regularly. But, yeah, it's going to need permission again if they do extend beyond eight months, so you would see it again if so. Just because there's an interesting discussion here, if they did come back and they wanted another extension, bearing in mind that it's already been approved for this site, this use, could we refuse it on a time extension? I think you could, because then you're saying that there's harm to visual amenity, because it's been going on for so long. So there's a justified period, you can say, well, it's temporary, so we can live with the harm that it's causing. But if it's becoming something that isn't temporary, by virtue of these constant extensions, it would be reasonable to refuse. Permanent, yeah, absolutely. We would never grant a permanent permission for it. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's a really interesting point, because I remember being on these committees before where we've looked at advertising, and because the previous lead member for planning wasn't a fan, and they were approved, because the advice we were given was there were no reasons for rejecting it. So it's interesting that you're now saying that actually there is justifiable grounds there for a future committee to do it. And my question, I guess my second point to that is, have you rejected any other shrouding? I don't know of any that have come back for an unreasonable amount. I have had others come back for a second time, because it's delayed and extended, but I haven't had one that's sort of ongoing and constant, that I'm aware of. But, I mean, the reasons for refusal, I think it would be unreasonable to refuse an advert of an appropriate size on a shroud for a temporary period in certain contexts. There are some where it would be, and you don't see them at committee because they are refused delegated. But for this application, if they came back another time, I think it would be reasonable to say, well, hold on a second, what are these delays? Why is it ongoing? And, you know, what's happening? So that would be reasonable. But for this one, an additional eight months. Just to add on that, my memory is obviously helping me, but there is one example, which is 186 Holland Park Avenue. It's quite unique. It's a listed building. It's the one on the roundabout. And works have been ongoing for a very long time with the shroud advert. But, yeah, so we've had umpteen applications for that site, and we have been, I don't know what the current status of it is, but I know last time we, I think we did refuse it, and we were expecting it was just an advert, and nothing was going on behind it. So I think there is a difference between the adverts applications that we get where they're permanent adverts, A boards, things like that, the large boards that you get. We tend to take a very firm line on those. With the shrouds that are temporary, they're usually a part and parcel of a building site. They can add some interest rather than just construction hoarding. And sometimes they can help fund a development coming forward, and obviously that's not a bad thing, that investment in our borough. So there's a key difference, but I think there'll come a point where if you get repeat applications, we will start to challenge the justification for it, particularly if it's linked to ongoing construction works that don't seem to be going anywhere. And do you know exactly, do you have a rough idea of where that point would be? Because, I mean, I think that's absolutely the concern, right? The concern that I think members and some residents have. I mean, I think we all know, I think it's just outside the borough. But on Knightsbridge, the corner of Knightsbridge, as you come down to Harrods, you've got shrouding there that has been up for years and years and years. And I assume that makes more money than, you know, most people make in their lifetimes, just from a few months of advertising there. So it'd be really good, I think, for the committee, and even perhaps it might be something for us to be briefed on at the next planning training, is what point does that become unacceptable? Where are you drawing that line? Because I think there is more concern. And just separately, on this point in particular, are the hours of illumination, are they the normal hours that we impose? Because I just had a look at that, and it's obviously from midnight to six in the morning. And that seems, you know, quite a late stop, an early start for illuminating to happen. I was wondering if that could be maybe expanded slightly. Yeah, that's what we approved previously. Those were the hours, so it's carried over to this application, and within that setting, we're comfortable with it. With other shrouds, it may well be that they're limited more than 12 to 6. This is on the King's Road, so that would be why they'd have those extended hours. But somewhere more sensitive might have shorter hours. I think it's on a case-by-case basis. So if we know that the construction works, the works that are being undertaken, because we have a rough estimate as to how long things take. We've been doing it a long time. So, you know, if it's relatively minor works, and they haven't progressed, you know, in a couple of years, I think it's fair to start challenging that. Obviously, quite large developments you had, and I'm not sure if you mean this site, but it's the K1 site, which was the Knightsbridge, but it might be a different one. That went on for about four years, and they did have shrouding and an advert, and they'd come in for that, and I think that's a reasonable time. Yes, it's quite long. You could argue it's not temporary, but construction was moving at pace. So I think it's just a case-by-case basis that we just see how it is. We can't stop people coming back in to renew. You kind of get used to them, don't you? Yes. And I think with this one, because they've come in to say there have been unforeseen circumstances that have delayed, then in eight months' time we'll be saying, well, what's happened then? Because you recognised that eight months ago, so what hasn't happened that you thought would? It's really interesting. Okay, well, I guess we'd better move to a vote on this one. And so the recommendation is to approve the Weave Banner Mesh advert at 500 Kings Road. Can those in favour please show? Sorry, Chair. Sorry, can I just, you were going to add an informative, yes? Are you happy for that informative, the wording of it, to be delegated to offices? Yes, yes. About the concern about the ongoing time? Yes, thank you. So moving back to the vote, the recommendation is to approve. Can those in favour please show? So that one is approved. And that is the... I'm so sorry, I didn't see. Can those against please show? So four in favour and one against, so the application is approved. And that is the final case on our list, so I will therefore close the meeting at four minutes past eight. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.