Plans Committee – Thursday, 25th January 2024 at 5.00pm in Preston Room, Woodgate Chambers, Woodgate, Loughborough.
Agenda here: https://charnwood.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=152&MId=962&Ver=4
For for e for good evening ladies and gentlemen good evening members um I welcome to to this meeting of the plant committee on Thursday the 25th of January 2024 for chaa Bar Council first of all could I please ask every everyone present to turn off your mobile phones or switch them to silent
To ensure the meeting is distraction free and would you do this now please thank you I would also remind you 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 a notice with further information
Has been provided in the public Gallery speakers will be called forward at the appropriate time and we’ll have three minutes to speak when one minute of time is remaining they will be advised by the Democratic Services officer who is present with this present with us this evening Miss dos
Um now committee we have had a late request um on application uh B on our order tonight which is the Newton which is the new town Lyford application and Mr James lightf has asked if he can um take the object to slot with Mr Richard Palmer and they will share the three
Minutes are there any objections from any members to this we’re all happy for Mr lightford to take part thank you I will call um I will call all our speakers at the appropriate time um M dos do we have any apologies this evening please apologies have been received from councelor beita warl and
Councelor Beverly gray will be substitute and we’ve also had apologies from councelor Nat Taylor thank you well I’m sure we all welcome councelor gray to our meeting this evening um item two minutes of the previous meeting we’ve all seen the minutes of the previous meeting members
Uh are you happy to confirm this as a correct record of the meetings taken at the meeting on the 14th of December 2024 would you a show can we have a show of hands please uh if you agree that the minutes are correct any against any extensions thank you
The minutes of the previous meeting have now been confirmed as a correct record and I will sign them at the end of the meeting thank you item three questions under committee procedure 12.8 M Dobson have we received any questions under this item I confirm no questions have been submitted chair thank
You and item four are disclosures of pecuniary and personal interest M Dobson do we have we received any disclosures of Interest I can uh I’ve not received any disclosures of interest in advance of the meeting but I see members are now raising their hands so I will go around councilor low please
Thank you chair I’ll declare an interest in the um plan application p23 06682 um I’m a member of Thermon Parish Council I’m my chair of Thurston Parish Council but I’ve took no part in any debate on this and I come here with an open mind I’ve also received numerous um
Emails on this I’m sure other members have done the same um again I’ve not read those and I come here with an open mind thank you Council uh there are other members with interest I have councelor O’Neal I have councelor Palmer and I have councelor SN councelor O’Neal
Please uh thank you chair I received an email this morning from uh somebody who lived in burto um I can’t remember the address but I have not read it I not not opened it so I um and this was lobbying on the um waterme project um I’ve not
Read it and I come to the meeting with an open mind thank you thank you Council O’Neal Council Palmer Pleasers um I have a non-reg interest in um the waterme planning application and um so uh I come with a closed mind on this so I must leave the meeting leave leave the
Room thank you Council palom so you will be leaving the meeting at the appropriate time thank you Council SL please thank you madam chair um I’ve a disclosable interest in item 2 p2306 452 and we’ll be speaking against the recommendation I also had the correspondence as outlined uh by uh the
Counselor uh this morning thank you I’ve also had an email this morning from a burol resident but I haven’t read it Council oh I think we can all I can save some time here um thank you or maybe not uh I am aware that uh an email has been sent
Out to members from a Mr Brockway regarding the water me Park application um if you can all those members who have received that email please raise their hands thank you chair can I just I need to write the the um counselors down that have so if you can just keep your hands
Up that’s okay so we’ve got counselor Lenny councel Charles councelor Gray Lawrence low monk northedge O’Neal Palmer and snot I have my um counil computer emails have not worked for a week so I have received nothing so therefore I am a completely open mind and hopefully my computer will be back
Tomorrow chair can I just check that all those that put their hands up a moment a moment ago have come to the meeting with an open mind yeah yes sorry first of all I would like to say I have had the same experience as counselor frier I have not been able to
Receive any emails so I like Council FR I clearly have very open mind um but all those who have received the email could we now do what um M dos has asked us to do apart from of course councelor Palmer if you have received that email can you
Assure us that you come to this meeting with an open mind could we have a show of hands please okay thank you thank you for that members I’m sorry we were so laborious did you want to speak councelor northage yes thank you I I received the
Email I have come with an open mind but I have to tell you the exact email was on the planning portal anyway so is at a moot point you know whether it’s a declaration or not I mean I could have read it which I had read it which is why
I looked on the planning portal because I knew that I’d seen it before you see so just an observation thank you C nor just to clarify I’m going to ask our solicitor this evening M Grant if she will clarify the matter thank you for that I think if it’s already in the
Public domain anyway then clearly you don’t need to declare it I think just purely from transparency for this meeting this evening it it has been helpful I think we can move on now uh so uh we come uh to item five planning applications and our first uh application that we’re going to consider
This evening is number P stroke 23 Str 0668 str2 land at waterme Business Park thermost and councelor Palmer will leave the room now on this app could I just clarify before we start this the planet this planning application was deferred last time um and I noticed that we we’re about the
Same numbers as previously are we sure that we’re actually cor it for this uh to go ahead a whole new fresh right yeah we are covered Council start the application uh the report we have in front of us is a completely new report it it really doesn’t refer to the previous report
That we saw and we are cor we we did not need to call back people who were present the last last time um I have been assured that we are acting in in in complete in complete coordinance with regulations thank you so we only have one speaker this
Evening which will be Mr Steve Lewis Roberts I will call him at the appropriate moment but I now going to hand over to our officer this evening Mr warley who will make the present ation Mr wary please yeah thank you chair um as you answered councelor snart um we’re
Starting from square one again so and the reason I’m saying that is that you might have heard of some of this before if your memory is good enough um and just while I’m uh doing some preliminaries um the email you’ve all received is exactly the same in
Content as um the text that occupies page 41 and 42 of the report so uh there’s nothing Secret in any of this so to the uh application itself so I’ll pause on this very first slide because the application’s been amended on its journey and the description that
You see uh on the slide there is is where it’s landed basically after a couple of iterations um which have served to reduce it by something in the region of 10 or 15% % um it’s removed um a former proposal to part infill the lake that occupies essentially the center of the
Site and it switched the uh the northern extremity of the site which is the north side of the a46 from a proposal being a pond via a solar farm to being uh an area for uh um biodiversity enhancement only so that that’s the journey um what that means in physical
Terms layout terms I think you’re familiar with the sites or I can skate over that is this configuration now and I’ve realized that I’ve made an error that so my apologies if I can switch to this one which makes the point better for me so what you see there is
Um a zal approach to the site with it’s a b and c Zone a at the top which would be a combination of office industrial and Warehouse use Zone B now Zone B that’s really been the subject of the Amendments so it’s this Central core but is now dominated by the
Retained water body and and only this bottom left hand corner of it if you can follow the cursor you can’t follow the cursor can you I think that’s the right I think that’s the right yeah yeah this area here this area here is All That Remains
