Maidenhead DM Committee

Good evening everybody and welcome to this meeting of the ma head development management committee on Wednesday the 20th of December my name is Council Joshua Reynolds and I shall be chairing this meeting this meeting is being held in person and Via zoom and stream live to the public on YouTube I remind all

Attendees that participation in the meeting indicates consent to the audio and video being streamed live and en lements that after the meeting it will continue to be in the public domain first it would be helpful if all committee members and officers truce themselves so the public aware who is in

The room and what role they are undertaking a hi I’m Adrian we the assistant director of planning here to advise the committee Anar for rbwm legal officer advisor to the panel planning officer planning officer councelor Helen Taylor voting member of the panel Morin member of the panel Walters representing Bray a member

Of the panel C Gary Reeves Cox green Ward voting member of the panel councilor Kashmir Singh voting uh member of the panel Martin voting member of the panel councelor chat Douglas I’m standing in for councelor Mandy BR uh will Ward Democratic Services Officer Clark to the panel thank you everybody

So that the public are aware various counselors who have not specifically asked to introduce themselves so far may also be attending the meeting on Zoom or in person um they’re in an observing capacity and members who have not formally registered to speak in advance cannot play an active role in this

Meeting I request that all meeting participants do not speak unless I specifically invite them to do so once I’ve invited you to speak if you haven’t introduced yourself already please do so if any individual wishes to disrupt the meeting I’m able to use my powers in the Constitution to adjourn the meeting or

Have the individual removed we’ll now start with the agenda item will any apologies for absence uh yes chair there’s two apologies for absence we’ve got councelor braah with um councelor Douglas substituting and uh councelor Hill send apologies as well thank you uh Declarations of interest from Members so

Just to declare for myself on agenda items five and six which are in relation to Maiden Head Library I am the cabinet member with responsibility for libraries however as these application have come in Via ourm property company and I haven’t had any involvement in them I’m

Good to be able to take part in the meeting councelor Taylor um thank you chair just for transparency really I am the ward counselor for Oldfield and I did call in um item nine um due to Residents interest in the um application however I didn’t need to because it would have

Come to panel anyway so just to be transparent about that thank you councelor Taylor councelor Douglas um yes just to declare that I’m mhe waterways champion and there’s an impact in how I might think about items five and six but I’m I’m I’m here with an open mind fantastic thank you everybody uh

Agenda item number three is the minutes to approve the minutes from the 15th of November is everybody happy with those minutes thank you very much thank you so moving on to agenda item four Land South of bra Lake Nick do you want to take us through thank you

This application for you is land south of Bray Lake Windsor Maiden head it’s an outline application for Access appearance layout and scale only all other matters are to be reserved for future Reserve matter submission that would include Landscaping there have been some updates to the application that been received um

This was circulated in the update sheet issued today uh the first update is that the applicant is prepared to pay for the traffic regulation order in the event that the spending review panel don’t have the funds to implement that second update being the seal calculation was incorrect within the report the Cal the

Sum required is actually 2.75 million um and the final update is the tree plan in the list of approved plans is to be um taken out and instead a condition added for tree protection measures uh this is due to the fact that one of the plans wasn’t fully

Updated so as I go through the slides the application site is located approximately between maidenhead and Windsor um the M4 is to the north of the site uh constraints on the site itself are fairly few and far between there is a flood zone two and three proximity to

The north of the site um on the uh on the western side of the site to the left as you see it um that’s C close residential housing scheme south of the site um on the a 308 Windsor Road um there is Bray Cemetery central reason

Shown there in in in the green um and the rest single story dwellings and to the east um the hospice temps hospice location um so here they are uh shown on the screen before you and obviously Bray lake is to the north of the

Site in terms of flood zones um it is in flood zone 2 and three um the green on this particular plan denotes the location of flood zone 2 and three um this is being checked by uh the environment agency who have confirmed that this is accurate the Orange is

Purely an indicative figure showing a one in a thousand year plus 70 uh% climate change this isn’t a formal flood zone just to indicate how far away the dwellings are from effectively flood zone 3 this is an aerial view of the site um there’s not a huge amount on the actual

Site itself other than grassland and shrub there is mature boundary tree line that’s to the South adjacent to Windsor Road um and obviously the hospice has been completed and was completed several years back so this is slightly dated photo but it gives you the impression in terms of images um in the

Bottom right hand corner you can see the arrows denoting the direction of which these images have been taken um so this top left number one is looking East from the entrance to Bray Cemetery uh image two looking West from bray cemetery’s entrance um image three the western

Boundary of the site adjacent to court close um this image shows again some of the shrub sh on site is as I say it’s been left for some years looking westwards um and Views to the south from the bray Lake footpath there is a footpath on the western side of the site

Which leads on to a cycle footpath again views across the site um this time from the uh eastern boundary and context some um images are shown of the hospice entrance and um a view back from the footpath uh looking back at the site so the application relates to um

Obviously 9 dwellings and there are six character areas this is a requirement of the pro former um it’s obviously an allocated site it’s not in the green belt um and within the development there are going to be six different um types of uh building taking place um centered

Around the Village Green where there is a um play area locally known as a locally equipped area of play again this is a um colored image to indicate uh predominantly where the ve indicative vegetation will be not being assessed as part of this application but showing that there is sufficient space

On site to accommodate for instance Treeline streets of which there are three this is a building Heights plan um the turquoise color is two two stories um and the um the Violet is two and a half stories uh as you can see there are obviously predominantly two stories on

Site there are two blocks of flats three stories in height and these are set back from Windsor Road there’s 40% affordable housing on site um and this is including social rent affordable rent and intermediate uh shared ownership uh this is in the the red dots on the two two main locations and also

The yellow for the uh shared ownership terms of access um there will be um there’s one single access opposite bra Cemetery um the the the the reddish orange color um these are areas which will be adopted um they then lead into um shared surface Arrangements that won’t be

Adopted as part of the um proposal there shall be um in section 106 agreement um the provision of a zebra Crossing this is an indicative indication as to where that would go um the rationale behind this is to both give pestan safe passage across the road uh and also help um with

Slowing vehic speeds more widely some Street Scenes um these are predominantly to to give you the idea of the heights of the buildings and widths in separation distances between them um these are all considered to be um in general Conformity with the supplementary planning guidance no objections have been raised from

Officers um these are the blocks of flats three stories and height um there have been some slight alterations to these during the design an application process including the introduction of Juliet balconies the string course um and what’s known as tax windows on the rear elevation um to provide some visual

Interest um but they won’t actually be um fin there will be no glass in those windows just brick because they face back onto some of the residential dwellings um these are some of the house types uh again these are two story variety um and the one at the bottom the

Shown across several numbers on the site that’s a two and a half story dwelling again those red bricks the red bricks do differ from some of the slides um and we’ve asked within the planning conditions for a detail on materials so there isn’t a single red brick used

Across the entire de development um we’ve got red tiles and obviously gray slate tiles there as well and to finish with this is an aerial view an illustration of what the scheme will look like there is an attenuation Basin shown on the left hand side bottom

Left of the screen that will be grasped over for the majority of the year and it’s expected that uh residents will be able to use that um other than when there has been periods of heavy rain okay that concludes my presentation thank you thank you Nick we’ve got four

Speakers on this item first is Andrew who is an objector to the scheme are you here today fantastic please take a seat if you press the button the silver button on the right hand side for me you’ll have three minutes and the Clark will give you a warning when you have one minute

Remaining if if you press just press that button for me it should go coin oh hold on are you able just to press that just it should go green on the top for me Qui should we Will’s going to go come try the try the right hand We There You Go all good

Fantastic fantastic you’ve got three minutes if there had been proper coordination between bur planning highways and environment groups this area next to BR Lake would not have been in the local plan it’s unsustainable to continue to add houses and traffic onto the a308 including as far as Windsor commenting

To the B against the local development plan and against this application HRA advised of unsustainability Clauses in the nppf which enable bur cils to disallow unsustainable development such as this the burough highways design guide States the first stage of consultation with the highway Authority should be to establish whether a

Suitable means of connection to the existing Highway can be agreed at this stage it may also be necessary to consider the wider effects of the development on the surrounding Highway Network and whether the development would be acceptable taking all traffic related matters into account traffic related matters such as

