Transcript

[ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] Can you hear me?

Yes. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this meeting of the Plan's Committee being held on Thursday 21st of March 2024 at Trauma Borough Council. My name is Councillor Sandra Forrest and I am chairing the meeting this evening. Please could I ask everyone present to turn off your mobile phone or switch it to silent to ensure the meeting is distraction free and will you do that now, please. May I remind all those present that this meeting is being live streamed to the Council's YouTube channel and that by attending the meeting you are giving your consent to being filmed and notice with further information has been provided in the public gallery. Under the openness of local government bodies regulations people may also feel more record this meeting and this is outside the Council's control. The Committee, we have received three late requests to speak. One, Ms Kay Carpenter, agent on behalf of the applicant in respect to planning application, P stroke 23, stroke 0271, stroke 2, land adjacent to one London lane wines world. Two, Ms Leona White Simmons on behalf of the applicant in respect of planning application, P stroke 24, stroke 1931, stroke 2, 10, poly and the square, East Coast Court. Three, Mr Raphael Russo applicant in respect of planning application, P stroke 23, stroke 2, 050, stroke 2, 14 to 18 Luffborough Road Mount Sorrel. Committee, are you happy to agree to these late requests to speak, please. Agreed. No one again. Thank you. All right. Speakers will be called forward at the appropriate times and will have three minutes to speak. When one minute of time is remaining they will be advised by the Democratic Services Officer, Ms Dobson, who is sitting here. Ms Dobson, do we have any apologies, please. Yes, we've had apologies from Councillor O'Neill and Councillor Infield will be substitute and also Councillor Lough has sent apologies and Councillor BOCA will be substitute. Thank you. Item two, minutes of previous meetings. Is the committee happy to confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on the 22nd of February 2024? Agreed. Any against? Thank you. The minutes of the previous meeting have been confirmed as a correct record and I will sign them at the end of the meeting. Item three, questions under committee procedure 12.8. Mr Dobson, have we received any questions, please. I confirm a question on notice under committee procedure 12.8 has been received from Mr Max Hunt regarding the estate plan for the Gowndon Park Zoo and associated matters. The question and response was published in the extras report dated 20th of March 2024. Mr Hunt, do you want to come forward to the microphone? Please. Now Mr Hunt, I need to ask you if you would like to read out the question that you submitted or to take the question and response as you have received as read. Thank you, can you hear me again? The question that I sent in, the supplementary question I sent in is rather too long to read out, but I don't have a copy in front of me either. But I do have another, well, I can summarize the question. I think that might be more helpful. Well, you may make one supplementary question or make a statement which must be relevant to and to rise directly out of the original question or reply. But you have another supplementary question to ask. No, I'm fine with one. I'll just summarize it if you don't mind. Would you like to ask how would you like to proceed, Mr Hunt? Well, it's a supplementary question to the question and answer eight given. And it concerns the monuments, which are due for restoration, according to the S106 agreement, four of them should have been completed by now, and the other six are due for completion by the end of this year, according to the trajectory of building in the monitoring report. It seems to me that none of them will be done. Mr Bennett, are you able to respond to that, please? Thank you, Jay. Yes, I'll do my best. I believe that Councillor Hunt had sent in a supplementary question prior to the meeting. Officers have had a chance to look at that and provide a written response to him. But just for the purposes of the committee, I'll try and summarize what that response said. So in relation to the monuments that have been alluded to by Councillor Hunt, the trigger points in relation to payment of contributions for the Hudden Library, the police, trouble packs, and relating to delivery, the first primary school had been met. However, limited progress has been made in relation to the restoration of the heritage assets, which is the point that Councillor Hunt is raising, with only the obelisk, which requires works to be undertaken prior to the 40th occupation having listed building consent. And it is understood that the works to replace to the asset is to be undertaken in spring 2024. So further works to the heritage assets are required by the 100th occupation and no submissions have yet been made in relation to those assets. So there is quite a lot of detail around the individual assets that have been alluded to by Councillor Hunt, which I can go through if the committee would like me to. But I think, and I'm looking to Councillor Hunt here, if he's happy to have the response that was sent to him circulated to the committee members and perhaps attached with the minute to record that information, would that be satisfactory? Thank you for coming. Thank you for coming, Councillor Hunt. Thank you. Would you excuse me? Thank you. Thank you, committee. So item four, disclosures of pecuniary and personal interest. Ms Dobson, have we received any disclosures of interest, please? I can confirm I've received a non-registration disclosure of interest from your self-cancer forest in respect of planning application P232050/2/14-18 Luftboro Road Mount Sorrel. You've said that you know the applicant from work in your ward, but come to the meeting with an open mind. I've also received two non-registurable disclosures of interest from Councillor Fryer in respect of planning application P23/1931/2, 10 Poliantha Square East Guskert, and also P23/2058/2-18 Barrow Road Silbii. She said that she's a chair of the children and families overview and scrutiny committee at Leicestershire County Council, but comes to the meeting with an open mind. Right, I have another, a number of other Councillors. I have Councillor Snort, Councillor Lawrence and Councillor Boca. I will take Councillor Snort, Lawrence and Councillor Boca. Councillor Snort, please. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I've got a personal interest there. This is on item B, which is P231931/2. I know the object and the parish council member who are known to me. I haven't discussed this application with them. I have an open mind and I will continue with the application. Thank you, Chair. In relation to item C, P232058/2. I've got a non-regidable interest in that application as much as I'm the ward councillor and I have called it in to the Lishplants Committee. Thank you. P2301/712. I am the ward councillor, but I come here with an open mind and I have not called it. Thank you. Before we move on, are there any other declarations of interest? Councillor interjecting. I do apologise. Councillor Lawrence, could you just confirm that you're here with an open mind as well, please? Councillor interjecting. Oh, you're stumbling back. Councillor interjecting. Right, we come to the planning applications this evening and our first planning application is item 5A, number P, stroke 23, stroke 2701 stroke 2, land adjacent to one, London lane, Wimes mould. I believe that you are presenting this, Ms Lickens, when you're ready, please. Thank you, Chair. Before we start, I'd just like to point members to the extras report which relates to the index on page 2 of the agenda and corrects the application number to P230271 stroke 2. This application relates to land adjacent to number 1, London lane, which was originally cursed land to that dwelling, which is now in separate ownership. The land is located to the southwest of the village, and the map to the left of the slide also shows the red dotted line showing the limits to development for Wimes or orders expressed in the borough of Charmwood local plan. You can see that the application land lies just outside but on the edge of the built development