Of zone two and that would be proposed for um uh B8 Warehouse use and then Zone C which is the remainder of the site approximately this area is a larger chunk and that would be B8 as well and that all combined I’ll go back up to the the previous
Slide amounts to those uh those quantities uh floor space overall and those range of uses that appear in the title and that’s all we really have in terms of plans to show because it’s an outline application with all matters reserved except for Access and the access is this roundabout
Yeah uh where um Works already started under the previous uh permission from about 5 years ago and therefore the effect of that apart from giving the site access is that it’s given life to that former permission um which is referred to in the report and was really quite different in terms of its
Configuration of uses and scale um but that’s alive and well and always will be basically because there’s been a physical start on site so the issues of an application of this size and scale in this location uh very many and very varied and I’m afraid I’m going to have to talk
You through these um it’s pretty much following the order of the report um so if you can bear with me so the policy background uh on this site has also had something of a journey and if you go far enough back in time this site um was part of a very much wider
Area that was green wedge uh in the in the 2004 local plan but that was emphatically overridden and superseded by the core strategy in 2015 which allocated this site as part of this Theron uh direction of growth uh policy cs21 and this particular part of that allocation was identified and it’s in
Your in your plan uh that you’ll see a glowing red block on a map for this particular side uh was for commercial purposes and the the wording in policy CS 21 explained what kind of Commerce we expected to see under that policy um but we’ve moved on again and
Uh we consider that cs21 itself is also out of date now because it’s fell out of favor with the mppf uh the mppf advises against um prescriptive policies of that nature um it asks us to be flexible because land markets employment markets are so Dynamic and so rapid therefore to nail
Down a policy in the way that CD cs21 did is an approach that’s no longer favored and in the near future we will fully embody that new approach because the emerging local plan policy for this site simply says employment full stop no parameters no rules around it at all no
Floor space no use expectations just a signs of land so when that takes effect in the next hopefully few months we’ll be back on track with the mppf and um uh there’ll be a high level of synchronicity but where we are now is with an out-of-date policy and therefore
Our friend paragraph 11d applies here orbe it in a different way to how you usually see it because you usually see it in the context of residential but it pervades other types of development and and this is one of them so CS 21 has reduced weight emerging local plan
Policy has some weight but not full weight because it’s not quite landed yet with the examination still going uh and a proposal um that U we need to consider in in the present tense as things stand at the moment um we consider that the proposal as has come forward complies with the
Mpbf uh because of what I referred to earlier really because the mpbf presumes against being prescriptive so anything that’s aligned with um the mpbf in use terms therefore qualifies with its aspiration and this one does that so moving on to access and not really much more to say than I did
Before access would be from that Central roundabout we did a site visit to this site uh in the late summer last year and actually parked uh on the bit of access um that had been constructed uh to access this wider site so that that’s what I was referring to and
Pointing on the on the diagram to earlier right design is not defined in this application and even the plan that I showed you this plan is illustrative you see the words on the right there so comes with that usual health warning that it can’t be absolutely relied on as
To what the final product U might be um it’s an outline application with that with design design reserved so that would come to life at Reserve matter stage that said it does come with a uh design brief and it does come with the diagram that I just showed you um and we
Consider that some of the aspects of those documents are very important to see it uh go forward in the manner that it’s expressed is the intention to do so and therefore in your condition you’ll see that we’ve basically superimposed the applicants own Expressions upon themselves and uh we are sort of up in
The anti so to speak and suggesting that they need to abide by those documents and that’s a matter of one of the conditions I can’t remember which one but I can look it up if it’s needs be in the same way site layout is not defined but recent Amendments have had a
Bearing on this because um in in the former iterations of that application in fact it was the one I’ve accidentally included you can see there’s a sthe of land down the left hand side of the site right along the canal for those who remember being there
Which was um proposed to be built upon but the effect of not interfering with the lake anymore takes away that to a large extent uh that that swaye which would have been down here and means well means two things one not very much land
Is left in this part of the site to uh build upon anyway but also it this great big gap between what’s possible in the southern reaches and what’s possible in the northern reaches uh which is sort some relief um to anything going on further west which is the canal and the top
Paath and the country part Beyond I think it’s quite handy just to sort of compare and contrast if you imagine had this version been still with us and we were looking to approve it all of this could be amounted of a wall of buildings unless we were to condition
Against that but in the new version this version that’s simply not possible because it’s water so hope that’s clear um obviously the site is uh very advantageously located simply because of geography being on the edge of the city there um very strong linkages through the road Network 846 is the stones throw
Away um 607 into the city um seon railway station not far away and a very great number of uh bus routes uh very close to the side but the application package includes includes measures to take to take those um facets further forward and there is a travel plan which talks about additional
Measures to enhance uh accessibility and particularly from means other than the car so it talks about an enhanced bus bus services and uh encouraging cycling and encouraging um encouraging car sharing and things like that um the highways Authority welcomed all of that but they had further aspirations for it so again another
Conditions is uh suggesting that um that that document is enhanced further so it really goes um to a high level to an exemplary level really uh in terms of access sorry I did try to turn that off ear and it’s not quite work for me right in terms of thank you in terms
Of Wildlife and biodiversity the application is accompanied by quite a wide range of uh studies um they cover particular uh types of uh of of species um some in general terms as a general um ecological study of the site and then some specifics around um uh NES for example um
Birs uh and so on and each of those identify a range of package a package of measures to protect the wildlife that’s been found on the site and indeed to safeguard against the possibility that others might be present even they were they weren’t identified um through the site surveys
And things like that those Studies have come together through a combination of scaring the records the wildlife records but also physically um walking the site on more than one occasion in order to come up with these conclusions and you’ll see in the report we received quite a body of represent presentation
Concerned with otter um and one of the reports speaks of otter and how the site will be managed particularly during the construction phase to Avo be to avoid being a threat to ERS not just on the site but in the uh surroundings because they’ve been spotted not right on its doorstep but
Not so very far away within the country parking I think King Kings Le King leers Lake which is the lake next South and the Rivera which is across the country bark obviously so quite a um quite a range quite a package of measured through of measures proposed through
Those I think it’s five reports uh and again you’ll see that we’ve there’s a condition proposed that says uh all of those measures uh need to be uh followed during the construction phase and uh into the future so they’re all captured obviously the impact in the
Country Park is um critical uh might add The Canal at the same time on this application because it’s literally along its side um I might just dwell on that point actually along its side because um we did we have received some representations and there was some press about this before Christmas that talked