The guide states where a junction is formed off an existing access road this will normally be a simple T Junction but an a class road is not an access road so that phrase does not apply access roads are the lowest category as defined in the guide the existing T Junction

Hospice entry is contrary to the highway design guide the guide requires roundabouts for Junctions on roads such as this if this rule had been firmly applied to the hospice application perhaps this area would not be in the local plan the rbwm BR acma on the a308 and BR carish Parish

Council acas in this area show that air quality is already poor there is steadily increasing traffic and the associated pollution arising from other Windsor Road developments and if improve if approved more from this this one poor air quality has caused ill health heart disease Strokes dementia and sometimes death as

A Coroner’s report has concluded rbwm environment group failed to use precedent a proposed development was stopped in Kent due to the predicted traffic pollution that would result one minute Remain the rbwm corporate plan is to achieve the national air quality objective in all ammas by 2025 this development will woren air quality

Severe worsening of residents imunity through increased traffic on an overburdened Road very bad effect of adding these houses in a small area with only one entry onto a busy a road which could be blocked by accident this panel stopped Spencer’s Farm due to a similar problem neither the existing hospice T

Junction nor the proposed T Junction are allowed by the bur Highway design guy but Highway’s group made no objection in fact they count out to the developer having required a right turn lane but finally backed down due to trees having to be removed but the right turn lane requirement could force the application

To fall as the trees must remain proper consideration of these matters related to your cause by traffic would have resulted in this area not being included in the local plan the environment group failed by lack of thought and lack of Engagement planning failed by not coordinat H requests that this application be refused

Thank you very much the next speaker that I have is from the brain Parish Council you’ve got three minutes to speak and your time will start as soon as you start speaking thank you good evening the developer tells us that this uh tells us that the ownership of cars

And this development will be discouraged and walking in cycling will be encouraged so is this likely there is no local supermarket all the dewor and little saffon way are the nearest ones nobody would do a big shop on a bus or a bicycle and the local

Corner Shop is currently up for sale so its future is uncertain the nearest doctor’s surgery in primary school is a good distance away in holol too far from small children to walk and I know the surgery is overloaded with too many patients or perhaps not enough doctors the nearest church is in Bray

The nearest pubs are over a mile away in ffield hly Porton Bray what about cycling The Windsor Road cycle path is only a meter wide for most of its length is shared with pedestrians as a result of this lack of space most cyclists use the main carriageway and this hinders the flow of

Traffic on this overloaded and narrow aoad Windsor Road is served by the number 16 bus connects in Windsor and maidenhead the service is at best one an hour sometimes it’s one every one and a half hours buses start at just after 6:00 a.m. and finish just after 7 p.m. so no

Using the bus for an evening out or working late the route is currently being reviewed and the service is like service is likely to suffer from further economies you can see that everyone who can Will have a car on this development there are 299 bedrooms and the site has only 240

Parking spaces of which a mere 11 are for visitors parking and traffic will be a problem one minute remaining okay it should also be understood that this site is a adjacent to the bray air quality monitoring area this aqma is southwest of the site and the prevailing wind in

The area is from the southwest so the polluted air will be directed across the site thank you thank you very much the next speaker that we have is on behalf of the applicants and that is either Ken Charles or Ian fantastic you have three minutes and the CL will

Give you a warning when you have one minute remaining thank you my name is Karen Charles I’m a planning director at buer and I’m an agent for the planning application in discussing the need or otherwise for my clients to speak this evening we actually concluded there was nothing significant they could add

That’s not already addressed in your planning officer by your officer in his comprehensive committee report I’d therefore simply like to reiterate that this is an application on an allocated housing site the scheme is entirely in accordance with planning policy and it comes to you this evening with no objections from any statutory consult

Te however to support you in reaching a decision I’d like to highlight the following matters the site’s allocated for approximately 100 homes the scheme proposes 99 homes with an appropriate mix and therefore the application is in accordance with a local plan site allocation for al26 the scheme proposes 40% affordable

Housing with an agreed affordable housing tenure in line with policy all the homes are located in flood zone one and therefore the application presents no risk to flooding there is no objection on Highway grounds the developers agreed aged appropriate mitigation in the form of the delivery of a zebra Crossing

Together with contributions for two bus shelters there’ll be a new 3 meter footway introduced within the site and the developers agreed to pay for the trro the traffic regulation order to ensure that the new 30 mph speed limit is introduced along the stretch of the a308 an air quality assessment has been

Undertaken and the council’s environmental health officer agrees with the conclusions that the scheme will have no unacceptable impact on air quality sustainable transport measures will encourage the use of public transport one minute remaining a s contribution of around 2.75 million pound will be provided to mitigate the impact of this

Development the applicants have worked incredibly hard with your officers over the last 18 months to refine the proposals and agree on technical matters the applications presented to you this evening entirely in accordance with the adopted local plan and in particular the site forer for land at Bray Lake site al26 thank you for

Listening thank you Karen the only other speaker we’ve got is councelor cross councel cross you have three minutes press again press again for us you’re all good tou it great I’m suzan cross and I’m the ward counselor and I’m speaking against this application firstly I referred to the

Update yesterday to the mppf not only has Michael Gove effectively relaxed the local housing targets but his statement also makes it clear that it is important that the character of an existing area is respected by any new development this proposal will significantly impact the the character of the area it introduces

Three story Flats where there are none today additionally this section of land is the sole open Green Space that is visible from the a308 between the braywick roundabout and the ffield road offering a scenic view enjoyed by residents and visitors this is confirmed by the 86 objections primary from the

Local community as evidence that approving this application was significantly and permanently alter the character of the area I’d like to point out the number of residen is already designated for development in BR Ward under the previous administration’s blp these are notably 489 dwellings near the former Squire’s Garden Center to the

East and 215 dwellings near Harvest Hill to the West if any location should have the housing targets relaxed is is is this one given these not these numbers all along the a308 where these developments intersect on this point air pollution I’m pleased that the new Council has nominated a group of

Counselors who will will review air quality across the burrow and repor into the overview and scrutiny panels however this group is yet to meet I do not believe we can approve a significant application such as this in a location of very poor air quality without this initial meeting being convened the air

Quality assessment attached to this application was written in April 2022 however the law concerning air quality changed in 2023 so this application is out of date and the application must be deferred based upon the new law as an example and all figures I cite are in micrograms per

Cubic meter this report states that the predicted maximum levels of pm2.5 concentrations at the boundary will be 12.46 and annually averaging around 12 the new legally binding operational phase targets are 10 the entrance to this develop development is one of the locations where Bray Parish Council publishes monthly data for nitrogen

Dioxide levels the W who guidelines specify an annual average not to exceed 10 at this location today the average for eight months of this year is 22 to more than double their guidelines this Council needs to take immediate action to address air quality issues now if not

We not only risk non-compliance with the government mandated targets but we also pose a serious threat to the well-being of residents how can we justify constructing more houses in this area based upon this out ofd air quality assessment from April 2022 which is not considered the cumulative impact on air

Quality along the a308 with the subsequently approved developments and the potential health impact on our res I respectfully ask panel to consider the long-term Legacy do we want future generations to remember us as a council that has approved an application that significant significantly deviates from the existing character of the local

Neighborhood and in doing so contributes to the environmental challenges particularly high levels of pollution such as this thank you for listening thank you counc cross right there members we’ll Now open up to debates uh councilor watus uh thank you chairman what a wonderful speech uh the my fellow World

Counselor made on behalf of Bray absolutely true everything she said this site up until recently was a green belt site relatively recently and this particular development is quite unnecessary the one thing Advantage it’s got is that is in the local plan and if I told you the history of

How it arrived in the local plan you wouldn’t be very confident in going forward with it I say that in all honesty this I I’m trying to be careful and trying to play the game because um in a way it is I’m told that I shouldn’t speak against the local plan because the

Things in there although I fought tooth and nail to keep it out now it’s in the plan yes there’s a great deal in favor in term planning terms for it but it doesn’t make it any good and the air quality argument is a strong one and do

We really want to be a a council what what whatever shade who does actually you know endanger people’s lives and health in that congested area my wife is buried in the cemetery immediately opposite the side and to think all this all these cars pouring out of that place