of the village. The map on the right shows the existing limits to development for the village but in blue and the proposed limits to development in red as would operate in the emerging local plan. The limits to development therefore remain unchanged as insofar as the application site is concerned. This shows the trees which are covered by the tree preservation order, which was confirmed in February this year. Treaty 1 is a mature ash, the group G1 includes dogwood, hornbeam, ashfield maple, sycamore and lime trees and the woodland group includes ash, poplar and sycamore with a black thorn and hawthorn understory. This is an aerial photograph of the site and you can see the tree banks of the river mantle on the northern site boundary. Trees to the western and southern boundaries are subject to the TPO and the existing tennis courts along the Houghton Road frontage. The existing vehicle access is just to the east of the tennis court as we saw on site this afternoon and the proposed offer consideration now includes the improvement and widening of the access point by one metre to five metres wide to serve for new development. This slide shows photographs of the site taken in August last year. The top left is of the existing vehicle access. The top middle shows the views into the site through the trees along Houghton Road and shows the tennis court surface. The top right picture shows the site boundaries to the southwestern corner and demonstrates that views out of them and into the site at this point are very limited. The bottom left photo is of the existing tennis court and shows the dense tree screening along Houghton Road. The bottom middle photo is looking towards the rhythm mantle and the bottom right is looking east towards number one and a lane. Although not for consideration now, the applicant has supplied an indicative layout plan which shows how dwellings might be arranged within the application site. However, any future of reserved matters application may propose a different layout or fewer dwellings than three. You can, however, see that the existing trees and screening are to be retained and fall within the blue area of land retained by the applicant and not forming part of the application site. The plan does, however, show the alterations to the access to include a 2.4 metre by 215 metre visibility splay to the west and a 2.4 by 85 metre visibility splay to the east and a widening of the access from 4 metres to the requirements of the local highway authority. Again, the applicant has provided indicative designs which show what the dwellings might look like, but these are not for consideration now matters of design and appearance would be considered with the reserved matters stage. So these are the key considerations relevant to the determination of the application and each one is addressed in detail in your agenda reports. To conclude, it's considered that although there is conflict with the limits to development policies which seek to contain development, policy ST2 can now only be afforded limited weight. The weightings to be given to the other relevant policies, most important for the determination of the application are set out on the agenda report. It's considered that the proposal would assist in meeting a council's five-year housing land requirement and that visual and residential amenity and the highway impacts of the scheme would be acceptable. So for the reasons set out in the officer report, it's recommended permission is granted in accordance with the conditions set out there. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Ms Liggins. We now have Ms Kay Carpenter on behalf of the applicant. Ms Carpenter, you have three minutes to speak. Ms Dobson will tell you when you've done two minutes and you've got one minute to go. Okay. Thank you. When you're ready. Good afternoon Members. Sorry. I speak on behalf of the applicant in support of this outline application for three dwellings in Wiveswald. We've worked closely with your officers over the past year to achieve a sensitive scheme that respects the edge of village location and ensures existing vegetation is protected. The development uses a large garden area and has one plot on the hard surface tennis court. There would be two family homes and a bungalow. The applicant proposes to live in one of the properties. We have completed a speed survey in raid safety audit satisfying the highway authority that the access is acceptable. Through discussions with your ecologist, we have amended the layout to give greater protection to the trees and the wildlife. The round of trees now have a tree protection order which the applicant supports. In addition to on-site landscaping, biodiversity net gain will be secured off-site. And the officers report clearly demonstrates that the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development is engaged. The site abuts a sustainable village. It's well screened and delivers high quality residential development at a low density appropriate to its location. The parish council raises no objections and there are no statutory objections either. It is concluded that no significant or demonstrable harm would arise that outweighs the benefits of delivering housing on this site. I would therefore urge you to follow the recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you say, Councillors, does anybody have any comments, questions to make, please? Councillor from the players. Excuse me, thank you, Madam Chair. I worked on the site this afternoon and I see no problem with this application. Therefore, I propose we accept the officers' recommendation. Councillor Bocop, please. Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI, please. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just go to page 22, which is the, he talks about the housing mix and in 9.2.3 and the application is outlined only with the matters proposed house type size and design, reserve for future approval. Therefore, when I turn to the recommendation to, should we not put housing mix in there as well? I think I know it's got scale in there, but it would be good, I think, to have housing mix there as well. If the officers could just give me some information whether that's appropriate. Thank you, Councillor SRI. Would you like to respond, Miss, if I can split? The reason that it wasn't included was because it's a very small site and it's up to three, so the reserve matters might just relate to one dwelling where it would be difficult to show the housing mix on across the site, but we do have a standard condition relating to housing mix if you were to propose that we include that. I'm happy for that to be included in addition to the conditions set out already. It's been proposed, Madam Chair, and so if that's appropriate for the proposal, I would like that to be added to the recommendation. Thank you. Councillor SRI, you've proposed Councillor BUCKER, you've seconded, are you happy to have that amendment in the conditions, please? Having been on site this afternoon, and it is a small site, and there are three family houses that are required up to three, so it might only be two, but I'm not quite sure how we could do a housing mix that would not look in Congress on the site. So it's up to if it's really necessary, I suppose I would, but I wouldn't like having seen the rough design if we could go back to that suggested plan that it may be cited. I think how would we make a housing mix, but if that's the request of the committee, then I suppose I'll have to abide by it. Let me come to you now, please, Councillor BUCKER, please. Madam Chair, I don't agree with pushing in housing mix, because there's been quite large amendments to houses on the street seat, and therefore it would be out of character. So the family home should go ahead. Thank you. All right, Councillor Start, so that's, we've got a proposal in a second, or obviously your recommendation to add the housing mix hasn't been agreed by them. So it's, are you happy to, I mean, obviously we can take, that's the first motion on the table anyway, and that's what we'll take, so there's no further Councillor Start, can you? Yeah, so that's been lost, so, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Councillor Lawrence, please. Thank you, Chair. I mean, having been on site visit this afternoon, I've, you know, it's