About building in the country Park so it’s important to understand we’re not being this isn’t proposing to building the country Park it’s to build right next to it separated only by the canal it’s is quite an important point so there will be an impact um it’s
So close and the buildings will not be small it’s fair to say um but our assessment of that is that in terms of the country Park it’s only one aspect uh of the experience of the user of the country park by accident or design the recent amendments help in that they reduce that
Impact for the reasons I was explaining earlier it would no be longer be a bank of buildings a continuous Bank of buildings running north south along the edge of the country park because there’d be a break of it amounts to about 50% of the uh North South access of the site so
A sizable break sizable relief uh from people in the Country Park uh and we’re also not unduly concerned about the canal because obviously as you travel on the canal it’s a linear experience and this is uh just one uh part of that experience on what a typically fairly long genis Economic Development and
Regeneration is always a material consideration in such matters um again the amendments to the scheme have had a bearing I think it’s fair to say that at its lower scale uh there’s a a slightly less um contribution expected from the scheme from when it was at its larger scale obviously less employment less
Building investment and so on but it’s still sizable sums um it’s still therefore meeting the aspirations that we set out um or are setting out an emerging local plan which don’t particularly set a Target anyway but um this is a large investment of strategic importance to the bough
Even it’s revised form it’s revised form it’s about 10% I would say or 12 or something like that lower than its original form so still massive and therefore still scoring a lot of points so to speak in terms of economic regeneration Ambitions and the reason that those policies have been conceived
In the in the first place so with all of that uh we are recommending uh approval a great list of conditions um quite complex some of them as well uh and quite different in nature and the reason for that is that some of them are address all aspects of
The site some of them home in and particular parts of the site and some of them about tight phasing and timing throughout the site so uh it becomes quite complicated but uh they’re all compiled to together at the bottom of the report um at this point if I can
Refer you to extras as well because uh there’s a couple of what amount of Corrections in extras um apologies there was some um old text left over about when the lake was proposed to be infilled that we hadn’t properly deleted in this report so extras is really about tidying that up
So references to infilling the lake disappear altogether it’s no longer relevant but also important is section 106 associated with this application um that does uh a couple of things um quite a small amount considering the magnitude of the application one is um the uh the transport um Arrangements making sure
That they’re monitored and um their effectiveness can be measured and the other is about biodiversity enhancement um in terms of the site itself so at this stage I don’t mean the land north of the a46 we up over and above that so obviously building the site’s been
Vacant and sort of Nature has taken hold again over probably decades and obviously building on proportions of it is going to be harmful to the habitats that have reestablish themselves on the side so the provision in the 106 that if the biodiversity enhancement north north of the a46 can’t fully compensate for
All of that loss then through uh funding uh we can make up any difference um either by taking the funds as a counsel and pursuing one of our own projects or applying it to a habitat bank or some that mechanisms you’ll be familiar with from usually housing sites
And that’s pitched at a level of 760,000 which is the worst it could possibly be so that was if nothing was achieved on that Land north of a46 so very unlikely but we’re just dealing in worst case scenarios the reality is it’ll be well ideal will there be nothing um but um at
Some place between nothing and 760,000 uh to make up that balance so that’s the package for this evening and that’s the rationale behind our recommendation for approval with the 106 um I’ll be happy to take any questions which I no doubt there will be
Some thank you Mr Ry um we now move on uh to our well our only speaker Mr Steve Lewis Roberts i’ like to come forward Mr leis Roberts I uh I think you know the process but this time around you you have three minutes okay thank you yes
Before I start before you hit the clock would you mind putting slide on showing the master plan just for the avoidance of doubt it might help as I’m speaking and Mr L would you um Roberts would you like to be reminded when you have one minute left or will you there’s no need
No thank you thanks when you’re ready thank you my name is Steve Le Roberts from Pegasus group and thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the applicant the application was deferred on the the 28th of of September to invite the applicant to consider amending the development to avoid any
Infilling of the lake in zone B we have responded positively to this request and submitted revised parameter plans which is the plan on the screen to remove built development from the green wedge and the lake for brevity there is no need for me to repeat the planning policy position and the material planning
Considerations which are set out in the officer report however it is important to emphasize that this is a vacant Brownfield site located in the Thermon regeneration Corridor the site is allocated for Employment Development by policy cs21 of the core strategy and is specifically identified as an employment site site
Reference E10 in your emerging local plan in addition the site has the benefit of an existing planning permission for a business park and the vehicular access from one lit Road has already been constructed in relation to this application there are no technical objections to the proposals from any of the statutary
Consules these amendments reduce the development on the west side of Zone B and this will substantially reduce the visual impact on the canal and the country Park the updated officer report concludes that the amendments are a net improvement from the original application achieving greater policy compliance and reducing the landscape ecological and Highway
Impacts although inevitably the Quantum of commercial flaw space is reduced the proposals will still deliver significant economic benefits including the creation of 766 jobs on completion this site has been a key strategic allocation for South Charwood since 2015 and is critical to meeting the council’s economic development objectives as a strategic employment
Site in the Thurston regeneration Corridor my clients are cont content with the obligations proposed in the section 106 agreement and the recommended conditions these amended proposals respond positively to your request to avoid built development in the lake and on this basis I ask you to support the application this evening thank you very
Much thank Mr Le Roberts um do any counselors have questions thank you first of all I have counselor Lawrence if you would like to speak please oh thank you chair um yeah I’d just like to say um that I’d just like to say that I welcome the applicants um amended plans which
Certainly you know the fact that it leaves the lake in zone B of the plan largely untouched um I mean the you know the level of protection for wildlife that’s already there is is very much to be welcome the scope for biodiversity within this site to and and to move
Between that retained Lake and waterme park and the open Countryside um is really well very much to be welcomed I feel I recognize that you know this may not satisfy you know some residents and park users who are concerned about potential disturbance to Wildlife nevertheless and possi you know potential interference with the
Enjoyment of the park however you know we we have to as a committee I think consider that this this is a form of minerals extraction site it’s privately owned um it’s as such as as has been said it’s it’s designated to be a regeneration site and has been for a
Long a number of years um and as a consequence in the emerging local plan it is designated for employment um well certainly zones a b and c within the site are allocated as uh under policy DS4 of the plan as it’s been said been allocated to be you know
Formal employment allocation um the S9 and indeed there is extent planning permission to build on the these areas as well so I mean I I just asked I would just ask you know concerned Park users to be assured that the detail of the reserve matters application that will
That will come later you know will clearly be closely examined by officers and uh and members if we’re involved um I mean in terms of the outline application that we’re considering here then we already see conditions being placed on the um outline planning permission in terms of things like