Plus the enormous car park for the for the hospice it’s crazy to impose that all on the A8 which is a very narrow road I beg you chairman not to approve this application and the members of this committee because it’s utterly wrong we can’t qu keep making these mistakes one

After the other it’s all gone down the other end on the Eastern side all around the Cardinal Clinic hundreds of houses all being built all pouring onto this a38 road it’s crazy don’t let’s go down this path it really is a mistake I’ve been on these Planet committees for

Years and years and years and believe you me I know when something’s going wrong and this is certainly a major one of them I’m not going to say anymore chair but I think it’s pretty clear the local residence as the uh counselor cross mentioned there are 86 objections

These people are fed up they managed to get the a308 down to 30 miles but that was an enormous effort and stood out a mile you know as being required but I do sincerely ask you chairman and the panel to refuse his application but in my particular case I will abstain from the

Voting thank you thank you Council ERS um but before I go to councelor Taylor if that’s okay um obviously you spoke about green belts and and that item but obviously we need to remember that you voted to remove it from Green P and allocate it for developments for 100 properties and that

Was hold on hold on cils and and and obviously that was the blp vote I voted against the blp personally because I could see a number of flaws and and didn’t believe that certain sites were right for develop however we’ve been backed into a corner

On the blp because the blp was voted for by by by by you and and colleagues and we’ve therefore because the blp stands as it is we’ve got to consider the our base level is this is a site that’s able for development of up to 100 houses I don’t like that I didn’t

Like that but we can’t do anything else doing anything else would not be legal because the site is in the blp has been removed from Green Belt so I think that’s something we need to put on the table first before before we move on further um councelor

Taylor hold on we’ll go councelor Taylor first and and and you can do but we’ll go to counc we we’ll go to councelor Taylor first as she indicated to speak First Council and we’ll come back to you after um thank you chair um there’s just

A few points I wanted to make I probably might say more later but I will hold out for that one um the first point I was going to make was actually what you just said is that the time for arguing about whether this is green belt or should be

Allocated for housing has been and gone the blp has been voted on unfortunately this is an allocated site within that blp um I personally didn’t vote for the blp but we are where we are and we’ve just got to make the best of it unfortunately um I am pleased to see the

Um breakdown for the 40% affordable housing um with my social housing Champion hat on it’s nice to see houses allocated for social rent in the breakdown um I do have a question because this is an outline application so we are um going for Access um it’s too many pages to scroll through

Sorry access appearance layout and scale only I would like to ask if the full application will come back to panel if I could ask that of the planners at a later date or I don’t believe it automatically does under our constitution so it wouldn’t automatically come back but it could be

We condition it to come back at request counc I would probably say if it were if it were called in by if the the full application so the reserve matters were called in by one of the W councils then obviously it would come to panel it

Come back to um but as it stands today if it wasn’t called in then obviously just it would go by our officers um I’d also like to comment that from personal experience we do know highways sometimes gets things very wrong and that residents living in the area no roads

Far better than some other people but am glad to see that the applicant is making roads in um excuse the pun to try and make that situation better with the pavement and the zebra Crossing and their contribution I’m G to leave that there and lets have a speak thank you councelor Taylor the

Next speaker I’ve got that registered is Council Reeves and then Council wats after to I don’t know that’s all right you’re first on my list you’re first on my list canc soone okay I thought I’d give a okay sorry so um yeah I mean I I think I some

Of what um councelor Taylor’s mentioned already were on my mind about the affordable housing I’ve mentioned this on a number of occasions previously and it something you know being a new counselor um I wanted to make sure that we were actually um during any kind of development we were actually being

Socially conscious about the actual allocation of uh housing it’s no good just actually saying affordable housing because affordable housing um as a calculation is not affordable to most people um and for residents uh within this burough and particularly for the next generation of residents as well who are already existing residents so to

Actually see a social house see the social social rent element to it predom ly um and only a smaller 20% as shared ownership I think rather than the affordable um categorization I think is a really good thing um and I’m I’m pleased to to see that um his position I

Think is unfortunate as I say I’m a new counselor so uh I had to watch from the wings when the blp was voted for and sight site this and other sites uh it’s very disappointing to actually see that we’re not looking at potentially other um Brownfield sites that could have been

Considered rather than actually taking land out of the the green belt just to be able to meet the the housing needs um with that in mind we have it has been done the blp has to be taken into account and also the mppf as well um

There was a couple of things that were talked about with regard to um parking so we have 229 parking uh there are 99 dwellings you know my calculation means that that’s at least two per household I think on average that probably is about right particularly with the mix of of

Two-bedroom houses and three bedroom houses excuse me uh also uh there is provision in there for a large um cycling um uh for for cycle storage and for cycling and yes look we we can’t guarantee that people will you know uh won’t get in their cars and go into their weekly shop

But there are other occasions when we actually are going to travel or they will travel uh and to have something like that to try and encourage people to cycle that’s I don’t think that’s something that would prevent us from um uh from looking at this particular application it’s not part of that um

Although it does fall under the section nine promoting sustainable Track Transport and I think looking at this with the cycle path cycle provision and Improvement of the bus shelter um is going is working its way towards that it’s really unfortunate that it will also be placed in a way that we won’t

Have the Vista anymore of going past and seeing an open open space to the lake um so um that is really disappointing um one further thing that I I have concern about is for the residents of the hospice um this development and the construction is extremely close to those um residents

They obviously are um going to be residents of uh frail nature and you know at the ends of their life and and that should be uh they should given the best possible end to their life um construction has a lot of noise associated with it uh we obviously will need to construct

There however I would like to put forward some sort of uh suggestion or register something that we could um put forward a request requ EST or suggestion as part of either the construction plan or to the developer that when they were doing that they’re putting an acoustic

Barrier on the um side is it the North no the East the East Side um which is going to prevent uh noise permanently um coming from the motorway to the Future residents however during construction um I’d like to ask them to consider to actually put some form of acoustic

Um shielding or acoustic fencing on the side that’s adjacent to the car park and the temps hospice to try and mitigate whatever they can on the construction noise uh during the build that’s something I’m very passionate about and I think that they should um if we could

We I know um I’ve taken advice and we can’t make it a condition um but I would like it to be registered as something that I I want them to take seriously as a note of concern that we have about constructing so close to vulnerable

Residents um so um I think um that uh one more point is that the reduction in speed I know that’s already gone through as a suggestion for 30 to reduce it to 30 miles an hour they are going to offer potentially if it doesn’t go through the

Spending panel that that would be paid for um and it being a reduction in speed actually one of the arguments for the reduction in speed is this is a residential area so I think some of the argument about this being in character it’s a residential area so what they are

Building is further residential housing um it actually will be uh in in my view um uh will align with the residential um characterization of the a308 um it’s going to be changing to 30 m hour and also just across I don’t know the exact is it Brak court or some there’s

Actually already a residential area that is very similar to this the other side of the hospice near the um near the convenience store uh so that again if you want to talk about in character there is actually an existing development from a long time ago that’s

Already uh there um so I think that also for me uh talks about the uh the character of the area as well which is one of the uh one of the items raised it disappointing but in summary I I think that I feel that we’re going to

Have to on balance uh proposed to actually support the recommendation uh based on the conditions that the planning officer has actually secured on this that this should be actually approved and that is a proposal uh from myself thank you councelor Reeves um I think you sort of raised two points in

Terms of the the sound proof in in that screening and coming back to doing the construction we’ll come back to that after that’s okay but in in terms of the when the developments buil obviously the Landscaping is a reserve matter correct I’m sure with the applicant in the room

Um they they’ve heard the thoughts about taking that into account with the Landscaping after the development spill and screening from the hospice and I’m sure they’ve heard that point um in terms of drawing construction um Nick and Adrian is there something we could look at in terms of that is there

Informative that could be could be said to to be mindful for something like this is that something we could look at I mean I think putting an informative on they don’t have any um they’re not enforcable but they’re notes that would be brought to the developers attention I

Think putting an informative on stating that we’d like the developer to have particular regard to sorry I’m losing my voice potentially more sensitive receptors different to normal residents on the boundary side of the construction site I’m sure that the developer would um take that on board when they were

Looking at their construction plans if we were to do that so so you’re confirming we can make that an informative note within the actual planning I just want it to be you know publicly noted that that is something that you know that I want them to be mindful of and that there are