home to me that the river mantle is actually quite a substantial water course, and there has been one neighbor comment about the risk of flooding. I just wanted to ask the officer, I appreciate that, you know, we were only looking at the moment of an indicative site plan, so we're not making a decision on how the, where the houses were actually cited, but I did note from the indicative plan that the officers showed us this afternoon on site visit that, you know, the indicative house of the nearest to the river was right by the boundary of flood zone one to two, so it was in flood zone one but adjacent to the boundary of flood zone two, I just wondered whether the officer could just clarify or confirm that the environmental agency would be consulted again on the actual final site plan that comes to the next stage, assuming it's approved, of course. Please. Thank you. Yes. The application site area throughout the course of the consideration of the application has been reduced, so the flood zone and the bank along the river mantle to the north is within the blue land to be retained by the applicant and it doesn't form part of the site to be developed, so that the whole of the red line area is within flood zone one, which is the least risk of flooding, and you're right, the environmental agency would be consulted on the reserve matters application once the final sighting is proposed later on. Councillor MAYOR, please. Just quickly, if it helps Councillor LORANCE give him peace of mind, after 35 years, I'm not aware of that end of the village flooding. Right, Councillor LORNE, please. Yes, I'm a bit concerned that we're not using the proper method of running the meeting because I was going to second, Councillor SNART's amendment rather than just ignoring the—if I may provide some assistance, Chair, and Councillor LENNE, so what we had on the table was a proposal to go with the officer recommendation from Councillor FRYER, seconded by Councillor BOCA, and the debate then proceeded and Councillor SNART raised some concerns about the housing mix, and that was discussed. Councillor SNART asked if the proposal, Councillor FRYER, would be prepared to accept an amendment to the proposal to include a requirement for a condition on housing mix, and that was discussed and Councillor FRYER said that in her view, it wasn't necessary, and Councillor BOCA said that she didn't think it was appropriate because there are lots of houses that have been extended in the area, and the mix would change over time anyway, and perhaps the area wasn't—the character of the area didn't demand that kind of control. So in that sense, in terms of the order of the meeting, the request from Councillor SNART hasn't been accepted by Councillor FRYER and Councillor BOCA, so the motion stands as it was originally made. So members are here now at this point in time either to continue with the debate or to vote on the motion that Councillor FRY has made, seconded by Councillor BOCA, that's where we are. So that's proper process. Councillor interjecting. We have a proposal and a seconder that we accept this application that we pass the application. Can I have a show of hands, please? All those in favour? No one against? No abstentions? Thank you. Yes, so that's been passed. That was unanimous. [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] Okay, we move on to our next application, item 5B, number P, stroke 2, 3, stroke 1, 931, stroke 2, which is 10 polyampert square E-scot skirt. We have a presentation by the Planning Officer, our Planning Officer, Mr Reid. We also have a number of speakers. Can I just check that they're here? An objecter, Mr Markham Heaven. Thank you, Ms. Leona White Simmons on behalf of the applicant. Thank you. Councillor Sue Gerard on behalf of E-scot skirt parents. Councillor, thank you. And Councillor Loury Needham, who is the ward, Councillor? Thank you. Mr Reid, if you'd like to make your present extra. Thank you, Chair. This is an application relating to 10 polyampert square, as we've heard. The proposal is to change the use of the property, which is currently a dwelling class C3, and to change it to a use class C2 as a children's care home. In terms of the site and surroundings itself, we have the location, plan, or an extract from it in front of us. It's in a residential area of primarily similar properties in the immediate context around the square, which has an area of play equipment within it. The site itself is a detached house with five bedrooms. As you'll note as well, in the site, there's also the garden, and to the side of the property, there's a driveway leading to a double garage as well. Just a few slides of photographs for anyone who isn't familiar with the site and surroundings. I'm not sure if the cursor will be visible. No, it's not. It's towards the corner, towards the eastern corner of that sort of square, that loop, as we can see. Then we have a couple of slides here of photos of the property. Just get an idea of it for those who may not have seen it. As you can see, it's similar in style to those around with driveway, so an access point to the front. The photo to the bottom right, the driveway for number 10, is on the right-hand side, as we're looking at it. The garage is slightly out of view. The top left is a view looking towards number 10, sort of in the distance, so we're set back, so you can have a bit of the park on the left-hand side and some properties around. On the right-hand side, that is on the left of the photo with its driveway and garage beyond. This final photo is looking from roughly in front of number 10 away from the property, so we can't really see number 10 in this photo. It's apart from the very edge of it, I think, on the right, but it looks more towards that sort of open area. In terms of the proposal itself, it's primarily that there's essentially nothing physically proposed, no extensions, no physical alterations. We have existing proposed floor plans, but fundamentally they're not changing. It's a five-bedroom house. In terms of the actual internal use of the property, it's proposed that two of those bedrooms will be occupied by a factory living carers and three of the bedrooms will be used for the children who are receiving carers and who live there. In terms of the operation of the premises to care operation, the submission is based on there being 24-hour care on site operating on a shift pattern, 16-and-a-half hour shift pattern, so as we understand it, carers would stay there overnight and then they change, I don't believe, around 10 in the morning, the following day. There's one change over a day of carers. In terms of the actual proposal as well, in terms of the change of use, it's similar to, well, the reason that it requires planning permission in terms of the differentiation between class C3 and C2 is because in this case it would operate not as a single household because you have carers who wouldn't live full-time at the property. That's a differentiation that makes planning terms the change of use from what is class C3 and C2. In terms of the actual consideration of the application, there's a relatively limited number of key matters for consideration that are set out in the report. The principle is acceptable by virtue of this being a residential use or be a different form of residential use and there's nothing in planning terms that seeks to resist C2 use classes in such location. Perhaps most relevantly and in terms of the consideration, an interest in this application is the level of interest that has received. I believe it's over 65 representations have been received from around 45 representatives or people on the application so there's a high level of interest and that is actually the reason why it's brought before the committee today due to the level of interest that it's received. A number of reasons or concerns have been raised in those varying on different matters, some of which aren't material planning considerations such as covenants or house value impact but in terms of the actual key considerations is residential immunity and in particular concerns are raised in relation to noise and disruption as well as in related housing parking is concerns relating to movements and concerns raised around deliveries and any other commercial type traffic. In respect to those in terms of residential immunity