Landscaping and and lighting mitigation in terms of reducing the impact on Wildlife um so that will be a condition of of this if it’s improved um and as has been said by by the uh Mr you know there’s only now small Warehouse an access road adjacent to the
Canal adjacent to the um John Merck Lake in in waterme park so and there is that separation that’s been between Zone A and Z Zone b b andc which has been spoken about so I think that’s sums up my Outlook on this application thank you chair uh thank you Council Lawrence I
Will ask Mr War to respond now and then I have councelor snot and then I have councelor La Please Mr I mean we get um we get the established Reserve matters just as a matter of process and law really but if I can refer you to recommended condition three
Which is on on my bundle page 71 spilling over to 72 hope it’s the same on yours you’ll see that we Tred to draw a few red lines basically about minimum requirements for the reserve matters and and this is relating to what I was trying to explain earlier about driving
The quality of this thing up to a certain standard the standard they’ve offered us basically so we’re only sort of holding them to account for want of a better word and a whole list of measures there um that um uh as I say draw these red lines so we’re kind of get asking
Here for Reserve matters plus not just leaving it to the whim uh or the imagination of of people comeing to this cold um there’s quite a number of parameters um prescribed in that condition thank you Mr war council not please M chairman thank you um in my
View it’s um pleasing to see that the W councel has um withdrawn the uh call-in application uh so I think that’s one good solution to it in terms of uh looking at this tonight um the one couple of things if I may um it’s difficult to look after all the uh bits
That have come in and the uh application could you just check that um in the Bus and Rail provision um the lha would expect Financial contributions developer towards development of service R an hourly service is that in the uh conditions and I I might have missed
It um or is it something that is in the uh when it comes to the next slot please yeah thanks again yeah I’m not surprised Council not it’s hidden it’s hidden in condition three that I was just referring to actually because one of those components is seeking an
Enhanced travel plan and the the enhancement that we’re looking for in that in that enhan TR plan is uh what you just described and and also when when we look at Reserve matters um there are some uh indication that some of the height of the buildings will be be large in terms
Of the the height is um when it comes back to to the next stage um will we have um an indication if there any changes to that and uh are we allowed to actually alter those sort of conditions around that you’ll certainly uh certainly uh see whether there’s any changes to that
Because what you’ll get is what you’ll get is it in it submitted form of whether it’s those maximum Heights or or lower can’t be higher um if it came in at the maximum Heights um and they haven’t been restricted it would be difficult to say the least perhaps
Even impossible to argue that that’s too tall so if our belief is that the numbers stated are too high like now is the moment to have that debate this might be the final one Madam chairman if I may um on page 26 uh there’s a recommendations uh about the
City Highway Authority and there were provision would welcome the provision of further pedestrian cycle excess in the southern section was that looked at or was is it is it included now um my understanding is that it’s not built into this scheme but the applicant is having separate discussions about
Forging links southwards which is onto city council land it includes a bridge over a branch or a stream or something like into the canal so not something that s drops naturally out of this proposal finally if I may mad chairman um with all this um alterations and the
Amendments um I go with offic of recommendations so uh I propose that we go with it thank you thank you Council snot Council low please thank you chair I’m I’m not going to have quite some many questions as councelor snot but um I’ll probably be one short um councilor snot suggested that this
May come back if if if this is passed tonight um will it come back um to be looked at again um not to be looked at again I think the references the reserve Reserve matters that flow from this outline permission may come back here um I I
Think think you can expect lots of Reserve matters applications to come forward in the coming years because the site’s are big basically um and it’s up to you and up to the council’s Constitution if you want to bring them here I’m just mindful there that the uh
It wasn’t called in or it was called in originally but now this wasn’t called in was it flooding um we’ve had an awful lot of flooding in that area as we have all over charmwood um I know and I fully respect that this has already got a
Planning application on it um but I’ve not seen any reference to any flooding mitigation that’s going on around there I know we’ve got lakes and everything but the end of the day we’re still building on you know a sponge um is there any mitigation that’s taking part
There’s load and again it’s it’s final detail so you’ll see at various points um in the in the text about um ground levels having to be a certain height that’s come from at the dictat of the environment agency and then you also in see in the conditions very very many
References again to those um to those ground levels but also to a drainage scheme or drainage strategy at this age um it’s one of the ones with a great big long reference number uh that’s been developed as far as they can given its outline status to to drain the site and
But even with that work more a full drainage package would need to come forward as under those conditions it’s also mentioned in 106 that there’s 760,000 three4 of a million pounds going going elsewhere or or possibly going elsewhere can that be guaranteed to be spent around burst or seon thermis or am
I going to see something being developed in shepshed with that money okay I’ll just sort of run through the theory again first so the idea is that they their offsetting here and they certainly be able to do some the question is whether it’ll be enough and
There’ll be a residue a balance to be catered For by Finance um the quick answer to your question is no um or or not directly flowing out of tonight’s decision anyway so if we have that scenario the money would come to the council and then in another another decision- Mak
Arena people you you may be same people will decide how to spend it um and uh s of have the debate then about whether sheep is too far away or whether it needs to be closer by but we can’t dictate its end destination tonight because we don’t even know what’s
Possible I just harsh because you know it’s it’s it’s that area burst all s and thermos that’s going to be impacted with this and what you’re telling me there um with all respect is you the money could be spent um in in shepshed nothing wrong with Shep said sorry nothing wrong but
But you know what I mean it’s them that’s been impacted and you’re saying it’s going to be somebody else completely different that’s going to make that decision where that money spent I think that’s a bit harsh chair sorry please obviously I’m uh it’s legal to get involved with all the section one
And six agreements as you all know and it there is there is a sort of even though I do agree you know what said that it has it we can’t pin it down to be a specific area because obviously it’s where we can put this ecological enhancement and that’s the issue but I
Do know that from a planning perspective you would always do the criteria of trying to get it as near to the site as you can so that would be the first base um it’s just that I think what we’re trying to say to you is is depending on
Where we can so it’s not going to be put it in Shep shed just because that’s where we want one it would the the calculation would be that it would go as near to the site as possible and then obviously that’s why we keep it as a wider emit for the
Council to be able to make that decision do you want to doing more than what councelor snort has done and that wouldn’t be fair would it I’m going to ask counselor Charles to speak now and I’m sure you have something sensible to say coun Char nothing like a
Bit of pressure chair okay um realis I’ve had a look at this I can see no material planning reasons to refuse this application so therefore I’m happy to support and second councilor snarts uh very well now I see no one else with their hands up does uh counselor an
Please thank you chair very quickly I’m very pleased to see that the developer has uh listened to what the committee have said and taken steps to improve their application I’m also very impressed that um they’ve actually taken lots of measures to uh mitigate the impact of their development such as you know thinking
About otter and so on um I also think that um there are still going to be lots of people that are going to object to it but I think that um on on the basis of what I’ve seen this evening I I think the developer has listened to what we’ve said and and