Methods to be able to dull the sound further than just putting up a simple um normal fence there are acoustic fencing that can be accommodated um to mitigate some of that okay yes I mean it’s fine to put it on as an informative thank you councel Reeds Council wats

Talking about the bicycle shed it’s quite unbelievable chairman you said publicly just now that I voted for the blp and it’s adoption at shop andher Manor Hotel some moons ago you’re quite right but I wasn’t voting for this site to be released from the Green Belt the BMP covered a massive other

Things and as you may or may not know there was the green belt was at at risk elsewhere without the Bop I knew that I don’t were you on the council that stage you were yeah but at that particular stage there were other sites in the area in the whole Ro B

Which were at risk and I knew that and therefore the argument was we must have a blp to stop stop that happen um there was there’s a lot of pressure goes on you know behind the scenes which you know not everybody knows and that was one of them I

Certainly voted for the Bop but I knew the numbers and I knew and this is the point I knew the number numbers I knew even if I voted against it it wouldn’t have made any difference so that’s the the the the answer to your query about

Why I voted for it and I hope that makes it clear thank you Council ERS councilor Martin just this is a blp Arrangement however there’s some positives to be brought from this application which Gary’s outlined most of them such as the affordable and social there’s also the um leap which is the

Children’s play park in the middle the carbon offset at 236,000 oddd and the travel plans with the zeer crossing and bus shelter so bearing in mind um Gary mentioning this the screening and construction I would second what Gary said his proposal thank you thank you councelor Martin councelor

Hunt thank you um this is quite number of houses the applications States we’ve got one entrance do we not need an emergency entrance all those cars coming and going onto the one road shouldn’t there be uh for safety reasons an emergency entrance bring in one of our planning

Officers if that’s okay and if it is a a highways consideration Council hunt obviously we do have have the ability to we don’t have a highways officer here specifically but it is requested if there’s any specific highways questions to be brought early so we can then get

That responses so I don’t I don’t believe that was asked prior so that highways officers could respond to it but I don’t know whether Nick you have anything to hand that you might be able to share with councelor hun to share with councelor hunt um chair but what I would say there’s were

Obviously no objections from highways who would be reviewing matters uh in relation to highway safety um access safe access safe eress from the site and deemed the Quantum of development to be applicable for just the one access point vehicles um we recently well last year even this

Year for all I know um um looked at Spencer’s farm and that was refused because of the emergency um access so where is this emergency access and it’s thanks to one of the speakers that brought this to mind thank you aent so I mean firstly they’re different

Applications so each appli has to be looked at on its own merits um I won’t comment too much on on that particular application I’ll focus on tonight what we have is the highways Authority who are our technical consultants in highways matters telling us that that they have no objections to the

Application on highways grounds they haven’t said that it’s necessary to have a a second access or an emergency access and they haven’t raised any objection so with with a technical advisor advising no issues I would have to say that I don’t think that’s a matter that we should

Should be examining much further tonight we don’t have any evidence or technical views before USS that would contradict that view from the highway Authority thank you Adrian uh councelor Singh councelor sing oh sorry I just wanted to re iterate uh what councelor um Reeves was saying um with

This development um to have a have it publicly noted uh by the development that we want to if possible a wider Gap with uh sort of more mature trees so and acoustic uh barrier or sound barrier to stop as far as possible the noise from the

Construction which is going to be over a longer time it is uh for people at the hospit at their end of life so that’s something I think all the councilors feel very passionately about thank you thank you councelor s councelor Taylor uh thank you in regards to um

Morin’s point about the emergency access I’m I TR try searching for it but um I’m fingers aren’t fast enough unfortunately pretty sure I read somewhere it’s dependent on the development size and spent as far as 330s which is treble the um so I’m assuming it’s something to do

With that um just one other point I’d like to make is the you know the BP vote what can you say um we were told we had to you know pass the BP otherwise we won’t have a fiveyear housing BP got past we still don’t have 5year housing

Suppli so we’ve been backed up against all twice really and as frustrated as I know I am and especially with applications like this you know yeah I’ve got a personal opinion but I’m not here to give a personal opinion I’m here to act on the planning panel and if

There’s no planning reason to refuse it we’re basically up against the wall um so yeah thank you councilor Taylor so with’ oh Council hunts again very quickly councel hunts um I’d like to comment on councelor Reeves uh he made a suggestion that he particularly likes social housing I particularly like social

Housing as well can this be put in as a implemented in this application so so the application from does have social housing within it and I think if you look if I just get the report up in front of me the report does show in the recommendation the percentage of social

Affordable rent and shared ownership on the second page so yeah page two shows that fantastic councelor is it something very new yes it is um sorry there something I I realized I hadn’t asked there’s um a pathway I think that runs around the lake and then also down the side of the

Site the east side of the site we saw a photo of it I I just want to understand maybe I’ve kind of missed this is um the access and will that that how that’s going to be Pro protected for public use will they have to go all the way around

To the lake to be able to use it or will there be the ability for public access to still utilize those those um walking Pathways and foot paaths because obviously again it really is encouraging people to enjoy um the lake and the area and to actually walk more as well

Question Council Rees the um the application layout does include a foot paath to the north of the site connecting to the informal circular route that you talk about going around Ro Lake and also centrally positioned on the west side of the site there is an access point to that foot paath as well

And obviously people from the road side from the a308 l Road they can access the path directly C it’s Circ four four to 5 me wide it’s there’s a there’s a good distance of path left so they haven’t um given that short sh in in the overall spatial planning of it fantastic thank

You Nick right so members we’ve got a motion on the table from Council Reeves and seced by Council Martin will would you like ex okay so the motion on the table is to Grant planning permission with the conditions listed in section 15 of of the report excluding section 17 uh condition

17 um with the additional condition in section three um I will now take a name vote councilors can vote for against or abstain uh councelor Douglas you can just you can just say four yeah uh councelor Reeves councel hunt uh counc Taylor uh councelor sing councelor Martin four councel Reynolds four four councilor

Walters so that is six for one against and one exstension therefore the motion passes thank you will and thank you for all the public speakers on the item moving on to the next items agenda item five and agenda item six there are there are both applications and items on

The same sites one is an application and one is a listed building consent so I propose that we’re going to take both together we’re going to speak on both together but we will take separate votes on them if that’s okay with all members fantastic thank you everybody so

It’s a listed building consent and a full application so we will discuss both together as it’s the same thing and what we’ll then do is take separate votes on them if that’s okay so CLA do you want to take us through oh counc um I’m I’ve got a conflict of

Interest uh due to a property I own in St I’s road so I’ll leave the room thank you discuss just um as you explained there um there’s a for planning application and a listed building consent application at Maiden Head Library so it’s for the reason it’s listed building consent is there’s some

Internal works for ducting which requires the listed building consent and then the full planning application is covers that but also there’s some condenser units proposed outside um so the reason for this application is the current system needs upgrading it’s come to the end of its useful life so it

Needs some a new system for heating and air conditioning so if you look up on the plans you can see the external location for the um condenser units which would be um screened by um fencing the details of which are recommended to be secured by condition um and this was

Actually an amendment um for the location of where they were originally proposed on the building due to concerns raised by the conservation officer um over the harm to the listed building so that’s why they’re cited now to the sort of side rear of the building um and then this is just the

Internal floor plans showing the location of the ducting um within the building um and it should be said that within the buildings some of this work has been undertaken so it’s sort of retention of that um partially um and then this just shows you the the

Overview of the library and then you can see sort of the pink Square indicates the location of where the the condenser units would go and have screening around it um so I think that’s the end of the presentation um so yeah both applications are recommended for approval subject to um certain

Conditions outlined in in the committee reports thank you CLA uh councilor Douglas thank you very much Mr chairman um our officers able to um definitely assure the panel that this proposal doesn’t constitute a conflicting development with the um waterways supplementary planning guidens um issued some years ago on the basis that it’s potentially

Restricting access I mean the slide we just had up shows it quite clearly there’s a severe restriction of access to the Waterfront when this uh when this is placed there if I come in on this point um I don’t believe there would be be any direct conflict with the waterways strategy in terms

Of this application proposed I know there was Ambitions to improve the access point there which is is probably a separate matter but I’d also say I think there are quite a few benefits that are in favor of this which include the continued retention of a public use at the library and ensuring