initially there's no officers considered that and we're taking into account the advice of the environmental health officer. In planning terms there's no evidence, there's no reason to indicate that the use, the occupation by three children and two carers would cause or be any different materially in terms of noise in any other immunity issue than a standard dwelling would be. In terms of highways and parking, again in relation to the advice received from the highways department, they aren't in objection and there's no reason to indicate that it would incur more vehicle movements than a standard dwelling as a five bedroom dwelling would do. So without sort of extending on too much on those points that they are largely addressed in the committee report but those matters all been taken into account as have the various concerns raised and objections on the application but in assessing those and taking the approach that we require to do in assessing the proposed against the policies and considering whether there is a material impact in relation to those officers have found that there's no evidence to indicate that any harm brought by the proposal and therefore the application is recommended to be granted subject to conditions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Reed. As I say, we have a number of speakers. So, Mr. Haven, please. Mr. Haven, you have three minutes. Let's stop someone telling you when you've had two minutes and you have a minute to go. So when you're ready, please. Thank you. It's easy to get caught up in the emotion of this being a children's home, but we need to be clear it is a business with the primary purpose of financial gain in the middle of a peaceful residential estate. The application violates the covenant. We all signed to preserve this residential character of raises significant concerns about the impact being detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the residents. I ask you to consider the strength of these concerns, not only from residents, but supported by the parish council, by our county council, and our local MP. The LHA failed to mention that Paliantha Square is actually an unadopted private road, the maintenance of which sits with the residents. The boundaries shown within the deeds include the additional parking laybys which have a set of rules stating they are for residential, not business parking. Section 91 refers to the core strategy in supporting local social needs and the needs of the community. Yet treasure nest has stated the home of house children referred by local authorities across the country. How can this be considered local? Privices will be an issue. Section 9.3.8 does not give an accurate description of separation. Yes, the house is detached, but the garages form part of the boundary between properties and the walls being exposed directly in the neighbour's garden. There are in inaccuracies within the planning application from treasure nest. So the question asking if there is a gain in non-residential floor space they have answered no, and when asked if there will be employees on site they have again answered no, that best these answers are inaccurate at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead. Section 9.2.7 states the use is a residential one, yet treasure nests have been clear that there will be no permanent adult residents. The only adults are shift workers. Despite what is claimed, the occupation of the property by two non-resident carers working in shift patterns and the associated comings and goings will be different to that of normal household. What other commercial endeavours might follow eroding our community? What is to stop anyone using their property as an Airbnb? Using interpretation applied to this application, it will be determined as residential. When we chose our homes in this residential estate, we did so with an understanding we have remained just that. The covenant clearly states the property should not be used for business other than office work at home. It was a promise to uphold and protect this vision. To allow this planning application to proceed would be a flagrant violation of this promise, undermining both trust and unity. It gives residents no option to go through the civil courts. A number have already put on notice their intentions to pursue legal action. One final thought that the first action by an organisation who in their own words claim to help people to understand their responsibilities to society and other people is actually to show a blatant disregard for the written and legally binding rules of the community in which it plans to operate. Ms. Wallach Simmons, you have three minutes. Ms. Stops, some will tell you when your two minutes is up and you have a minute left. Please start when you are ready. I'm the responsible individual for treasure nest limited. We are a children's home, service and currently have one of the home, a three-bedded home for children aged 8 to 17 years old in a neighbourhood in Leicestershire town. The home was registered with Austin in April 2021. This will be our second home we've granted. I personally have 35 years experience of working with children in a variety of capacities and also I've worked for 30 years in the residential children's home sector. I've been a registered manager and I'm of a three-bedded home and I've managed registered managers. As a company, we offer children and young people that come to live with us at home. These children and young people have been removed through no fault of their own, they're the victims. We offer home in areas which we need to be safe and we'll provide them with an environment that will allow them to thrive. We want them to have the opportunity to live in high quality homes, to have the opportunity to be part of a community and play an active part. If we want children and young people to have better life chances, we need to provide them with environments that allow these. As a home, our job is to care for these children and young people that come to live with us, support them, educate, advocate for them, keep them safe, provide positive memories, demonstrate healthy relationships and a long list of other things. We do this so we can support children and young people to be the best version of themselves. These children and young people are born, often born into chaotic families who do not have the tools or consistency to support them with creating the best version. We endeavor to do this. We offer long-term placements to children from Leicestershire and the surrounding cities. Our current children in our homes are from Leicestershire, they're not from other cities. The home we currently run is rated as a good by Austin. It's important to note that children's homes are highly regulated which they should be because we have vulnerable young children. Although I do not wish to dwell on the objections that we're levied against the proposal as I feel they were covered in the report, I do however think I need to say how deeply saddened and disgusted at times of the use of words levied against children and young people who again, through no fault of their own, are looked after. Sweeping salacious statements were used with minimal factual support and evidence. This is neither helpful or appropriate given we are talking about children and young people. In regard to the covenant on the House, we have been in touch with David Wilson who are the developers. They have written and said we have no objection to the proposed change of use and we will not enforce any breach of covenant. I'd like to end by saying I have the privilege of working in this industry for a long time. I feel blessed that I'm one of the people that have worked with young people and support them in their journey, thank you. Thank you Ms White Simmons. Councillor Sujara, please. I think I think you know the drill Councillor Donut, but it's three minutes. Thank you. This is a small private estate where the road belongs to the residents who are responsible for its maintenance. The narrow single lane road around Polly Arthur Square is unadopted and has no street lighting. Elderly people and professional people with young families have moved here for the peace and quiet. The elderly spend their golden years. All the residents have here to the deed stroke covenant of the estate. The applicant has totally