Taken what we said on board so I will be voting for it thank you thank you councelor um there is no one else now with the H up so I’m going to go to the vote uh the proposal to accept officer’s recommendation has been made by councelor snort and it has been seconded
By councelor Charles uh may I say all that will you if you are in favor of accepting officer’s recommendation will you raise your hand please did you wish just no will you raise your hand please 11 is 114 yeah against right I will ask uh Mrs Grant to
Read out the uh result because I saw no against no abstentions thank you right so that was 114 so that’s been approved thank you Um we’ll wait for the gallery to clear and we’ll ask councilor Palmer to come back could you thank you e right we’re going to move on to the next application welome back counselor Palmer hope it wasn’t too cold out there right we come to item 5B uh which is p stroke 23 stroke
0645 stroke 2 Lady Jane Park bradet Road New Town Lyford um we have Council s in the gallery councilor Palmer has come back so I’m going to ask uh in a moment counselor I’m promoting you Mr war or or demoting you take your piit um I’m going
To ask Mr warley to make his presentation but the speakers we have are Mr Richard Palmer joined by a Mr James light for objection we have Miss Ellie Smith on behalf of the applicant William Davis and for New Town uh New Town Lyford Parish Council councelor tar pickles supporting councelor Rob
Halock and uh the ward counselor David snot councelor David snot who will also address adders so uh please Mr Wy could we have your presentation please yeah thank you chair a little bit more straightforward this one and um I hope you found the site visit very informative today so this is a site
Pretty much in the heart of Newton Lyford it used to contain I think 10 uh holiday Chalet uh when we went there today there was the remains of one I think as hard to say um The Proposal is to make use of the existing access or a version of it
Anyway certainly coming in and out at the point that we walked uh onto the onto bradgate Road there um I just talk you through some of the content of the site so the proposal here is to demolish the building that’s that currently forms the road Frontage that sort of cream painted Dorma Bungalow
That’s there at the moment and um replace it with a a more substantial house which I’ve got an illustration of in the moment and then within the um within the depth of the site breadth and depth of the site a courtyard arrangement of of quite large um one and
A half story houses I think that’s the correct architectural terminology um and again I’ll I’ll show you those so these are all labeled so this would be the one that uh is at the front of the site and it would be that face where the ker is now that would uh
Present to the road its side elevation being uh the new Drive enhanced drive that we walked out couple of houses of this type this is what I mean by one and a half so rooms in the roof space articulated by Gable ands and and Dormers as opposed to genuine to
Story and more of the same variations on a theme really of other house types and and if you need to know I can sort of match those against which one is which plot that’s what these labels are there to to remind me should I asked that question but only only
Um only four house types and one of them is um um is is that unique one on the front the TW Story one last but not least again variational our theme um the site already has permission uh from a couple of years ago sorry four
Years ago now I think um and there’s a certificate of lawfulness that says that that permission has been granted uh that means it bit like mentioning on the last application that means it’s alive probably forever uh so there’s that fallback position that residential in this case of eight it could proceed now
Or any time in the future it’s quite a different scheme it’s you can see that’s an illustration of it it’s configured differently and the house types were different but um uh the principle of development is established that way as well as through policy um and some components of it were quite similar like
The access most notably you can see on the diagram there so the issues with this one one a whole lot less complex than the last one thank thankfully so the principle of the development in this location is is really straightforward it it’s complies with policy um old plans
New plans and it’s got about permission in place as well that’s alive and well so layer upon layer of reasons as to why the principle is secure um there’s issues there’s been a very um um detailed assessment of the site layout in amenity terms so um in terms
Of distances between the houses within the site um and those that around it because it has houses on sort two and a half sides um very careful and deliberate choice of house designs to make sure that windows don’t face one another for example and where there are uh walls
Facing houses outside the site they resort to roof lights and don’t have facing ders main windows and things like that and quite a lot of work around um distance separation to make sure they make all meet all our standards and after that exercise it gets a clean bill
Of health basically uh by against the standards we publish in the spbd housing mix has been raised in representations um this is seven houses of which only one is two bedroom the rest are four and five um but a whole host of information has been provided to
Us to say why that is considered appropriate um for this side and when you pitch that against our policies that say that that are only so strong as to say that we should quote have regard to the evidence that we have about housing need we don’t believe there’s sufficient
Reason to resist the mix that’s put forward U the policiy aspirational rather than prescriptive uh in that regard um access and Ja traffic generation is considered to be neutral in all of this on two counts firstly that former consent was almost exactly the same size one has bigger so we’re
Talking same amount of traffic on sens of purposes even to get further back in time it was 10 holiday units and holiday makers would come and gone at their literally at their Leisure um again at a similar level so no particular impact arising from the Redevelopment uh trees
And biodiversity are important if I can just go back to the layout there are some trees again the site visit was really helpful here just off the site just the other side of the fence on both sides uh these are subject to a TPO so great care is needed and what this
Diagram shows you is um the root protection area and you can see how quite deliberate the houses have dodged around those root protection areas with exception of just um catching its fringes here on this plot one um and um therefore we’re satisfied that uh the trees offsite trees won’t be
Threatened by this development although there is on top of that uh a tree method statement within the application bundle and um there’s a condition proposed that that gets meticulously followed as a safeguard Beyond simply the um the distances involved D um and finally uh after a lot of
Heartache um where um we find ourselves or we believe we find ourselves because all of this is still going to be argued no doubt in um in the Tilted balance in the mppf again there was a moment after Christmas we thought we might not be but uh our dreams were dashed rather quickly
Uh so all of this needs to be considered in the manner which you’ve become familiar with over quite a number of years now about harm and benefits uh we don’t really see any harms from this scheme um and the benefits are about housing Supply in a location uh where
Housing is encouraged so quite a clear balance in favor of the benefits of the scheme over its Harms in our opinion uh which leads us to the positive recommendation in the papers thank you Mr warley um we come to a number of speakers now uh first of all
Uh I have as an objector Mr Richard Palmer please I’ll be Sharing so can I be clear we have Mr Richard Palmer and Mr James lightford thank you very much thank you’re sharing the three minutes we are sharing so thank you much for a time I’ll keep this concise I’m James lightford I’m a neighbor and um I live in the village fundamentally the
Residential site it’s not a car it’s not a holiday home it was always residents actually just for clarity um does need to be developed we support the housing issue which is what you’ve identified that new housing is required and the original plan we supported in other words it was Bungalows the latest
Modification we object to and the reason for that fundamentally is it moves to more four to five bedrooms home four to five bedroom homes the reason we recommend you object and move this back or encourage the developer to move it back to the Bungalows is because in the
Village there are almost no or zero Bungalows left in the in the village we have an aging population where people are desperate to move out of their larger homes because they can’t cope with them freeing up fortified bedroom properties but remain within support framework of their friendship