That it has an appropriate environment for that continued use which mouth might outweigh any harm even if a member did think it was there um what what I would say is given this is a a council application as well while I as the head of planning don’t think there would be

Any grounds to refuse this application tonight I think that the benefits weigh in in favor of approving there are probably mechanisms outside of this committee tonight that could explore whether slight changes to the sighting might deliver a better outcome for other priorities um but I I’d suggest perhaps

There aren’t to the heart of the decision tonight but maybe could be taken up outside of this meeting thank you Adrian um I say from from being in the library on one of the very very cold days in last year um it is incredibly cold at the moment in there

And it is a great to Lista building with with very little insulation and very little in terms of of heating or or that kind at the moment so I think this is an important application I think Adrian’s right in terms of by approving today the sort of the

The base of this I think then if there is any movements or adjustments which could be made it’s something the council could take away separately and and could could make quite easy and swiftly that I think is an important point for to be taken away Jack yeah

Car thank you so I may I may not have heard rightly I don’t think you specifically said that there that you can definitely assure that it isn’t development but I mean you can correct me if I’m wrong on that but um obviously I mean it’s absolutely essential that

Something goes ahead um I don’t know whether the condensers are actually in operation in the current locations I think they probably are you know they just they’ve been told they have to move them so the question is whether we we write that wrong by creating another wrong or whether there’s some much more

Sensible location for the condensers than banging it right bang in the middle of the only access for boats to the Waterway I think you’re right in terms of there is a better way of doing this I I again I don’t think that’s for today’s meeting but I think it’s a case of that

There’s a discussion to be had after determination today I I think I think this here is better than than nothing and therefore I would be minded to vote for this application as it stands I think then there’s some work which needs to go on between members and officers to

Work out is there an alternative and if there is an alternative we can we can look at putting that place definitely allowed to have those conversations after approval if we approve this specific location from the plans that are here before the committee can we then even can we then remove them

Without having a subsequent planning up so the the decision will be on the application tonight that the council is the the landowner and obviously the applicant so it’s down to the council outside of this planning committee whether they implement the plan or whether they explore an alternative um there are also Provisions

Whereby the council could either seek to amend the application or could apply for for an alternative permission if it felt an alternative solution were were appropriate so effectively what members would be saying was they think on balance that that this application should be approved but if if there are

Better solutions they want other parts of the council to explore those and and I’m happy Council Douglas to take that up with you and and have those conversations if it if it appropriate outside of this forum councelor Taylor I am unfortunately going to Echo what councelor Douglas has said um I’m quite

Concerned to hear that the ramp is going to be blocked because the waterways have come on in Leaps and Bounds and it’s it’s a central point to Maiden head and the waterways end of the Town um I wonder is there I know I appreciate what Adrian said however I wonder is there a

Condition that we can put on this for those conversations to happen so that the panel are comfortable that they will happen I’m not saying we’re not going to take you at your word but I would feel more comfortable agreeing to the application if I knew for definite It Was Written in

There that conversations had to be had and avenues explored I I I can send an email on Friday and copy the panel in if to start those discussions if that’s something that that would help Adrian uh I I don’t think you could address it by by condition in in this

Case because it’s quite I mean it’s it’s quite fundamental the application is a location plan it shows them in in that location while there might be methods I.E another planning application or a formal application to amend the application that could explore Alternatives I think condition to explore Alternatives is

Effectively saying we want a different planning application so I don’t think you could you could do that in this case I think it’s just un fortunate that I mean I wasn’t aware of the access blocking at the time so I think it’s unfortunate that that wasn’t thought of and that the waterways

Weren’t consulted on at the time the application came through I wonder whether moving forward we can learn from that and and maybe have the waterways as a a consulty on anything that borders the waterways really thank you counc Taylor and I think myself as the chair

Of planning and know that Adam is the cabinet own for planning is in the room as well I think that’s think for us to take away and and discuss and and see what we can do definitely councelor Martin sorry yeah I was just saying apart from apart from that point there

Which everyone’s picked up on there are some positives of this it’s part retrospective isn’t it that there problems with um which were picked up by historic England and 20th Century Society where they’ve been rectified on the aesthetic reasons and this of building reasons um but I have to say the the Waterway

Access is niggling me a little bit and you know otherwise apart from that I would be prepared to put a proposal to to uh vote for this but that clarification I’ll probably like outlined a little bit better um I think my fellow counsel’s just stolen my thunder a little bit um

From the point of view of the aesthetic element of and when you look at the plans the powder coating of the trunking to actually match the window frames uh is that an actual I presume a condition within the actual um proposal it say I know I know

It’s within it it shows it that it will be that that’s the that that’s a proposal so does that make it a condition that it has to meet that requirement when it’s actually built sorry sorry in terms of the material talking about the powder coating of the trunking um that’s going

To go on the outside of the building I think yeah it literally just me it has one mention of it and it says it will be to match the window frames it’s covered by condition three of the listed building consent okay thank you and that obviously would have

Resolved the um also the aesthetic element of it as well um so on that basis I think that’s that was that and everyone else has said about the access to the Waterway um is the only concern I are you happy to propose a motion counselor was there not already a motion

I’ve proposed I thought you proposed it no oh you happy to do so then I’ll I’ll propose that um we move forward with uh approving this application thank you Council Council Taylor uh thank you chair um we all know this is needed but this this Waterway thing is really quite niggling um I

Would lay a motion down to please don’t laugh at me defer and delegate head of planning subject to further conversations thank you councelor Taylor councelor Martin I need to say that I would second um Council re’s motion uh councilor Douglas um I’d like to Second hel’s motion please thank

You so we’ve got two motions on the table um one to approve and one to defer and delegate the motion to approve was proposed and seconded first so we’ll take a vote on that first if that motion Falls then we will go to the second motion that is for the full building

Consent agenda item five will you have to take V so um the first motion will be to vote um for approval so the motion on the table is to Grant planning permission with the condition listed in section 13 of the report uh this motion was proposed by uh councelor Reeves and

Seconded by councel Martin I will now take a name vote councilors can vote for against or abstain uh councelor Douglas against yeah uh councelor Reeves oh um councelor Taylor uh councelor sing councelor Martin uh councel Reynolds uh and councelor Walters okay so that is pre against and for for

So the motion carries thank you will um so that is the full application itself obviously we’ve now got or we’ve then got the listed building consent councel Rees and councel maram and I okay to assume you would be happy to propose and second the list of building consent side of the application

Fantastic in that case then let’s go to a vote on that listed building so the motion on the table proposed by councelor re and second seconded by councel Martin is to Grant listed building consent with conditions in section 13 I will now take a name vote uh councel Douglas uh councelor Rees

Four Council Taylor four uh councelor Singh uh councelor Martin four councelor Reynolds four and councelor Watters so so that is um six4 and one abstention so the motion carries thank you will next item on the agenda then is you going wther down uh next item the agenda then is agenda item seven which

Is 12 Lees close uh take a sleep yes thank you um so item number four is for 12 Lee close uh the proposal is for retrospective outbuilding um application site is situated in Southwest Maiden head it is next to a404 as it can see on this um map um The

Proposal seeks a retrospective planning permission for retention of detached out building within the rear Garden of the application site uh and the out building uh as you can see in this plans is flat roofed um and would have the height of 2.6 M uh as submitted plan show the out

Building also have three interl rooms which would be used for gym and office spaces um also the out building is going to be only used for incidental purpose hence the Planning Commission is recommended for approval subjetive conditions uh with an update report uh from with an update

Report where is there is an additional condition which uh which says that it’s going to ensure the surface water from the development is managed uh it is because of the national highways in the recent response dated 19th December request is specific drainage related documents to demonstrate that additional surface

Water runoff would not risk their asset that is a404 thank you CH thank you very much we have one speaker on this and that is councilor ban Council B you’ve got three minutes to speak and will will give you a one minute warning when you thank

You there we go thank you chair uh the planning system exists to ensure people can enjoy the use of their land without causing unacceptable harm to the rider environment and Community therefore when a breach of planning control occurs as is the case here it’s understandable

This can cause a great deal of upset for all those affected however the system is not a punitive one and it allows such breaches to be regularized in the first instance through a retrospective planning application this application while relatively minor does appear to have led to an impact beyond the

Immediate Neighbors which is why I believe it’s right for it to be considered tonight by the committee respectfully I do believe there remains planning harm that will not be addressed through granting this retrospective application which has been overlooked in the recommendation at the very least I believe there is outstanding information

That means a decision shouldn’t be made this evening the assertion that because a lawful development certificate under National generally permitted development for an out building of less than half the size of the one actually built means that the principle of that development of an outbuilding is acceptable within

The context of the local development plan strikes me as very odd moreover as the criteria for permitted development is not met here this application should be decided in accordance with the development plan I want to talk about one particular harm noise pollution the site is within 100 meters

Of a Motorway so under the blp’s noise pollution policy ep4 the site should be treated as an area of significant environmental noise now I make the specific reference to the noise polic I made the specific reference to noise policy in my Callin but this has been overlooked which I’m afraid I must take

Issue with because the alleged impact of increased environmental noise from the a30 404m is a material consideration that has been raised widely by residents objecting it is accepted that trees which provided noise screening have been cleared and whilst they are not protected nor within the red line drawn

By the applicant their removal should be viewed as part of the development operation and the consequential impact on environment Al noise together with the fact that an acoustically reflected flat roof has been added has got to be seen to have altered the acoustic environment none of us are acoustic

Engineers so in compliance with ep4 it would be entirely appropriate and proportionate to require a formal noise impact assessment from the applicants to demonstrate whether harm has occurred and whether mitigation is possible National highways are a statutary consult tee on this application and have been chasing for information from the

Applicants without success they initially requested a decision be delayed until December to give them time to receive and respond to this information but they have now requested a further delay of eight weeks in the absence of this information they have not been able to provide a final substantive response to the LPA in

Conclusion in the absence of substantive response from National highways and without the requisite noise impact assessments the committee simply does not have the information possible to make a fully informed decision retrospective planning Mission should therefore not be granted this evening thank you thank you councelor fanch members open up to debate who

Would like to speak first councilor Watters offic advice I think let’s let’s hear a few speakers first that’s okay alers and and then if there’s anything that been raised there officers can add that into their advice we go if that’s okay uh councelor Rees thank you very much for the

Opportunity to speak I was just making some notes about the invest um uh Speech from a fellow counselor and um just taking notes and I think he’s raising a couple of key um concerns and things that we have to take into account um on the face of it it obviously it does look

As though um it should be um agreeable um for retrospective planning um on the basis of most of the elements of it however um raising the concern about environmental noise the a404 m and uh the lack of trees that uh would then effectively help to screen that noise

Could have a impact on the neighboring properties and their um enjoyment of their land and the enjoyment of their property um because the noise could proliferate not just into the actual uh Garden of the um the building uh in question but also the neighbors immediately to the side of them that’s

Um a concern for me on the basis that I again I am also not an acoustic expert uh on the matter uh but however I do feel that we should have more information about that element um I do understand about noise created by the

A40 before M I live quite near to it I walk past it often um and all the residents that uh within Cox green who are joined to the 404 have huge trees they have protection from the noise I even attempted to actually I was looking at a property that did actually back on

To the 404 and during the viewing I went to the back end of the garden uh and actually could tell that the screening from trees and from shrubs and the natural screening did have a um beneficial effect on reducing the noise in into the Garden area um on the basis

Of that experience that I’ve had with that and the fact that these trees have now gone missing but because of this um development um I feel that there is more information that we need on an impact assessment around that uh and whether potentially uh trees should be replaced

And therefore or or some other alternative screaming uh from a noise perspective um and also the national highways um uh have been delayed in being able to give their um considered expert opinion it is their land that it backs on to uh there is uh been a delay till the 13th of

December they still have not had a response and due to that have not got substantive information that makes a difference for them to be able to give their opinion on that basis I don’t feel I I can make a decision today um on being able to approve it feel that this

Should be deferred uh on the basis that we do actually receive that information to the planning officer thank you councelor so I’m minded to do that at present okay that’s not a motion as of yet not as yet I am minded to do that and I can come back

Afterwards after I’ve heard more thank you councelor re uh councelor hunt yeah I’m bit more than a bit concerned about this one Mr chair I agree with councelor Reefs on the attenuation noise attenuation that was there um and has been removed not from their land but from from the Highway’s land

Um you know if that was on somebody else’s land would they do it so anyway I am concerned with that I’m concerned that it is over the height of a a permitted development if it was meant to be permitted development they should have made sure it was under

That height and because it’s now come to panel for a a full planning application that’s what we need to look at um I knowe one plan that shows bedroom store office and with WC’s at the back of the bedroom and the office this is to be ancillary and I

Know our officers have said um on the condition that it is to be anciliary how many times do we have to uh enforce this and send enforcement through um might be totally legitimate but from this plan it’s a bit confusing and ambiguous uh I I have my

I find it’s over big for a shed well anyone can have sheds you can have a three four car garad you know um but there when it’s got two WC’s one bedroom one office and one store you know they either have the plan in mind of what they want or they don’t

You can’t come back with all different plans Here There and Everywhere well that might be any good so I’ll change it now um but certainly the noise attenuation needs to come forward we need to have more information on that before because this is a full planning application now so thank

You thank you councelor hunt uh councelor Taylor um thank you uh I have all the same concerns as counc and counc hunt for the life of me why would you need a back door onto land that’s not yours that you’ve cleared a trees it’s it’s so confusing I don’t I don’t think

It knows what it wants to be to be quite Frank and I would be minded to refuse oh hold on everyone um let’s let’s let’s go in order and then obviously counc says she’s minded to so hasn’t proposed a motion yet so we we’ll come back to things um councelor sing uh

Thank you chair just want to follow on from what uh colleagues councilor Ree and councelor B said um we don’t have the full information especially for ep4 the noise pollution and going back to the first item we had on the agenda where we were minded to ask the developer to put

A wider gap for a sake um uh suppression uh of the noise and or having trees there these trees have already been removed which was on their property so what Um we just don’t have the full information to make a decision today so we remed to uh refer this back to the officers to get the full information before we can uh make a decision today thank you thank you councilor sing coun Rees um I think most people have spoken

Although councilor Martin hasn’t yet um however um for me I I don’t the actual application itself and the design of it and um I appreciate that the actual officers have put in that there is an a condition on it being an ancillary use um and I’ve read through all of the

Proposals about what that use to be it would be uh like a home office use and that is allowable to have a WC or an adjoining WC to it and also a a gym um we’re not here to judge what their use is as long as it doesn’t actually um

Verge into it being actually a separate dwelling then yes absolutely that would be of a concern um what has been put before us is not that it’s actually been put forward as an ancillary use and that’s being protected by way of condition and yes I understand that

There will be an enforcement element but we are giving the council the opportunity to enforce that in the future if it was to be for example noticed by any of the residents that that ancillary use has has evolved or changed um my concern is just still the

The issue of the noise and the noise pollution for the enjoyment of the residents nearby and the ep4 concern is is a major one for me um and I I feel that I can only um propose that we um defer this uh until such time as we actually have a

Reply on that evaluation of the um the environmental noise pollution and also uh a response from the national highways um is that defer or defer thank you so that’s that’s the flooding and it’s the noise it’s a flooding the feedback from the national highways and

And uh the ep4 uh yeah the noise the noise pollution and scre is that uh deferring or is that to defer and delegate so do you want that to do you want them to to do that I think it should be uh sorry so to defer the application

Would be to bring it back to panel at a future date once those things have been given or to defer and delegate would be to allow the applicant to do the same to put all those things in it then be considered by planning team and decided by the planning team rather than coming

Back to us the second timeis I think I I think I I I I respect the decision of the of the planning officers um on the basis that I think you’re hearing what we’re saying about that there is a concern um about it um actually well I I’ll defer it the

Proposal is just to defer it because it should come back to us I want to be able to see the impact of the noise thank you councelor Rees councelor Taylor um yeah I’d just like to ask question obviously there is concerns I know um about the use I mean three

Entrances to anciliary building is a bit ridiculous I’d like to ask the planning officers what obviously if this was approved and it was found it was being used for something different it would be going down enforcement line enforcement capability like at the moment I’d like to

Know I can that so um in terms of the recommendation there was a condition requiring the building to be used for incidental purposes um in connection with the dwelling house so if it then transpired that it was not being used in such a way in connection with the house

And for example was used as an independent dwelling it would be in breach of condition and therefore not complying with the terms of per permission so enforcement then could take action that um just the reason I’m asking is obiously the plans my computer’s just gone dead no it hasn’t

Here we go um the plans suspiciously look like it is for a dwelling with three doors and two two toilets for an anary building and we’ve had this before in applications where it’s it seemed clear and I’m saying seemed because I’m not accusing anyone of anything I’d just

Like to make that point now where it seen that the use is for something that’s not being stated so my question was really in regards to um our department as a whole the planning department how enforceable is that condition I guess is the wording that’s that’s best to

Use in terms of the the home office and and the gym um so it’s not shown as an independent dwelling so they have to adhere to that plan but also the condition is there to ensure that it’s used for purposes incidental to the main dwelling house which I know it’s not

Permitted development but for classy out buildings that’s that’s permitted so it’s that use being has to be in connection with the dwelling house thank you counc Taylor uh we bring in Adan and then go to cashmir ccor S thank you chair I think I I just need to make some

Some points of clarification just to bear in mind that the planning Authority has a has a duty to be reasonable in determining planning applications and only be asking for information that is relevant and necessary to the determination of the application um looking at the application site if you look at it from

The road which is the source of noise one can quite clearly see there haven’t been any substantive trees behind this property that would have provided noise attenuation for quite a number of years and I can I can see the historic photos going back all the way to

2015 one can also see that there’s a change in level and that there’s a fence and that the height of this out building will quite clearly and obviously be below the fence which would be the primary thing that would deflect or or change the pattern of noise coming from the noise

Barrier so I I I really struggle I can’t think of any situation where I have ever asked for a noise or acoustic assessment as part of determining an outbuilding application they have quite significant costs associated with them the outcome of the assessment is fairly obvious just

Based on a a basic assessment of the site so I I do struggle with whether it’s reasonable to ask or request that information um in terms of the surface water drainage situation it again is a is a somewhat bizarre one in that we have information and National highways are really

Objecting because they haven’t looked at it um again there’s a change in level there’s a decent distance between the building in the actual Highway land it’s fairly obvious what the outcome will be um and there’s a condition proposed that requires details and if they weren’t happy with the details it would be

Fairly simple to provide a larger soak away or to direct the surface water in an alternative Direction via the way of drainage and pipes so it’s it’s up to the committee tonight but my professional view is some of the things that are being asked for probably go

Beyond the Realms of what would be reasonable for this application and that a condition could quite easily address any any concerns from highways England I I just feel a duty to provide those clarifications before members go to the V thank you Adrian councelor s thank you chair thank you councelor Singh so are

There any other speakers on the item so far so to just to confirm obviously councelor Reeves given the um Adrian’s thoughts um your motion is to defer the application um for a flood and noise risk assessments and and you’re happy with that so far um I’ll let I’ll bring

Councelor hunt in because she’s indicated speak then we come back if that’s okay councelor Rees in a second yeah councelor hunt I’m so sorry councelor Reeves just a quick one Mr chairman the the property in the in in this application uh has office use um and residents have complained about the

Caruse the buildup of cars on the road and outside and some blocking driveways if this has office use we’re giving permission for this are we looking at parking or anything else to go at the office use sorry can hunt just to just to clarify so the proposal is on the basis

That the use of the outbuilding is incidental to the use of the main house so where it’s where it’s labeled offices the the use we’re considering is it being used as a as a home office much like I work in my out building at home um in the shed we’re not talking about

Granting permission potentially for a commercial office which would be a business use where we’re talking about an office use for the owners of the home to when they’re working from home working if there were a use above and beyond that for example employees elsewhere coming in and them actually

Using it as a commercial office that would then be a matter that the enforcement team would have to look at to see if there was a breach of the condition which had been imposed just just to clarify that point Thank You Adrian councilor Reeves just to bring

You back in on your motion just to confirm if you are still happy with proposing it and then obviously councel Singh as a seconder so um can I ask for a clarification on the ep4 um um applicability um is there um any to get confirmation about specific provision of of nearness to to

Motorways within the ep4 and distance what that distance is so I mean ep4 talks about the impact of of noise on on development and properties you’d normally if you were looking at a proposal for new homes for example you would normally assess whether the internal living environment

Of the of the home um provides adequate noise insulation so normally you’d look at for example the the bedrooms whether the bedrooms achieved an appropriate environment for sleep and they were ventilated Etc um you wouldn’t normally apply that policy to to an out building that would be incidental um which with

The exception of of the height people can use for anything I think the point which was perhaps being made by councilor ban in in speaking was whether the removal of the trees and the the insertion of a building here might impact on the way that noise travels to the other Residential

Properties um and and I think my my professional feelings I can only give you my professional feelings and then it’s for members of the committee to take a view is it it doesn’t look to me like there has been any substantial changes to screening behind the site since since at least

2015 um and given the outbuilding level I can clearly see from all the photos from the road the fence and then the house behind it I don’t believe that the outbuilding here would be of a height that impacted on how noise traveled when you take into account that there’s already a change in

Level and a fence next to the highway which would be the primary noise barrier or thing altering the behavior of the noise um and it just seems very unusual um noise assessments are quite expensive we would not normally ask an applicant to do a noise assessment for

An out building at at the rear of the garden we would ask an applicant building a new home to do a noise assessment to check that the noise mitigation was adequate thank you aent um I’m I’m fairly comfortable councelor reads with the motion that you from my personal SE

And I I’m minded to support the motion that you put forward just that extra information from from where I I see things yeah there anything else you want to add before we go to a vote yeah I I take what Adrian’s saying he’s saying in his professional opinion um as as a um

You know D assistant director of planning um he’s used The Fairly obvious the statement of Fairly obvious you know I’ve always been taught that we have to do make decisions on evidence-based thinking um uh not on what is fairly obvious it’s not fairly obvious to me I

Haven’t seen any of these photos he talks about photos of of the property none of that’s been presented to us I can’t see all all of that information or or the you know the the change but what I have been informed of is that there have been trees that have been removed

That would have in you know that could have an impact on that and so I think that I need more guidance as to how that would impact um uh that plus there’s also the flooding issue with the national highways and uh actually getting the information to them so then

We can make a a clear and evidence-based judgment so I would still go forward with the motion to defer thank you councelor Rees councelor Martin yeah it was just to say about the drainage um side of things that was missing as well wasn’t it from the the original reports that we dealing with

Right now so yeah just to add that in but I Council re has mentioned it anyway thank you Council Martin um so we have no other speakers registered we’ve got one motion proposed by councelor re second by councelor S which is to defer the application will would you like to

Take us through to vot so so the motion on the table proposed by Council Reeves and seconded by councelor sing is to defer planning uh defer planning permission until a reply on the noise imp act assessment and a groundwater surface drainage assessment um is heard or is completed so I will

Now take a name vote um councilors they can either vote for against or abstain councelor Douglas councelor Reeves councel hunt Council Taylor Council Singh councelor Martin councel Reynolds four councelor Walters uh so that is unanimously past thank you well moving on everybody to the next application which is agricultural Barn 2

CLA would you like to take us through it yeah application before you is an outline application for Access and scale to be considered um for an Agricultural Bond at shter Brook Farm so I’ll just run through the slides um overhead so you can see the the red line plan and

Also the blue indicates ownership um and here’s just an aerial photo just showing the sighting of barn um so this application um follows on from an earlier planning per that was granted um at committee for a sort of similar size building the dimensions have slightly changed and previously it

Was approved slightly further to the to the north than the proposed building now um so in terms of the storage requirements what was used for it’s the same as what was previously granted except now it’s just in terms of the the operational requirements it makes more sense um for maneuverability for the

Barn to be cited um further south so that’s why the applications come in as it is um but fundamentally it’s for the same storage purposes as previously granted so um it’s quite a large building um but as was the previous one that was approved so um a pretty standard agricultural um building and

Then the floor plan which you know it doesn’t show what exactly is going to be stored where but the report details um there’s quite a lot of storage requirements for this um so those are the um the slides I have um in terms of the conditions um there is standard ones

Recommended um and also one that’s only either this permission or the previous permission which is still extant can be implemented not both um so I think that covers it thank you CLA members open up to discussion someone’s gonna want to kick us off councilor

Hunt yeah this is in my ward um and and I think this is a replacement of permission previously given the similar size I don’t have a problem with it at all and I’d like to put forward a motion with officer recommendation to go for officers recommendation thank you councelor hunt councelor Taylor

Second councelor Taylor I’d like to second that motion thank you councelor Taylor anyone else wish to speak on the item fantastic so we’ve got a motion on the table proposed by councelor hunt and seconded by councelor Taylor will would you like to take us to a vote okay so

The motion as P stated um is proposed by Council hun seconded by Council Tor is Grant planning permission um with the listed uh with the listed conditions in section 12 of the report I will now go to a name vote uh councelor Douglas for uh councelor Reeves councelor hunt councelor Taylor councel

Sing councelor Martin councel councelor Walters the you um motion is unanimously Carri thank you well thank you everybody final application tonight is the southern end of staffon way Sarah you’re online and we’ve we’ve kept you sitting with baited breath online for for a number of hours now do you want to

Take us through the application thank you chair just to share my screen I can’t find it now hang on is can you see that okay yes sah we can yeah hey oh is there something I need to do is there really bad feedback no you’re okay on your end I

Think it might just be well Sarah but you’re all okay okay thank you chair the application is uh an outline application for Access appearance and layout scale only with landscape to be considered at Reserve matters for 43 Flats with Associated car parking in a stick six-story building on

An existing private car park at the southern end of staffon way I forget I can’t why is it not coming up with my next slide what am I doing wrong Sarah if you go down into the bottom right you can see the little Podium it’s yeah yeah that

One hey we can see thank you I get that wrong every time okay so this is the site plan it’s not actually that good I’ll go on to the next page so this is the site plan this is the site it’s currently um a private car park for BMW

Garages with an existing access off Stafford and way and it’s adjacent to this uh river which oh the OS map calls the cut but everyone else seems to call it uh York stream um so that’s the site it’s opposite the opposite um howth Road industrial

Estate to the north to the South as I said you have the river and you have the open space a lot Gardens and you have this footway on the southern side which is quite from what I could tell from my site visits is quite well used footpath

This is shows the application in the application site in a bit more context up the road here you have Littles you’ve got uh a lot more Gardens on the park to the South and you and you’ve got the river it basically sits in that corner of two parts of the

River this is the floor plan it’s pretty pretty dense um just to give you an indication so on the ground floor you’ve got 15 car parking spaces you’ve got cycle parking spaces and bin storage and the rest of the flats uh above and this these are the elevations

Um which if I do um show you this is a cross-section I think this is quite actually quite Illuminating it shows the river and how close it actually is to the river itself but that gives you an indication of the scale I think and this is um a photo

Montage showing this is for what it would look like a staffon link and this is a mockup of what it would look like from the river so the the site itself is um is owned by the council and notice was served on property service is and York stream

Slthe cut is a defined River the by the environment agency is defined main river and because it’s a tributary of the river temps it’s um a priority habitat and the site also lies within flood zone 3 if I go back show the access sorry I show the access is as

Existing parking the bin storage is proposed on the ground floor um residential accommodation would take the form of 231 bed units 16 two bed units two three bed units and two four bed units and affordable housing they say it’s proposed but they haven’t shown it on the layout which they’ve actually applied

For which is slightly strange so whilst the principle of Housing Development is acceptable in purely spatial planning terms in this location there’s a lot a lot wrong with this application as you can see by the number of refusal reasons um just to quickly go through them there’s the failure of the

Sequential test because it’s in flood zone 3 and they haven’t adequately shown that there could be uh built development outside of flood zone 3 within uh the burrow those lack of any sustainability or climate change information they didn’t submit any reports on that basis there’s no detail on the affordable

Housing there’s an over provision of one bed flats and an underprovision of three four bed Flats when compared to the U barsh strategic housing market assessment there is insufficient detail to fully assess surface water drainage there’s a lack of um an adequate buffer to the river Bank on the

Adj of the adjacent Waterway and it’s worth mentioning on the update sheet you see that the environment agency have supported uh the reason for refusal on this basis and also due to its height scale mass and bulk and design it would unduly dominate the street scene as well as the

Um the footpath on the other side of the river and the access itself would be dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists highway safety they did not submit an air quality assessment report and it’s close to existing aqma um and it failed they didn’t submit any uh biodiversity net gain so there’s

No biodiversity net gain and it fails to demonstrate there wouldn’t be a harmful impact on the identified priority habitat of the stream itself loss of the existing trees at the other end of the site which were planted as part of the Way Extension and lack of communal

Immunity space so that’s the um 12 reasons for refusal thank you thank you Sarah um if it’s okay with the panel members I’m going to start off first if that’s if that’s okay um i’ I’ve been chair of this planning panel since June and I’ve been a member of it

For four and a half years which I understand is significantly less than than people such as councel hunt and councel Waters um but I’ve got to say this is probably the worst application that I’ve seen in my four and a half years on the planning panel um the developer could have done some

Pre- application work and and and and done that together and work with officers but it almost feels like to me that they’ve just stuck in a chance or application to see yes or no it’s flood zone 3 there’s no affordable housing the water drainage is so close to the river

Bank I mean just that the image that Sarah’s got up on screen now it looks like they’ve dumped a six story block of Flats on a bit of land in the middle of nowhere it I’m honestly really annoyed that we’ve even got to consider this at the panel

Tonight because it’s so ridiculous and is a waste of time and money us having to do it the car parking just looks dangerous God knows how anyone thinks they’re going to get a car in and out of there safely um so I will propose officers recommendations uh next speak Council

Tay um thank you chair I have to agree with most of what you said it I don’t understand why this is even at panel it’s ridiculous it’s a waste of time I’m looking at an email now from the planning officers to the applicant with massive list as long on me arm of

Reasons why this application is not not up to standard it feels like they’ve just gone I will chance it and stick what looks like quite literally a cruise ship on a on a riverbank I mean cruise ship well some of them aren’t um you know it’s a wildlife Haven it’s you’ve

Got allotments opposite most of the um residents who are in the lofings and green fields use those allotments it’s on a safe route to school we already have problems on the halfth road roundabout with cars going on the wrong side of the road which would literally

Put them in a direct point of where they’re putting their access into this development um it it’s it’s horrendous and I would did you put a motion down I will second thank you thank you councelor Taylor councelor reeds um well I’m I’m not sure I can think of

Any planning policy that hasn’t been it hasn’t been rejected on uh this particular application uh the actual look of it and the street scene impact is huge um it looks like we’ve gone back to the 1970s and we’re trying to build um Council property and Council Flats

You know I’ve seen um Council Estates that look like this from the 60s and 70s in London when I used to live there and and this has not Advanced since then at all um the proximity to the to the river is hugely impactful to the wildlife um I’m glad the environmental

Agency have actually um put through um and got back to us on time to actually provide us with their reasons for rejection as well just to add to all the others that the officer has quite in my opinion correctly um detailed and um I I I I just cannot understand why

This application I can understand why this application is before us obviously the size and the impact of it yes it should it has to come before us um on the basis of that um and uh I know people that actually walk to Oldfield school um and take their children there

This had a huge impact on them and and the safety of of of them so um yeah I don’t really have have much more to say and I look forward to proceeding to the vote thank you councilor Reeves councilor sing thank you chair where should we start with this

This could have been dealt us uh by officers but now that it’s come to the panel that like a fellow counselors have already mentioned there isn’t any particular um policy this doesn’t contravene uh it’s cont to nr1 and nr2 and also the blp um and cont to uh qp2

So I would be minded to uh refuse this application thank you thank you councelor sing so we’ve got a motion on the table for officers recommendations will do you want to take us to the vote so the the motion on the table proposed by councelor Reynolds and

Seconded by councelor Taylor is to go with officers recommendations and refuse planning permissions for the re reasons listed in the report uh councelor Douglas councel Reeves councel hunt councelor Taylor councelor sing councelor Martin councelor re Reynolds for uh councelor Walters four four uh the motion is unanimously passed thank you

Will final agenda item agenda item 10 um planning appeals and decision reports are we happy to note the report members thank you very much in that case all that’s left thank you to officers and members and have a lovely Christmas to oh and we’ll see you in the new year thank you