disregarded this and I will admit it's not a planning issue. The covenant state that a property cannot be used as a business. This application is for a business to operate from the property. The estate was not designed to have businesses. There will always be three children and at least two staff working on the site. A 16-hour ship pattern sleeping at the property every night. When there is a change of shift, at least four members of staff will be present. Visitors, social workers, therapists, Councillors, off-dead reporters, school transport, trade deliveries, and other professionals will be attending the property. People will go to this address as their place of employment. They will receive a salary for the work they do at this address. There will be more people in the house than in a family home. With this number, should this property be an application from the HMO? Trudgeonists have answered notes to the application where the answer should have been yes. Parking will be an issue. It is stated there are six parking places for this property. A double garage and four spaces in front. If each car is parked there, it will cause obstruction to the neighbouring property as access to the parking for number nine is across the drive. Around the square, there are three laybys all belonging to the houses they front. These are private areas for the guests of those houses they front and not the general used. Residents are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep. It must also be considered this property will have staff, delivery band, social workers, doctors, families, and other vehicles used in the road grounds gear, which is a single lane width. This will lead to noise and disturbance. Front gardens are all open plan. The front garden of number 10 sits alongside both number nine and 11. No physical separation between numbers 10, 9, and 11. In fact, number 11's wall is the boundary for number 10 garden. This will impact residents on privacy and social potential security. Notice of intention when not sent to the neighbouring properties when the application went in. Previous planning decisions, this type of documentation was submitted across the UK. Thank you Councillor Jaudh and the final speaker, all Councillor Loury need them please. You have three minutes, Councillor need them. Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't repeat the comments made by the previous week regarding highway and parking, but I'll just elaborate on them slightly, as members may have seen if they visited site today. The area around that play area is actually very narrow and there's got 90 degree corners and it's often the visibility is hampered by the vegetation on the park when it's on. So there are already traffic issues in the square because of this. Current residents have frequently got problems with visibility and there's often children playing around there due to the nature of it being a shared, you know, it's not separate pavement and road, it's all shared. So residents find it difficult to get in and out of their driveways already and delivery vehicles are finding it difficult to turn around safely. So although I know the report does say that there is sufficient parking, it's not really the case in reality. Most of the homes do have ample parking, that's correct, but quite a lot of the properties on the other end of the square. And they've only got single driveways and they make frequent use of those bays that people have been mentioned. So when they're being used, that makes these issues with parking and turning and trying to get around safely worse. So on paper, those issues might not be obvious, but the actual experience of the people who live there is quite different. And the second and final point that I'm going to make is the reason why this application has actually come to committee. As Mr Heaven mentioned, the applications receive comments from Councillors, parish council or county council's MP. It's received over 65 representations and I've personally never seen such a high level of interest in application of change of use before. So given that level of interest, I think it is right that this is being heard in a public forum and the committee do, they are able to hear directly from the community and that this unusually high level of interest is noted. I want to be absolutely clear that I'm not objecting to the idea of residential care being provided in these small sort of family settings. I actually agree with a lot of the things that the applicant did say. Children should be cared for in homes and in the community. And I don't dispute that. And I do like to think that those children are welcoming our village. But all that said, that doesn't necessarily mean that every single property that's earmarked for those settings is actually necessarily the right one. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor Needham. So, Councillors, right, I have Councillor Smart, Councillor Kory, Leslie, Councillor, Boca, Councillor, I don't know if you just run back. So, anyone else at present? Thank you. Councillor SRI, please. Madam Chairman, thank you. And through you, if I could just ask a couple of three questions. On page 36, I notice that the ward Councillor, Councillor O'Neill, I'm aware of the concerns of residents. However, I believe the concerns are not directly concerned with issues related to planning. Can I just ask officers, is that actually the right correct statement in terms of that? It is just an issue around the way that they're looking at this in terms of planning, and it's not really planning matter. But I would like to come back on one of the issue as well. I think that comment was probably in relation to some of the concerns raised amongst the representations. A number of them are material considerations. In general terms, noise, neighbourhood, access parking, they are material considerations to be taken into account. My public interpretation of it in terms of that comment was in reference to some which refer to matters that can't be taken into account in planning applications such as values of properties, covenants. That was my interpretation of that Councillor's comments. Just on the recommendations, tonight we've got two applications coming from C3 to C2. On the next one, we have a property management plan which I would like to actually see on this one as well. I think this is something that if the proposal goes through tonight, it would lay some of the fears, I think, in terms of the management of the actual property. I mean, we see these quite often now coming through when we're looking through to student accommodation. With Officer's agreement or our committee agreement, if this is recommended, I would like to see that property management plan inserted into this one as well. Thank you. Do you want to come up? I'm happy to briefly comment. In terms of the property management plan, I'm aware of the following item as well as historically in terms of recently various applications for HMOs, that sort of thing, they have been applied. The approach, in terms of it's often being a recommendation or suggestion made by environmental health officers, which hasn't been the case in relation to this application. That said, it's within members sort of gift if they consider it reasonable and necessary and meets the tests of the planning condition, that it could be applied. It's probably reasonably justifiable within the bounds of whether it is reasonable to apply. I personally, sort of professionally wouldn't object to it strongly as a condition that shouldn't be applied. In short, it's something members could consider if they deem appropriate. If a major, if members are minded to go down the route of asking for a condition for a management plan, that would need to be part of the proposal that any member might wish to make in relation to this application. I recommend that we go with office's recommendation with the advisor that we put a property management plan in. I know that there's about the parking and search, but highways have actually said there's no issues or they don't see any issues to that. So with that, and if that could be inserted, I propose we go for office's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor SRI. I'll have other Councillors who are wishing to speak. I'll take those first and then we'll come back to your