Groups if you allow this to go through New Town lyi will remain with almost zero Bungalows the older people will be forced to leave the village leave their fundamental support groups and it will do nothing for the diversity of the village itself so my recommendation to you is you reject this latest proposal
Al and then encourage the developer to go back to the original po design which was all around Bungalows which is what fundamentally The Village needs Richard okay please can the applicant guarantee that my garden and living rooms at number one Bracken Hill won’t lose any sunlight From Shadows cast By plot 7
Which is due Southwest from our property if plot 7 will shade our garden and or property then a bungalow should be built as originally planned the market housing mix report is misleading to say a least its comments don’t warrant Devi deviating so much from a property mix required by policy H1 or the
Hna the report comments about the local population decline in the 25 to 44 age group and that there is an increase in adults living with parents however the report provides no National Data for comparison this is a trend n nationally not just for Newtown Lyford the existing
Services in the village that the report suggests require new families to contri towards and sustain simply don’t exist or are not currently sustained by The Village residents anyway EG there is no Village store or shop the many cafes are mainly supported by bradgate Parks visitors and wouldn’t all survive
Otherwise the school has been populated by children from surrounding areas for many years now just like other small Village schools in charmwood are EG swiland and barkby the report uses ansy as a comparison as detailed in my objection email anstey has start differences in its housing stock and services as do other neighboring
Villages groy and marfield ancy has a plora of 1960s and 70s free bed properties and two bed Victorian Terraces New Town living Lyford doesn’t have any of these therefore the data is flawed can I go on no okay We now have um please Mrs Ellie Smith on behalf of the applicant William Davis when you’re ready Miss Smith you have three minutes thank you good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak I’d like to firstly thank the case of officers for their diligent work on this application
William Davis are a lb based family-owned house Builder delivering high quality homes across the Midlands for almost 90 years and employing around 400 people our award-winning apprenticeship scheme has taken on 12 local apprentices each year teaching a variety of Trades such as Brick Lane joinery and Scaffolding as you’ll be aware ch’s
Adopted course strategy is over 5 years old and charmwood can only demonstrate a 3.5 for years housing Supply these factors result in the Tilted balance being engaged meaning planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts significantly outweigh benefits whilst objections have been made on the basis that we have extent
Permission for single story Bungalows here preferring a previously consented scheme is not a reason to refuse this application this application should be determined against existing and emerging policies and this proposed development is in accordance with the development plan it is noted within the committee report that this application doesn’t Accord
With policy mix however the relevant policy wording also takes into account local character in equal waiting to prescribe policy mix larger dwelling surrounding the development for should therefore be acknowledged and accordingly this proposed scheme is kned out of character conscious of climate change agendas EV charging points and solar
Panels will be installed to every plot and the proposed development will result in a betterment of surface water drainage assisting water runoff from neighboring sites utilizing skylights and room in the roof designs representing an increase in Ridge height over the previously approved scheme of just 24 cm the Bungalows proposed here
Are not any more overbearing than those previously approved ensuring the frontage of the scheme is not visually intrusive CGI images demonstrate just one of the six properties inside the close of the development will be visible from bradgate Road during a nationally acknowledged housing crisis this Brownfield scheme positively contributes to Newtown ly’s housing
Supply and we believe the proposed house types will prove popular locally offering flexibility for both young families and those wishing to down sit in summary this is a wellth thought through proposal by an established local house Builder the scheme is in keeping with the character of the local area its
Location recognizes suitable for residential development and is supported by all statutory consulties there is an accepted shortfall in housing Supply across the Bor which the development will help address and there are no significant adverse impacts which outweigh benefits to housing Supply and the local economy as such I hope you can
Support the officer recommendation and approve this application thank you very much thank you very much Mr M and we now have from New Town lyord Parish Council councelor Rob Halo supported by councilor Tor pickles if you’d like to come forward please thank you good evening my name is Rob
Halock I represent newford Parish Council excuse me this site in the middle of newford Conservation Area was previously development of one to two bedroom mobile homes which are mainly rented and owned by all the members of the community in 2019 an application this site was made this completely supported by the
Parish council F that the proposed designs materials and L their development sensely reflected the local vacular and they dwell within the conservation area in particular the smaller sized Bungalow style dwellings address housing needs had been previously identified in our village design statement many residents of our village looked at their downsized
Properties due to age or infirmity currently have no option to remain within their Community due to a shortage of smaller single story dwellings concerns were expressed at the time with the potential impact on neighboring properties but this was minimized by the prop property Heights and single story nature of the dwellings indeed this
Previous application so popular with residents that developers approach with regard to reserving properties before even plan permission being granted however this me application me today which replaces B with both houses four5 bedrooms represent a major change namely this amendment no longer meets housing needs providing for smaller dwellings in Newtown Lyford two this
Amendment no longer gives provision for Hing disabled residents which down size remain within the community three proposed increased height of buildings will greatly increase official impact from within this historically important center of the village there is great to L build buildings and Rural historical church impact on neighboring dwellings
Is greatly increased due to the inclusion of first floor accommodation both from Lost privacy and increased Vis intrusion of these high ruls in conclusion this ammended plan application has lost all the benefits of inial application which was welcom by the community was also increasing the detrimental effects of the conservation
Area the very po tourist attraction therefore request that this that the amendments to this plan applications is refused rever original Grand planning application thank you thank you last but not least we have councelor snart speaking as the ward counselor I believe councelor s chair before I start I think the
Uh when you’re ready to begin councelor SM please because I only have three minutes to speak I will focus only on the important area among several which this application should be refused I asked the question are we building homes that are needed by the Parish Community or solely for commercial gain for the
Developer there’s already a permitted planning application granted for much needed two three bedroom Bungalow which were welcomed by residents Parish Council and me these are good fit to replace the two bed mobile homes I note from pre-application advice from the previous application it was stated two story homes were replaced by Bungalows
As they were evidence for the demand of such homes within the village so there’s change there so what has the changed building four or five bedroom houses to replace two bedroom mobile homes I also Note One Less dwelling how does this help our five or foure Supply and fit
With the mppf boosting hous hous in Supply this application does not fit with policy CS3 which is clear what the local plan needs to achieve stating based on the projections of our population household types our evidence suggest that we need to increase the number of two bedroom homes to do this
30 to 35% of homes delivered should be smaller two bedroom homes after asking questions at Council I was disappointed to hear that Council have no idea what the current position is with this important measure as it is not recorded again I ask are we building houses in
Line with local plan or was it the best for the commercial game for the developer in an email to exchange with the case officer he stated I don’t disagree with the points you are making going on to say hence the need to take the report to committee for members to
Determine I reject the officer’s conclusion that this considered to be appropriate based on evidence that provided by the applicant which is out of step with the evidence for the previous permitted planning application in my view this evidence is solely linked to a study area not the needs of
The parish residents who would like to downsize with Le without leaving the village this evidence from the developer agent States 80 86% of Newtown lyord housing stock is made up of properties with three orar bedrooms this Compares with 71% out of the wider study they did and 69% across charma burah why should
Elderly residents people who have lived in the village most their life be denied the opportunity to downsize because the housing stock size is out of step with the burrow remember in this proposed dwellings are replacing two bedroom mobile homes it is all also demolishing a bungalow to replace with a house
In that’s what it get with three minutes is it thank you uh thank you um Mr warley would you like to come back for any points at this stage yes please chair I’ll I’ll try there’s only a couple uh anyway um I’ll start with the I think more
Straightforward of them which was the question asked about plot seven and and its propensity to overshadow the houses to the east so that’s the house type proposed for plot seven as you can see quite a squat Bungalow and it’s something in the region I think from memory 4.6 meters
High although the measurement is actually on that uh on the side of the drawing so if I can just stare at that I might be able to be more precise so the houses to these of it are in the region of 20 to 23 meters away and I can’t see
How a house of that height can cast a shadow that long there trees intervening as well as we saw so uh I think uh on pretty safe ground there um the housing makes business obviously the most difficult part of this application as speakers have made very clear um I entirely get the logic
About how Bungalows would be uh desirable here uh and the aspiration that the developers revert to their former permission and all the rest of it um but the difficulty we have as a committee is that we haven’t really got a policy that says they must so it’s one
Thing wanting prefering people to go in that direction it’s another um preventing them doing anything different with the tools that we have in our Arsenal the question was a posed by I think more than one speaker is are we uh are we building for the benefit of the
Village or for other reasons um I think it’s probably important to answer that question directly um it comes through every policy you’ve ever read anyway in the local I mean even if you just refer back to the Theron case we dealt with before this one we’re of course dealing with um
Development for the benefit of the bur the whole burah um nein doesn’t even have a nebor plan that sort of localizes any of these Concepts like you we we get in in other places and if you look at particularly directly back to the uh housing mix uh question policy
CS3 uh at present and the emerging equivalent which is H1 both talk about the balances across the whole Bor so so there’s there’s two things they don’t say they don’t say that every site has to display that ideal mix and they don’t say that um particular places
Um um must be one thing or can’t be another thing um they’re um in unfortunately I think it’s fair to say in in looser language of that and like I said introduction in introduction they tend to be the language they uses aspirational rather than prescriptive the exact words of CS3 is
That housing MIT must have regard to the evidence that we have now the only evidence we have is the the hea study which is a very high level and covers the whole Bor so we’re in that world and then for this application the work that the applicant themselves have done which
Is occupies a number of pages um uh of this report and that the speaker from the applicants referred to so whilst actually sympathetic to the course that be made to us this evening my advice is that I don’t think we have the leverage to be able to insist in the
Way that they were encouraging us to thank you Mr Wy um for that clarification uh I don’t see any hands up would anyone like to comment make a suggestion Council Lenny please hello um it’s Madam chair um it occurs to me now that I’m thinking about it
More deeply over the afternoon since we visited the site it’s not just on this small site it’s on all of the smaller sites and the larger major developments as well that there is uh an a very much imbalanced View to housing and it also occurred to me
Because we are stuck in a place where we don’t have enough houses to last for the next four years that we’re we’re doing ourselves in as a council by allowing developers to build too many large houses because on the same SES you could build more houses then um by sticking to
Irrelevant and something that fits up fits in well with the uh New National POC planning policy details and regulations we we are we are required I mean that the imperative is that we have more housing for the people that live in this country and by building larger
Houses in a greater proportion than we need to or permitting larger houses to be built in a greater proportion than we need we are in actual fact making life more difficult for ourselves as a council and also for the general population in charmwood I think that needs to be
Something that we speak about as a council probably more than just for this particular uh applicant but it’s there isn’t it if you if you don’t build enough hours is the only people that are going to suffer are going to be this Council and the residents in
Chanwood and canel any I have councel please sorry chair I didn’t understand a word of what was just said there I apologize councelor um did this come to plans before I can remember this this was on my time and I can remember being quite excited about Bungalow being built um
And and and I still am quite excited about Bungalows being built I can’t understand how you can say that you know we’ve not got a five years supply of houses but this is coming through with one less so surely this is having an adverse effect on our housing Supply um
And also this has got to be overdevelopment um on on on such a small site um it’s greed by a developer there’s no other way describing it I’m sorry uh councilor Palmer players thank you chair um I think that the residents that have spoken against this particular plan have got a very
Good point I mean um and to have these Bungalows that are so desperately needed um it seems to be a retrograde step for the um for the residents who have local knowledge and would know of people who need these houses um I I think um as councilor loow
Just said that it is greed on the part of the developers what that they have um gone for these larger houses rather than the the smaller scale much needed Bungalows thank you uh thank you Council pmer councelor gr please um yes I mean I find the point in um paragraph
9.2 that um it’s not considered that this particular mix would be to the detriment of the area I find that very subjective and actually difficult to agree with you know it’s saying here that we don’t have um a neighborhood plan or a housing needs study however
What we do have are some very very persuasive representations from um the parish council from residents um and I think and I and I would agree with the colleagues that have pointed out that yes there is a shortfall in housing Supply but what kind of housing does a local area actually
Need thank you councelor gray uh councelor Lawrence please thank you chair um yeah U I was just going to ask a simple question but as in the terms of the way the debate’s developed I feel I have to point out that you know the housing mix policy in the emerging emerging plan
That you know seeks a mix mix of housing types and you know might have actually helped us a bit with this situation is it’s just not it’s not but we are being advised by the officers that that doesn’t carry too that much weight that the the hen you the housing and economic
Needs assessment from 2022 we are being advised uh is you know kind of burrow wide and is only a broad framework um and can’t really be applied you know very specifically to this particular development um so I I feel we are and we are being vised obviously about the
Tilted balance uh the mppf situation with with the housing Supply Etc um so I think that that sort of weighs quite heavily with me in terms of making a decision about this particular application so while I’m still thinking about that uh could I also ask um well perhaps make a comment about
Neighborhood plans in as much as um you know CH Charwood is is currently slightly compromised by a lot of our existing Pol well not much existing policies but certainly the emerging policies in the local plan that’s not yet been adopted not carrying that much weight um but however where there is a
Ex you know there is an active current neighborhood plan for the um for the settlement for the for the area that uh I know from prior experience that that does carry quite a bit of weight in the balance and and neighborhood plans typically do have a desired housing mix
For their for the development for the village or for the neighborhood so um so we have a situation here where there is no neighborhood plan to refer to um and I suppose my question really that I’m coming soon then appreciate it Mr Wally can answer is is if there had
Been a neighborhood plan here um and it did specify the housing mix that there was that the neighborhood was looking for how you know would that have weighed in much much in the balance in terms of the um you know the how all the various policies s sit together given that the
Neighborhood plan was a current one sorry I didn’t word that very well but I think you get my drift uh thank you Council Lawrence yes members I just felt it might be helpful just at this point just to say that obviously we’ve got the views but we’ve got where we’re talking
About Bungalows that obviously we’ve got an extent permission there but obviously that isn’t something that you youve got to look at that wouldn’t be a reason for refusing this application you would have to find that on the policy grounds which um obviously with the housing mix and
What’s been supported so I would like if that you know member’s going to do that that’s that that’s where we we sort of need to go um obviously again just the two points that I say just to make you aware and this is something that can’t factor into your decision making but
Just making you aware that you’re being told that obviously just on that basis that it would be likely to be approved if it went to appeal so then you’ve got to look at those sorts of balance those but as I say that that’s not something that goes into your decision- making but
Just making you aware of that as well may I pick up the neighborhood plan Point yeah certainly and then I’ll come back to council North okay Mr Wy please yeah I think we could be in a different scenario if there was a neighborhood plan in fact I think I think we’ve
Experienced that in real life where there is a neighborhood plan on at the moment I’m thinking about sby because um the sby neighborhood plan brings to the table two important things firstly in building their neighborhood plan they have to colate a whole load of information and evidence and it’s
Through those processes that we get like um the statistical evidence that might back up the uh the the things that people that have told us tonight so you actually prove the point rather than um just assert it and the second is they can have policies that are very much more prescriptive and the
Reason I mentioned s is because it’s a case in point and because it’s new uh so it isn’t as vulnerable to the Tilted balance as we are so alog together a better place than thank you Mr I have Council or then I have councelor O’Neal h on thank you madam chairman
Now the houses are beautiful there’s no doubt about that and they look they would look great and I flipped from one to the other as I’ve sat here listening to people and the passionate belief that Bungalows are required I take Mr Wall’s point if if we
Rejected this it would go to appeal and we’d lose anyway so there’s no question in my naivity I would really like to appeal to William Davis being a local builder of high my repute to refer to re to go back to the original plan and build the Bungalows and you you know I
Know that’s not something we can do here but if I felt that Davis’s would do that and build the eight Bungalows that they planned to four years ago in 2019 which the planning permission exists for I’d be I’d love to uh vote this propose that this is rejected
And therefore not go to appeal and they go to do that I know we can’t guarantee that and I’m not suggesting that we can because it would be naive of me to say so but in reality that would be my wish that that we we we reject this plan and
The good people of New Town Lyford get the Bungalows that they so desire davises get to develop a nice plot and build some really nice property and their reputation is enhanced massively I’ll open that up for debate because it’s not something that um we can reckon on but I make the point Thank
You thank you councilor nor I I have councelor and counselor mon who wish to speak but I’m going to come uh to our officer uh Miss Tay uh would I would you like to comment at this stage please car thank you chair um just wanted to remind members that the decision tonight needs
To be based on this application and we’re not looking at preferences we’re looking at whether this application’s okay on its individual merits um also just wanted to highlight that this proposal would be contributing to the housing land Supply because I know that’s been metion mentioned and just a reminder that
Developer uh intentions are not a material consideration thank you I now have counselor and then I have counselman councelor nail please uh thank you chair I think in the site visit this afternoon um Mr Wally made it perfectly clear uh that we were judging the application on its own merits and we
Were not referring to any other the applications planning permissions or whatever I would also say that I heard the point of view from the the residents of Newton Lyford and I think their argument was very well put and it was a very strong argument the proposed houses that we’re
Looking at today are not what these residents need the people in the middle of this debate are the housing developers they are the people calling the shots I very much agree with councilor northage point of view um that ideally the developers would be building Bungalows because that’s what the local people want but
That’s not what what we’re being asked to discuss or asked to decide we’re being asked to decide whether or not this proposal is is a proposal that that we can agree to um and reluctantly I think it I I personally am reluctant to agree to it but I am going to agree to
It thank you councelor councelor mik please thank you just a quick comment really and we keep talking about housing Supply but we also need to talk about firsttime buyers these properties are not for firsttime buyers I think I’d need to win the lottery to buy one of these you know
Um so that’s got to come into it I know I do support the house building and this that and the other and we need you know we need to get our land Supply up and etc etc but I just think it’s the wrong type of houses for that plot of land and
I agree with everything I really sympathize with the residents but we are stuck between a rock and a hard place unfortunately thank you Council Council for please thank thank you very much Madam chair uh I have gone through this and I’ve listened to everybody’s point of view and particularly the officers and I
Was on the site visit looking at this application and the report which is very detailed and listening to uh Mr W’s explanation to us I cannot see any grounds for refusal any at all and none of my colleagues around the table have quoted Any grounds to refuse and they may have far
More experience and knowledge than I have so therefore and also when you look at the application and ignore it for this moment whether it’s houses Bungalow the quality of build that they’re planning is excellent the the design I mean if you read it what they’re going to use the materials
Everything and how they’re going to be enclosed and what they’re doing with the with the houses the house they knocking down and rebuilding and the design and they are what I would call in the old fashioned word one and a half hous they’re trying to keep the heights down
So therefore as I can find no reason to re uh that would stand up I am proposing we recommend officers recommendation thank you so Council for you are proposing we accept officer’s recommendation councilor thank you chair yeah I’d like to second that proposal to accept officer’s recommendation
Please so colleagues we have a proposal to accept office’s recommendation from Council fire and we have uh and that has been seconded by counselor Lawrence if you are in favor of accepting uh the proposal to accept officer’s recommendation will you put your hands up now please thank you do that again please
Sorry that’s eight that’s right thank you any against please any extensions one okay so that is eight for two against one abstains so that has been approved we approve officer’s recommendation thank e e very well colleagues we’re doing very well this evening it’s not even quarter to 7 so we’re not
Hello harah so if we all keep our wits about us we could be out of here in five minutes item six list of applications determined under delegated powers and these are Pages 107 to 1127 now I’m tempted to say you don’t have any question questions or comments
Do you but I have to say do you does the committee have any questions or comments on on item six please well done uh thank you for your attention this evening um we’ve got we’ve actually got through a lot of work but we’ve done it very efficiently I’m
Told the February meeting could be a little longer so I’m closing the meeting and reminding you that our next plants committee will be on the 22nd of February thank you very much indeed everyone