proposal. Councillor COREy, Leslie please. Thank you very much, Chair. I just had two pretty basic questions, which I think can be answered fairly straightforward. It's a nice area. I'm minded to accept this proposal, but I did want to just revisit that area of parking. So on the image on the slide, the right-hand side line, the double garage at the end, I'm correctly thinking that all of that parking space there belongs to the property. Both of those garages there, that double garage. That's the belongs to the pretend, does it? Okay, and the section here is quite a lot of parking there, but if you had six cars parked there, obviously it depends on what the cars are, you can see how that might obstruct the neighbours. How has the determination been made that that will fit six cars? I appreciate that highways have not made a comment. I'm just curious to know why we think that. It's funny working. Sorry. In terms of why it's been deemed six cars can fit there. I think whereas the approaches that you have two rows of two in front of the garage and then the two within the garage, whether or not we would count two within the double garage itself. But yeah, in terms of that space, having been on side, two side by side and two rows, yeah, that's how it's six was reached. Okay, thank you. That answers that question. I can see why, given the physicality of the clothes, it's very nice, but it's quite tight. I'm just going to understand why people are concerned, but there's no comment from highways. I can see probably a sufficient parking for the number of people that will be there in the day. My second point was more about, again, a quite straightforward question, waste collection. I assume that the council will probably be responsible for collecting the waste here, given its residents, but a little bit confused obviously, plus C2. It is a business premises as well. So would the council be responsible for collecting the waste here, or is it a business premises where they'd have to organise a private waste collection? The council would continue to collect the waste, be responsible for it. Yeah. Okay, thank you very much. That answers my question, I suppose. My choice is sure obviously, because there's no permanent risk that their paying council tax didn't quite know how that would work, but okay, noted, on that basis, I'd pass it a second. Councillor Snarts, I'm prepared to. Councillor Boke, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do empathise with all the objections from the residents, but I'm a little bit concerned that they are raised through fear of what might happen as opposed to evidence of what has happened. And therefore, I think I cannot see the reasons why, the planning reasons, why we could refuse this application, and that is important in the sense that if they go to appeal, then it's not going to be very robust, is it? And we're already in naughty corner for our number of appeals. So unless someone can tell me what the actual reasons for refusal would be, I don't see how we can refuse it. Thank you, Councillor Boke, before I go to the vote, then are there any Councillor Foley, I beg your pardon, please. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I've already declared an interest about my position at counting, but I come here with a completely open mind, and I've never heard of this company, so I'm open mind. I think we could have in this house, in five bedrooms, six children, two parents, one working from home as a normal family. I live in a terrorist street. There are houses there that have four cars. I will go home tonight, and I will not be parking my own road. This is what happened in 21. So they stayed here in the paper, the application is full-time residence to three children between the age of 17, 1817. So we're not talking about 25 year old, you know, 18 year olds living by themselves in a flat, in the middle of last birth with student parties, and this presumably will have to be offset approved. I understand the concerns of residence, and I think it is, as Councillor Boke has said, it is the fear of what could happen, rather than what may happen. This is highly controlled. This isn't a free-for-all hotel or bed or Airbnb, so therefore I will be supporting the proposal, and I will, about the management plan as well. I am happy to support that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor FRIER. I ask again, are there any other committee members who would like to speak? Very well. We have a proposal to accept office's recommendation made by Councillor SNORT, and that has been seconded by Councillor CORRY. Rousley, I'm sorry, I couldn't read my writing, Henry, so I'm sorry. But can I ask you, Councillor CORRY, as Councillor SNORT proposed in his recommendation that there should be a management plan, you also agree with that. Thank you. Chairman, I agree. Could it be on the lines of the same as the similar one that is coming before us on the next application? It does outline all the sort of things that should be in there, I believe. Thank you. And it's called a property management plan. I find we're going to go to the vote. So we have a seconder, we have a proposal, we have a seconder to accept office's recommendation, including the request or the condition that we require a management plan. All those in favour, please? And against any abstentions. What do you need to do, Chair? So that's 13-4, so that has been granted. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome to item 5C, P, stroke 2-3, stroke 2-0, 5-8, stroke 2, which is 18-barrow road scilby, and we'll be receiving a presentation by our officer, Ms Stone, but we also have speakers, so I can check. May I check, please? We have Ms. Dawn Diamond Objector. Thank you. Councillor Elizabeth Jones, on behalf of Zombie Parish Council, thank you, Ms Jones, and the ward Councillor, Councillor, Jack Florence, who we already know is here. Thank you. So, Ms Stone, when you're ready. Thank you, Chair, and good evening. Okay, this application appears on the agenda, as it's been called in for consideration at the request of the ward Councillor, Jack Florence. The application site relates to two-storey terrorist dwelling on the east side of Barrow Road in the village of Salvi. The property consists of two flats. The ground floor is accessed prior front door onto Barrow Road, whilst access to the first floor is by-- I'm sorry, Ms Jones. It's being indicated in the gallery, they can't hear you. Sorry, I'm so far away with this. Bear with me, I'll move forward. Sorry, should I start again? Yep. Could I ask people in the gallery, please, to put away their mobile phones and other devices? It's very distracting, please. Would you like to start again, please, Ms Jones? Ms Stone, I beg your pardon. Can everybody say anything long tonight, including my own? Thank you, Chair. Sorry. Hopefully you should be able to hear me now. Okay, so this application appears on the agenda, as it's been called in for consideration at the request of the ward Councillor, Jack Florence. The application site relates to two-storey terrorist dwelling on the east side of Barrow Road in the village of Salvi. The property consists of two flats. The ground floor is accessed by a front door onto Barrow Road, whilst access to the first floor flat is via an external staircase to the rear of the property. Rear access to the first floor flat is via a small gravel driveway via a carriage arch beneath number 36 Barrow Road and through the rear garden of the adjoining property, number 20 Barrow Road. This full application seeks retrospective plan and permission for the change of use of the property from C3 dwelling house to C2 residential institution for the long-term care of two children. There would be one child receiving care in each flat with one member of staff per child providing 24-hour care. Each flat would have one bedroom for the child and a bedroom allocated for the on-site staff member. The supporting information sets out that the needs of the children will depend on each child, but that we're looking to accommodate children with mild autism and those with emotional behaviour. No changes have been required to facilitate the change of use to the external fabric of the property or to the internal layout, although the proposal includes a provision of four cycle storage spaces and a bin storage area to the rear garden. I've got some photographs just to show you for those members who weren't able to make the site visits this afternoon. This is a front elevation of the property and a picture to show the access to flat 2, which is to the rear through the carriageway arch. The rear elevation of the property is the white rendered building and then the gate to the rear garden in the access to flat 2 and the last photograph shows a rear garden and then the external staircase. The main planning considerations applicable to this application are considered to be the principle of development, the design and impact on the character of the area, impact upon the surrounding heritage assets that the site is located in the conservation area and there are two listed buildings located with enclosed vicinity, impact upon residential immunity and highways matters. For the reason set out in the report, officers considered the development would comply with the relevant planning policies and as a result it is recommended that retrospective planning permission is granted subject to the conditions listed in pages 52 and 60 of the agenda. I've just briefly outlined the conditions on the recommendation page here. I'll just go back to the photographs for your discussion. Thank you Chair. Thank you Ms. Sam. Now for our speakers, Ms. Dawn Diamond. You have three minutes, Ms Diamond and Ms Stomps and we'll tell you when you're two minutes. Thank you Chair. My name is Dawn Diamond and I'm representing the residents of number 16, 20 and 22 Barrow Road. Change of use at number 18 occurred in March 2023 without planning permission. Due to this being a retrospective planning application of local residents, we have experienced firsthand its unsuitability. Last summer we experienced as extremely stressful due to the change of use. It has had a serious impact on our well-being affecting both mental health and our quality of life. The report infers all issues we have experienced due to the one child subsequently removed. This is inaccurate as the incredibly annoying either carers of padlocking the gate owned by the resident at number 20 was actually to prevent the current child in the downstairs flat from escaping. Furthermore, the noise coming from inside number 18 and still ongoing is due to the same child who excessively bangs doors and walls at unsociable hours. This is clearly audible to residents of number 16 as well as number 20. The title deeds for number 16 clearly state it is a party wall between number 16 and 18 and we therefore request confirmation that condition three would result in sound insulation between both 18 and 20 and 18 and 16. There is no physical boundary outside between number 18 and number 20. The carers inability to contain the children reached totally unacceptable levels when children were not prevented from spending time in the garden of number 20 entering the kitchen of number 20 or allowed to just stare in through the window and extreme loss of privacy. Please note also entry to the bottom flat is not solely through the front door as the key safe to the downstairs flat is actually on the back door. While the report states one carer to one child the reality we have observed is there has always been at least two carers for each child. As residents we have witnessed physically violent outbursts between carers and the two children in the shared outdoor spaces at times requiring police intervention and a resultant increase in the number of carers required. In our experience at one point there were five carers 24/7, three for upstairs child and two for the child downstairs. The fear of antisocial behaviour has led to extreme anxiety for neighbours and concern for the children. We don't agree there is no difference to having families live at number 18 as in my 30 years as a local resident the flats have only ever been occupied by a single person or a couple with no children no doubt due to the unsuitability of a very small shared garden and shared access to said garden and the property. In conclusion the cumulative impact on our lives has been extremely detrimental having had an overbearing impact on our social well-being. The community dynamics and character have been adversely affected and enjoyment of the normally peaceful environment has been severely impacted and we request this application be refused. Thank you. Mr Jones, on behalf of Saudi Council, please. We have three minutes Mr Jones, and when you're ready, please. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. I'm Councillor Elizabeth Jones. I'm the Chair of the Syable Paris Council planning working group and also the Chair of Saudi neighbourhood planning advisory committee. You have heard the live lived experiences of the neighbours of 18 Barrow Road from Dawn Diamond today. Today I have received some added information from the resident of number 20 whose garden is crossed with the shared access. It says, I literally have to sleep with earphones on from 4am, woke up to impact noise at 8am this morning that made me wake up jumping. It's not right and is affecting me. I can't go to bed until 10pm when he is sedated or asleep. That's meaning the young person who lives in the bottom flat. It is not a normal situation. I even opened the front door at 5am today to see what was going on. All last weekend was impact noises, doors shutting, etc. I counted 50 by midday Saturday and gave up counting. I used to love living here. It's very clear what detrimental effects the change of use from C3 to C2 has had on the neighbouring residents. The intrusion of their privacy should be the overriding concern for this committee. In particular, the impact on the resident of number 20 whose garden is crossed by the shared access. Silby has several C2 properties that accommodate children or young adults with appropriate carers to look after them. None of these properties have shared access with neighbours or open unsecured boundaries. Number 18 in 18A Barrow Road has been occupied for well over 30 years as a C3 two-times flats. During this time, the flats have been occupied by long-term tenants. Their neighbouring residents have also lived at number 16 2022 for several years and not experienced the kind of intrusions on their privacy they have had in the past 12 months. Having experienced 12 months of this property being used as a C2 facility, the parish council do not believe the proposed conditions will be sufficient to mitigate the impact on the neighbours. We also believe that the proposed change of use from C3 to C2 will not be compliant with Charmwood's Save Design policy, EV Stroke 1. We therefore request that this retrospective change of use from C3 to C2 be refused. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Jones. Council Lawrence, please. Thank you, Chair. In my opinion, the reclassification of this property as a C2 residential institution does not make sense in planning terms for two main reasons. Firstly, the site is not self-contained in terms of access to the first floor flat. Members visiting the site earlier will have seen first-handed access as only possible by utilising rights to pass across not one but two neighbouring properties. I do not believe it would be possible to ensure a secure separation of number 18 outdoor space from the neighbouring garden at number 20 and from the access to the public highway via number 16 driveway. I cannot see how this arrangement is suitable for a 24/7 childcare setting. In planning terms, I would contend that the proposed access arrangements and the boundary treatment do not comply with Charmwood's current design policy CS2 or the equivalent emerging local plan policy DS5, which states, we require new developments to provide attractive, safe and well-managed public and private amenity spaces. My second planning area that I want to raise with you is that the neighbouring residents have provided officers with compelling real life evidence of unacceptable loss of residential amenities since the care home has been operating. You have heard how they have suffered supplantial disturbance and anti-social behaviour resulting in significant distress and anxiety. As a further example of the loss of privacy for residents of number 16 and 20, there have been long periods when there is care of standard at the top of the external flight of stairs while the two children play in the garden, where their evidence and the fact that the care company have employed two carers per resident testifies to the behavioural challenges faced by some of the children who have been placed at the facility. There is a statement made in the officer report that a family unit living in the same property would potentially impact on the neighbour's residential amenity in the same fashion potentially. I would argue that this fails to take account of the scale of disruption evidenced by the objectives that you have heard and the difficulty in mitigating that impact in what is an unsuitable setting for a care facility. I also feel I must take issue with the implication in paragraph 9.4.5 of the reports that the neighbours would somehow be in a better position to deal with any noise or anti-social behaviour if number 18 was a C2 care home. In conclusion, I believe that the mitigation measures proposed will be insufficient to ensure compliance with child would saved design policy EV/1. This requires that proposed developments safeguard the amenity, the amenities of adjoining properties, particularly the privacy enjoyed by adjoining residential areas. I hope members will accept that there are clear material planning policy grounds to refuse this application. Thank you. Now, are there any comments, suggestions, questions? Councillor Northridge, I have anyone else? Councillor Warr, Councillor Palmer, Councillor Bocke, Councillor SRI. Right, that seems enough to be going on with. Councillor Northridge, please. Sorry, thank you, Madam Chair. We've listened to the emotive side of why children's homes are necessary with the previous one. But it's clear to me this is totally unsuitable premises for such a use. Councillor Lawrence has spelled out the planning things, but just leaving technical reasons on one side, it's just not safe, possible, nice. There's nothing going for it at all as far as I'm concerned, and it should be rejected. It's not suitable premises. Thank you. Before I come to the other speakers, Councillor Northridge, are you proposing that we refuse, permission? I am indeed proposing that we refuse permission for this. Thank you. I'll give my reasons when I speak. Just through the chair, just to say, obviously members that if you are going against also recommendation, you do have to give very clear reasons for why you are doing so. Right, thank you, Councillor Northridge. Councillor Worro, please. Thank you, Chair. As we heard in the previous application, we need to encourage everyone to be able to live within a fairly normal environment. However, what I did notice on this application, and there is obviously been evidence, and this is retrospective application, where people have already been living here, and there are no family homes normally that would require additional soundproofing. That would not be what you would expect in your standard family home. And I think the soundproofing might be helpful to a level within the home. But what is also happening is happening outside, and there is no soundproofing outside. I've been on the site visit, and I was quite shocked to see the small area of the neighbouring garden that has to be crossed to get the access to the stairs for the first floor flat. And I could totally understand, and I can totally see why there is such disruption at this site. And I would totally agree, I also cannot support this application. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor ALLAN. Councillor SRI, please. Yeah, thank you, Mr Chairman. Just through you, just a check, we do talk about the Crime and Disorder Act 5-7. But I don't see any reference to any information about the level of antisocial behaviour. Do we have any record of antisocial behaviour that's come to the Council? It's been talked about several times tonight by people saying that there is a level of antisocial behaviour. So, I would have expected to see some information about that today. So, if officers could just enlighten me into that, whether there is any information come through to the Council and been recorded. Thank you. Thank you, through you, Chair. The Council's environmental health officer hasn't raised it in her comment. She hasn't mentioned that we have had any, but she hasn't mentioned that at all. So, I'm afraid I don't have that data to hand. I can't confirm or not confirm. But there have been any reports of antisocial behaviour other than obviously the local residents have put in their comments. So, sorry about that. I just support some of the comments that have been made tonight. And I think, as they said, from the previous one, where it's still on its own, this one, I think is a totally different situation. And I think my colleague here said that you wouldn't expect soundproofing to be put in into places if it was a normal circumstances. So, I think I could support the refusal. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor SWAN. I have Councillor Palmer and then Councillor BERKE. Thank you, Chair. I would just like to agree with the previous comments that have been made. By committee members, it seems to be a totally unsuitable site for the looking after these children. And I think we can refuse it on the residential amenity. So, yes, that's what I'd like to say. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor PAUM. Councillor BERKE, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would give you the following reasons for refusal, which starts with not suitable site for a care home of children of this disability. There's evidence of extreme noise impact and disruption. It's a shared access. The open spaces are very limited and there is a lack of privacy. There's also not the self-contained access that it should have with parking facilities. And therefore, it's contrary to CS2, DS5, EV1. Is that enough for you? Nearly. Thank you, Councillor BERKE. Would you like to respond, Councillor BAN? I've been unexpectedly elevated. Thank you, Councillor FOREST. Sorry, Councillor BERKE. Would you just list those policies again? I didn't quite catch the three. Thank you. Just shut it off. It's totally not suitable site for a care home. There is evidence of extreme noise impact and disruption. I should act not suitable for this level of care. It has a shared access. The open spaces are very limited. There's a lack of privacy. I'm not putting in ASB because we don't have evidence. It's not a self-contained access and it's contrary to CS2, DS5, EV1, courtesy of Mr. Lawrence. Is that enough for you? So, sorry, yeah, I just just... Thank you. We do currently have two policy EV1s at the moment. We've got emerging policy and we've got the current saved policy. So, it's the saved policy. Thank you very much. Thank you, very much. All right. I'll wait for Mr Bennett to write it all down and we'll come to the vote. Councillor Corrie Leslie. Thank you, Chair. Just a point, a quick point of clarity, really. So, obviously, this is a retrospective application. So, up until now, this has been operating as a care home, if I'm not mistaken, without proper authorization. So, if and when the Committee refuses this application as we're proposing, I assume that all care activities on this are allowed to cease. Thank you, Chair. Through you, yes. Obviously, we've got to do the paperwork, so we will have to write to the operator and set out the reasons why an enforcement notice will need to be served at a time involved in formulating that paperwork. So, yes, but you're right. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to be clear that, yeah, there's enforcement action following potential with Utah. So, we have a proposal which has been seconded that we refuse office's recommendation and we refuse office's recommendation. So, can I say aye, Chair, if I'm this place, 13, that's 13. Sorry. I know abstentions, no, against. Thank you. Yes. Well, we thank Councillor Boker for her intervention, but would you all be happy if our officers formulate the correct wording for the rejection of the application, refusal of the application? Thank you very much, everyone. We're getting on very well, but, yes, let's not speak too soon. Would anybody like a short break or are we happy to carry on? Yes, we'll take a five-minute break and then we'll come to our final application of the evening. Thank you. [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio]