0:00 Introductions
2:33 Apologies for Absence
2:41 Declarations of Interest
3:42 Minutes
3:54 23/01062/FULL – Ditton Manor Ditton Park Road Datchet Slough SL6 7JB & 23/01063/LBC – Ditton Manor Ditton Park Road Datchet Slough SL6 7JB
2:00:05 Adjournment
2:08:25 23/03081/FULL – Fowles Crushed Concreate Hythe End Farm Hythe End Road Wraysbury Staines TW19 5AW
3:13:05 Adjournment
3:15:34 Election of a New Chair
3:14:40 23/01996/FULL – The Lawns Nursey School Imperial Road Windsor SL4 3RU
3:18:20 23/02835/FULL – Hilltop First School Clewer Hill Road Windsor SL4 4DW
3:25:51 Planning Appeals Received and Planning Decision Report
Thank you chair we’re live on YouTube let’s begin the meeting welcome to this meeting of the Windsor and Ascot development management committee on Thursday the 7th of March 2024 my name is Amy Tey and I’ll be chairing this meeting the meeting is being held in person and Via zoom and
Streamed 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 acknowledgement that after the meeting it will continue to be available in the public domain firstly it would be useful if all panel members and officers could
Introduce themselves so that the public are aware of who is in the meeting and the role they’re undertaking so as I said I’m councelor Amy Tey I’m the chair and we’ll work this way thank you yeah Council ging and I’m stepping in today for uh councelor Mark Wilson thank
You um counselor Julian teasy a voting member of the panel councelor Deon Davis v member of the panel councelor David Bley voting member of the panel councel Allison Carpenter voting member of the panel councelor k deosta member of the panel councelor Julian Shar voting member of the panel Council s Lon Waring
Member of the panel Helena Stevenson principal lawyer and legal advisor to the panel Mikey lawyer Democratic service officer and I’ll be clarking tonight’s meeting Wesley principal planning officer Alicia lad principal conservation officer Deputy manager in development management Sarah cheser principal planning officer Gillian mckinnes interim Deputy head of
Planning thank you I request that meeting participants do not speak unless I specifically invite you to do so once I’ve invited you to speak before you do so please state your name and the capacity in which you’re speaking if appropriate I will also ask officers to speak at appropriate times if any
Individual attempts to disrupt the meeting I’m able to use my powers in the Constitution to adjourn the meeting or have the individual removed we will now start on the agenda items do we have any apologies for absence yes chair we have one apology tonight from Council Wilson and he’s being substituted by councelor
S thank you and any Declarations of interest um I just want to declare that I attended a site visit yesterday but come here with an open mind you thank you yeah yeah I just um say similarly just um wanted to CL that I um carried our
Side visit as well uh but I was accompanied by an officer thank you for doing it yes I was there as well but have an open mind and I will make a declaration of interest that as the lead member for children’s services I will be stepping
Out for the items on The Lawns and Hilltop first um school thank you and that will be shared by somebody else David Bley thank you uh just what the other gentleman said we attended the meeting yesterday so thank you I also attended the same meeting and I come with an open mind thank
You and we have the sorry the minutes of the last meeting um from Thursday the 8th of February do we hold those as a true and accurate record agreed okay I’ll sign those okay in that case we will move on to the business for today
And first on the agenda is D Manor D part Road um so we’ll go to Sarah thank you thank you chair um the first two items are separate Associated applications for planning permission and listed building consent at dist Manor the planning application seeks permission for a hotel Le development involving the change of
Use of and extensions to the existing Mana house and Associated buildings permission is sought for use as a hotel and wedding and Conference venue with Associated ancillary Spa gym and restaurant use a new accommodation block a back of house and gym block a marquee a car park and a replacement Scout Hut are
Proposed the listed building consent seeks permission for changes to the manor house North east and south gate houses the granery and the curtilage listed Chapel in associated in association with the planning permission um and just for clarity I’m going to kind of present the items together but then the the votes will be
Held separately for two applications um so this is the site location plan um showing that the site is kind of adjacent to the Southeastern residential edge of slau um there’s residential uh development that wraps around to the North and the east of the site this is the M4 that runs along the
Southern edge of the site um this is the Botanica office development to the West which was originally part of the sort of historic Parkland um the access to the site is here from dson Park Road um and the current lawful use of the site is as a learning and non-residential
Institution um this is the slide showing the main constraints relevant to the site so the whole site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt um there are a number of listed buildings these are identified in purple so the main Mana house and gate houses and wall are grade two
Listed um the Garden Wall and summerhouse you can just about see here are grade two listed the Eastern Gate House and bridge over the moat are grade two listed and there’s a chapel just here which is curtilage listed uh and the whole site designated by this blue outline is a gray to
Registered Park and garden the dark green hatching along the northern edge of the site uh is areas that are identified as ancient Woodland there are two group tree preservation orders relevant to the application this light green hatching here that applies to all the trees within that part of the motored area and
Then this area either side of the main access to the site there’s an Avenue of lime trees which were subject to a tree preservation order um there’s areas of flood zone two and three which is this blue hatching around the moted area um and there is a permissive sstand cycle
Route and foot path that runs through the site along this line here um this is an aerial image showing the site with the main access coming in from this side here existing Scout Hut here and then the access over the moat with the main manor house here um and I
Think it’s just worth pointing out on this slide as well there’s a number of Residential Properties that are within the sort of estate Parkland one that is just off this image which is next to access here there’s two houses here and then a further two houses to the north
Here um and this is an existing Marquee to the west of the Mana house which currently doesn’t benefit from Planning Commission um I’m just going to talk through some photos of the site so this is looking West along the main access of the site towards the moted area with the Mana in the
Background then this is looking back East along the axis from the bridge over the moat this is a view of the existing scalp Hut from the bridge the West elevation of the manor the view of the East Gate House from The Manor A View West along the South elevation of the
Manor a view of the manor from the lawn to the South and again showing slightly more of its surroundings looking East along the South elevation of the manor so back towards where the main access is um with the unauthorized Marquee in the foregound ground and then looking West along the
North elevation of the manor um so this is the proposed site plan I’ll just zoom in slightly so alongside the change of use the following new development is proposed there’s a new accommodation block to provide hotel and meeting rooms this L-shaped building here there’s a new
Back of house and German Spa block here there are internal alterations to the manor and the associated listed buildings there is a new Marquee uh here uh a new car park here and the new Scout Hut up here so the areas where development are proposed can be kind of divided broadly
Between the three locations within the moted area outside the moted area and the Scout Hut so I’ll look at each of those in more detail So within the moted area there’s the accommodation block here which provide 99 bedrooms and meeting some meeting rooms and create this Courtyard Garden between the accommodation block
And the manor there’s the back of house and gym block obviously internal alterations within the main Manor and the other um listed buildings so the various gate houses the north G Northern Gate House which is here would be converted into a bar the Eastern Gate House which is here
Would be converted into storage and the security facility and the southern Gate House which is here would be converted to provide conference and wedding venue facilities so the internal operations to the manor house which require listed building consents are described in F in paragraphs 9.11 to 9.19 of the listed
Building consent committee report and the manner house will be converted to provide 31 bedroom rooms restaurant and bar and meeting rooms um and this would require the insertion of a new lift the removal of existing toilet areas on the ground floor the removal of partitions within the Western corner of the house the
Subdivision of Upper Floor rooms to create bedrooms and onsuite bathrooms and upgrade works for fire protection and insulation this is the proposed accommodation block so it would be located to the west of the main manor house uh on the site of the existing unauthorized Marquee and as I said it
Would provide 99 bedrooms over two stories and a courtyard Garden would be created between the existing Manor and the accommodation block these are the proposed elevations of the accommodation block showing uh just here where it links to the manor house so that’s the South elevation and then the north
Elevation and then elevations look looking East towards the Mana house and West towards the Mana house this is the proposed roof plan for the back of house and gym block um and these plans also show the internal changes to the north gate house which require list of building consent in
Association with its proposed use as a spa facility and those are described in detail in paragraph 9.23 of the list of building consent report and these are the elevations showing the proposed back of house and block and then these slides are Contex elevations showing all the proposed
Works within the motor area so that’s on this upper image the accommodation block on the left the main Mana house and then just behind the Garden Wall the uh back of house and gym block here moving to the out um Works outside the motor area so these comprise the
Replacement of the existing Scout Hut with a marquee covering an area just over a th000 square meters and the creation of approximately 4,900 square meters of car parking to provide 177 car parking spaces and then the curtilage listed Chapel just down here to the southeast um is proposed for use in
Association with the wedding venue and also Community use and at the center here um uh new lands scaping is proposed to create a elliptical Garden adjacent to the approach to the moat this is a closer view of the site plan showing the proposed Marquee um and it’s proposed that this could
Accommodate 500 wedding guests and then elevations and floor P floor plans of the Marquee um and the Marquee is proposed to be green these are detailed site plans showing proposed car parking area which would include a foot paath from the east from the cured Chaple in the East linking through the
Car park to the um bridge over the moat turning now to the proposed Scout Hut um this is the site plan showing the Scout Hut and the area of ancient Woodland wraps around the site to the east south and west and these are the elevations and floor plans of the proposed Scout
Hut so I’ll now provide a summary of the considerations and recommendations in relation to the application for planning permission and then we’ll discuss the listed building consent separately to summarize the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the green belt which is by definition harmful the development
Would also result in a loss of spatial and visual openness which would also cause harm to the green belt the nppf states that there is a presumption against in appropriate development in the green belt and that it should not be approved except in very special circumstances the development would also
Result in less than substantial harm to the significance of designated Heritage assets specifically harm to the setting of the grade two listed Mana house and harm to the grade two registered Park and garden the less than substantial harm is not outweighed by the public benefits of The
Proposal the scale and massing of the proposed new buildings would not be subservient to the manner house and would not respond appropriately to the Parkland setting and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site the application does not demonstrate that the proposed new Scout Hut would
Not result in harm to the ancient Woodland the nppf states that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of ancient Woodland should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists no exceptional reasons or compens compensation strategy have been done demonstrated the development was would
Result in harmed the viability and long-term health of the Avenue of lime trees which the LI which line the main access which are subject to a tree preservation order the development specifically the use as a wedding venue would result in harmed the immunity of existing residential uses the application does not
Demonstrate that suitable provision for pedestrian facilities would be made or that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding Road Network specifically The Junction between the A4 and D Park Road and in the absence of a section 106 legal agreement the development would not secure Financial contributions to
Offset the failure to achieve Net Zero carbon emissions there is a presumption against the development because it would be inappropriate development within the green belt it should not be approved except in very special circumstances very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the GRE green belt and any other harm
Resulting from The Proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations section 12 of the committee report discusses in detail the weight to be afforded the harms and benefits resulting from the proposed development and where very special circumstances can be demonstrated this slide summarizes the harms and benefits arising from The
Proposal and the weight attributed to them the nppf mandates that green belt harm is afforded substantial weight the mppf also mandates that great weight should be given to Heritage assets conservation and legislation and case law dictate that decision makers have a statutory duty to give considerable weight to preserving the setting of
Listed buildings the harm to the significance of designated heritage heritage assets is afforded substantial weight the design harm is afforded significant weight the harm to ancient Woodland is afforded significant weight the harm to residential immunity has afforded significant weight the harm to highway safety is afforded significant weight and the lack of financial
Contribution to offset the failure to achieve zero carbon is afforded significant weight turning to the benefits the biodiversity net gain in excess of policy requirements is afforded limited weight the economic benefit is afforded moderate weight the community benefit is afforded very limited weight the sustainab St sustainability commitments are afforded
Moderate weight The increased Public Access is afforded limited weight and the slight beneficial landscape impact is afforded limited weight I’ve included the full wording of paragraph 153 of the mppf which reads when considering any planning application local or planning local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm
To the green belt very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations the cumulative harm resulting from the proposals weighs very heavily against the scheme to conclude
The identified benefits do not clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt to Heritage assets and the other identified harms therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist great weight is attached to the identified policy conflicts there are not Material considerations that indicate the
Application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan it is therefore concluded that the development is unacceptable and the committee is recommended to refuse the application there are a couple of updates following the publication of the committee report which were summarized in an update that was published earlier
Today a number of additional representations were received from Neighbors objecting to the application which add to issues that were previously raised about impact on amenity but do not raise any materially new issues which aren’t already addressed in the committee report a query was received regarding the reference in paragraph 8.4 of the
Committee report to comments from historic England um and the the purpose of the update is just to clarify that historic England are not required to be consulted on this application and provided comments to that effect um after the publication of the committee report a site visit report was provided by the applicants ecologist
Which confirms that the ecological surveys submitted as part of the application are still valid and this addresses the concerns raised in paragraphs 9128 to 9.13 of the committee report and as a result the eighth reason for refusal can be emitted from the recommendation further further additional information was also
Submitted by the applicant but this is not add any new material to that which has been considered and does not require further review or comment so overall the recommend Commendation to refuse the planning application for the remaining eight identified reasons remains unchanged I’ll now turn to the listed building consent
Application um and the main changes I’m going to discuss relate to internal changes within the manor house the key objections from the council’s conservation officer and from statutary Heritage consulties relate to Works within the manor house specifically there’s a lack of information regarding the works required to upgrade fire protection and insulation and
Therefore the impact on historic fabric can’t be established and the subdivision of rooms within the man house would not respect the original layout and features of the Mana house overall it’s concluded that there would be less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed Mana house which would not be outweighed by
Public benefits the committee has recommended to refuse listed building consent there’s also a brief update in relation to the committee report for the listed building consent paragraphs 9.1 10.2 and the reason for refusal refer to section 66 of the list of buildings and conservation areas act the reference
Should be section 162 of the ACT this does not change the overall recommendation to refuse listed building consent thank you chair thank you very much okay so we obviously have the two um applications the full application and the listed buildings consent we’re going to have our speakers for um both of
Those in order so we’ll do all the speakers for the First the full application and then we’ll hear the speakers in order for the listed building consent so first of all I’d like to invite Suki Ray to come forward thank you so you have um three minutes to
Speak from when you begin um and you’ll be given a one minute warning just need to press the button on the microphone the red light will go on when do I start ready the footprint of the Marquee the bedroom block the scouts Hut the spa the
Gym the car park is massive it looks to be about six to eight times the footprint of the manor this is a case of a big Shaggy tail most certainly wagging a little dog and what’s a justification for this this is a huge intensification of the buildings and the use of the
Green belt and protected site it doesn’t meet National or local rules and protections there is no justification the owners and The Operators who are here today do not want to know us they do not want to Lia with us on whether there are any mitigations that could be
Put in place they have not worked with us there was a once- in A- lifetime permission granted to the site in 1997 which vasty encroached on the green belt at the time it provided 200,000 square feet of Class A office space half of which is currently unoccupied and I’m
Sure that hotel guests would love to stay there because is stunning it’s five star I sent you some videos and some evidence of the levels of disturbance permitted by the current operators residents have had to endure this for the past two years roads and grass verges blocked inside and outside the
Parkland Amplified music trespass fireworks taxis in the early hours cheering jering 600 people Plus at a time you can’t shut them up exit and access is denied to Residents and it will get worse the Marquees to move considerably nearer the noise will be louder much louder without the buffer of
The Mana house it will only be about 100 meters away from the nearest property do the residents not deserve a reasonable measure of peace and quiet in their homes at the weekends after work we’re supported by the planning inspectorate in this I’m going to draw your attention
To the case that I submitted that’s bang on point it supports the residents but there in that particular case or only uh considering 42 car parking spaces 177 in the basement um there was a basement venue bricks and mortar venue here we’ve got a plastic or canvas tent in the open
That can be used for for up to 800 people the planning inspector concluded there at paragraph 65 there is no doubt that the occupiers of the neighboring dwellings would suffer unacceptable noise and disturbance of various sorts and that in itself suffices to dismiss the appeal the exact same reasoning
Applies to the current case if not with more weight there has been no appetite to address the resident issues by the operator than the owners we have been disregarded then and the disturbance sorry and can you blame them because actually there is no adequate mitigation that could be applied you simply can’t
Shut up that many people an example of how it could be done I’m going to refer you to the lovely grade two star listed Langley Hotel beautifully refurbished we’re certainly sorry finish your sentence you like to finish the sentence we’re certainly not nimes but the residents absolutely
Deserve to rest in their homes without noise and to be able to use their Gardens without disturbance thank you thank you okay you just could turn off the microphone thank you so next we have for the applicant Harry sporton you again you have three minutes to speak on this application and you’ll
Be given a one minute warning good evening counselors my name is Harry sporton and I the agent for this application I’m delighted that several of you were able to visit the site yesterday and I’m pleased to confirm the SE Scouts are here to support the application at the October
Committee you gave your offices very clear instructions to work with us to resolve outstanding technical matters unfortunately the application is again being presented to committee without us having a reasonable opportunity to respond we received key consultation responses on the same day we were told the application was going to this
Committee that said we have now formally responded and consider there to be no unresolved issues so what have we done since the last planning committee we’ve reduced the proposed bedroom block to attain additional trees made several internal amendments in response respon to Heritage comments reduce the car parking area to protect trees and
Improve the relationship with the chapel addressed all your Highway teams comments changed the color of the Marquee to minimize visual impact and proposed a Parkland restoration management plan to enhance the ancient Woodland and Veteran trees turning to the reasons for refusal one two and three relate to Green Belt Heritage and
Design a very special circumstances case and net Heritage benefit has been demonstrated this includes significant economic benefits over 200% biodiversity net gain and securing the long-term future of this Historic Site disappointingly several of the scheme benefits are given very limited weight by the officers including our strategy
To C celebrate this site as the birthplace of radar residential amenity we’ve agreed an 1 a curfew and a maximum noise limit with your EPO additionally we are fully committed to agreeing a robust noise management plan by condition to control dispersal and taxi movement I would also add the new hotel
Accommodation will reduce nighttime trips as many guests would use the hotel facilities and leave the site the next day H one minute remaining our leading specialist advice confirms there is no harm to ancient Woodland trees the objection relates to A New Path that your Highway Department requested we
Have submitted evidence of a suitable noig solution to ensure no harm to the existing tree routs if necessary this path can be removed from The Proposal in addition a minimum of 187 new trees would replace the 37 low 39 low quality trees that are lost slow has raised two
New issues received only last week with respect to traffic impact and pedestrian connectivity in response to impact the peak time trips would actually be lower than the existing situation and there are already numerous pedestrian routes into and through the site your highways Department raises no objection in summary we’ve made a series of
Improvements to the scheme and consider there to be a strong vssc case and net Heritage benefit we would like to work with residents through a management plan to ensure no amenity issues all remaining matters can be controlled by condition to come forward and all the significant financial investment for the
Burough with the wealth of benefits to the local community would also have can I just add one final point no I’d let you finish your sentence about operation might be beneficial to the presidence no I’m giving this say to everybody and I’d let you finish your sentence you’d already gone over time thank
You right um next we have um counselors councelor Reynolds and the same for you you have three minutes and uh one minute warning thank you chair I’m councelor Reynolds I’m the chair of the maiden head development management committee and I’m also the C member of commun and Ledger
And that’s the cap speech you tonight the council and the administration have are passionate about tourism and supporting local businesses lots of local businesses haven’t fully recovered from covid and tourism ese tourism especially in the events in the conference sector are struggling we’re developing a new 5-year tourism and
Visitor economy plan boosting tourism wter Maiden head and capitalizing for residents of the bar a big part of this emerging plan is mice otherwise known as meetings and events this is a key source of revenue for the council great driver for business supporting local businesses with jobs and growth the scheme brought
Before you last year was recommended for refusal the panel made many comments on the plan and asked officers to work constructively with the developers to improve the scheme and bring it back so from my perspective it’s disappointing that even though as the panel members have asked improvements have been made
It’s come back for refusal with more reasons for refusal than before some of which seem to be totally new despite no material change in that area feedback p members made that I’ve seen change across the site is a retention of trees reduction on the car parking spaces to
Help preserve the green bar openness the color of the Marquee which was complained about last time has been changed to Green to help it fit in changes to the Scout Hut and many other comments picked up by officers and by panel members have been adjusted for me
There are many benefits of the scheme improved Public Access walking and cycling the new health and fitness facility accessible for local residents in Windra Main and helping to have dap Chi ort R have that proper fitness and health facility which they so desperately need restoration of the
Chapel the new scal Hut for the SE Scouts and having seen their current home it’s in much need of renovation the massive economic benefit across the community over 100 jobs once this is built out the visitor economy impact that it will have it will really boost the meetings and events industry loc one
Minute remaining all of these I see and I have seen in my other role as chair of maidenhead planning be used as very special circum cumstances let’s not forget long-term investment in maintaining and improving this site to preser it for the future this would be lost by refusing tonight’s application
Who knows what could happen to the heritage of the site should we refuse this application and they only simply say enough’s enough and walk away we can’t risk this not being built and not having this preserved for the future therefore we can’t risk rejecting application thank you thank you councelor
Reynolds and finally councelor Lam again you have three minutes and you’ll have a one minute warning good evening councilors Lam that hon risbury I was first elected to dache Parish Council in 198 6 and I lived in uh risbury for 20 years before that I think I know the place I
Think I know the people I think I know what’s good for them and what’s bad for them I am supporting this application because I think it’s common sense to go forward with it in all honesty and it’s a realistic solution in the circumstances anybody who owns a
Building like that it’s a money pit it eats money so it has to be uh it has to generate an income that’s that’s the reality um everything has been said except uh how many more employees are coming there is it 120 180 something like that um on the site that sort of
Order of magnitude it can only be good for that on balance thank you very much thank you counselor okay so now we’ll take the public speakers for for the uh listed building consent so we have no public speakers on that but we do have the applicant again so Harry sporton thank
You and again you have three minutes with one minute warning the proposed development would restore lost areas of woodman Woodland conserve and restore ancient Woodland repair and restore the chapel which is currently in a poor state of repair and has recently been vandalized reinstate a purposeful approach to the gate house an
Eastern elevation of the Mana house removing existing unsightly security fencing relocate the Scout her and replace it with an area with high quality International landscape in which is reflective of the historic character of the park create a new Courtyard to the west of the manor house from which
The architectural interest of the house and Parkland can be better appreciated and which provides a marked improvement to the current conditions include walks and trails with information on the significant history of the park including the internationally significant development of radar technology there better reveal the significance of the park and the
Mana house all of these measured would clearly enhance the significance of the park and garden and would better reveal the significance to the public not only are these public benefits there are also H Heritage effects that must be considered along sides other effects such identified by ignoring these the conservation consultation response fails
To adequately consider the full effects of the propos development on the significance of the park and garden when all effects are considered including the clear substantial benefits outlined above in our view it is evident the proposed development would provide a clear and substantive net benefit to the Heritage values of Dent Park thank
You thank you and then again we have councelor Reynolds for another three minutes with a one minute warning thank you thank you chair I won’t speak for long on this but from reading the officer’s report to me this hinges on the Mana house and the word that’s being
Proposed for it I’ll be interested personally to see how the Mana house has changed over time comparing from when the Mana house was first built the changes to where we are today must be significant and to me the proposals for the future are just the next step in the
Life of the man of house and the building and what it does and how it performs the original man of house was designed obviously as a house and this is no longer possible therefore we should be expecting some changes to be made to bring it up to what people would
Expect in 2024 and as the applicant has chosen the hotel we should expect some changes to bring it to a hotel for 2024 for me this is really simple we could keep things the same not make any changes to this building or any of our listed buildings and many would fall
Into disrepair that’s the facts there isn’t too much demand for a Mana house in 2024 this is a way for the council to preserve the building preserve the Heritage asset and yes make adjustments to the intern but to keep it well maintained keep it in use in occupation
And keep it for many years to come thank you thank you counselor okay that’s the end of the public speakers um so I will open it up to debate for members by members councilor D Costa thank you chair listening to the public speakers and um looking at what our legal
Obligations are when we take an application into account I find myself really really tall um we know that when we look at the uh building on green B belt or development on Green Belt has to have very special circumstances to outweigh any um harm I’ve just been looking at the stats
For employment in this area we have very very low unemployment levels in this area and one of the um stats that are quite striking is that we have a negative 4% negative um employment in Hospitality that means that we have 4% more hospitality jobs in this area than we can fulfill with
Employees so for me when I look at the employment element of this as being a very special circumstance I kind of have to weigh that up with the fact that we already have 4% hospitality jobs that are not being fulfilled in this area and can we say that those will be
Fulfilled locally I’m not quite sure about that did you want to interrupt but AR do you mean winds or do you mean barkshire I mean wind and Maiden hat to just I’m just thinking most of our jobs f by slow do you just want to let let C and
Then we can we can come to comments in a minute thank you yeah so regardless we still have a negative number of hospitality jobs um so when I look at the job being an element for special circumstance I kind of have to weigh that against what jobs are not being
Fulfilled currently at this in this area when I look at the building and the heritage of the of that building and it’s it’s a wonderful building and um yes nobody’s going to buy a house like that to live in these days we’re not going to go back to its original um uh
Purpose because we don’t have Lords of the manner anymore well we do but they don’t live in those kind of houses we’ve got quite a few World family living locally um so I I I’m swaying I’m I’m I’m I just really find it hard to to put the legal
Aspect that we have to look at into what and that’s what my head’s saying to what my heart is saying that I would like to see this building used um but we have a legal obligation to look at what planning law says and planning law says that actually the significant um special
Circumstance really isn’t enough to outweigh what our planning law says at this moment in time and I really wish I could find a way of of bringing my heart and my head together on this one and um I guess I’ll just have to finish listening to what other people have to
Say on it uh and see what happens when we come to the vote thank you councilor sing thank you chair um right where should I start with this one um it’s quite a big big application it’s quite complex um I’ll tell you where I am that
Um it reminds me of an application few years ago in the burough um similar similar operation a hotelier wanted to refurbish and extend and modernize and all sorts only to spend a few million quid there’s a lot of objection about that one that was in maidened we approved it at a
Committee that is now one of the top wedding destinations in this country it’s in Monkey Island in maidened absolutely fantastic um then it reminds me about another site in bir screen beautiful beautiful building in the green belt the par College of Agriculture that runs it they couldn’t afford to keep the
Repairs on their historic building so what they’ve done is they put they sold a parcel of land residential development developers come along and put a load of houses up came to committee and we had to approve it because of the very special circumstances it wasn’t in the Bor local
Plan the reason it was approved was because the college was going to use the money to upgrade their existing asset now what we’ve got in front of us is a site that the applicant is willing to invest millions of pounds in the bur in
A in in an area of the burough which is quite deprived very very close to snow and you go over over the road snow um you know it’s tough out there it’s tough um we can never have enough jobs in the area so so so that’s that’s where where where my mind is
Um the community I like the community benefits and I’ve seen the weight afforded to these benefits that the Scout h i mean the applicant willing to invest huge sum of money into a scout H and we’ve got the scouts here today and the fact that they’re not only willing to invest the
Money but they’re also willing to support them with a grant in perpetuity I mean that that is fantastic the chapel chapel I mean I visited yesterday and absolutely fantastic building from the outside but you go closer the windows are smashed there’s vandalism uh the inside is in total
Disrepair now the only person that’s going to invest money is the owner the site and the only way with they will do that is if they’ve got money to invest if it makes economic sense the maths has to work so I know there’s still work to be done on this application
But I’ve got a disagree with officers on this uh some of the some of the waiting um I I think is it’s profoundly wrong and I’ll go into detail into that later on but at the moment um listening to the applicants listening to the lead member listening to the the ward counselor
Who’s been a counselor there since 1986 um and listening to the resident as well I’m confident we can uh defer this application and delegate it back to officers add conditions onto the application to address these issues and get this um get this scheme underway so so at the moment I’m minded
To propose this to defer and delegate but uh I’m willing to listen to see if I’ll be swayed by the debate thank you I just ask Gan to come back in um I mean after everybody’s uh made comments I’m sure the case officer will come back in but I need to
Identify that any funding that is proposed for the scale cannot be a material consideration by you in terms of this application I’m sure most of you are very clearly aware that you cannot buy a planning permission no no so um so you need to be very clear that is not a material
Planning consideration you should not take it into account in any of your considerations just come back sorry sorry if I can come back on that get is the the point that I was M making on that on that particular point on the Scout site is that the applicant is
Investing a significant amount of money into providing a new facility new building for the scouts that is a Community Asset um it’s clearly it’s clear in the um National policy framework somewhere let me I did have look at earlier um paragraph 97 to provide the social recreational and cultural facilities and
Services a community needs planning and policies and decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of these shared spaces Community facilities and and it goes on and it talks about um places of worship um open space sports venues meeting places so I
I will I will give the the the SCS um a consideration thank you thank you um councilor Bley yes uh chair thank you very much um I think this is going to focus on um very special circumstances and I think from from um the local aspects I agree with Council
Think it’s a very deprived one of the most deprived areas in the Barrow um it has a catchment area much larger because it goes into SL um there is uh in my opinion significant very special circumstances in regards to this application both economic Community benefits um I do add considerable weight
Of maintaining a listed building because we visited the property yesterday it’s it’s it’s a listed building it it says what it it does on the Tim really basically it’s really important that we maintain these structures and there’s very little money around from investors or private that will maintain these
Properties and we have as a burrow let this property go to disrepair I I’m not going to go into the reasons why but we saw it yesterday so officers will engage with us and tell us that they will maintain these properties and they will enforce them and make sure they are
Maintained we actually saw a property that’s gone into disrepair and he’s continuing to go disrepair it needs to be taken by some uh care and attention by somebody an investor to bring this property back up to the standard that it could be and we found out about the
Historic uh benefits of where radar was invented none of us knew this and we found these things and I’ve seen the applican report that there’s a point of uh a historic and Heritage program looking to be developed and I think their commitment as councilor singer said regarding different parts of the
Community Scouts and other Comm groups that they’re willing to say do what they say I think there’s also uh sustainability commitments um I think there’s uh a biodiversity net gain has been met I have concerns from the statutary consules in regards to highways um and regarding the residents
Regarding noise and uh times of use of certain areas um which I think could be limited by conditions on the application um I think as the applicant if it’s true the oppos can come back on this the applicant says that they’ve mitigated all the objections um I feel comfortable that under
Conditions we could we could certainly deal with the highways um staty consulty issues but I think there are you know we’ve got the situation here we’ve got 8.5 million visitors coming to witer um every year with a second largest tourist facility in the UK outside of London we
Only have 500 ,000 people staying overnight and the reason for that is the lack of accommodation we have a number of our hotels being taken up by different reasons home office and I won’t go into the ins and outs and we’re losing accommodation across the barus we
Need to encourage people who will need to invest in it and bring that facility and allow us access to bring and get people to stay overnight and improve our local economy so I I I would disagree with officers and I think there are very very special circumstances on this
Particular application of which I’ve listed some there um but again I I continue to listen to other panel members and officers tonight before I draw a conclusion thank you thank you councilor T thank you chair um I I I feel very similar way um to um
To the way that Council Buckley and um and also Council zosta said I think um it’s my sort of initial thing um when we listening to the officer report and seeing all the the waiting that they had that they had given the various things was that there was almost a head and
Heart thing I I I completely see that that we have an obligation here as as councilors as committee members we we have to follow the law we have to follow the law we have to do things um you know we cannot just say oh well I want this
And therefore it’s that we can’t do that um but let’s try and unpick this to me let let me just leave one thing aside the biggest one of the lot the green belt let’s just I’ll come back to that in a second because that is by Miles I
Think the the one that definitely sort of um you know by statutory as as the officers rightly said um that there a statutory presumption of of sort of substantial harm sort of pretty much any development you to shed that substantial harm and um so let’s just leave that
Aside I think the others that this is the thing this as disconnect there an in congruous development there’s Heritage harm well actually actually looking at this looking at how it is now looking at how it’s planned to be it it I would have thought the almost the opposite is
True that um that actually this could um this actually could be a a real benefit um in terms of from a Heritage preserving the Heritage um of the place and history now um I will almost um declare an interest in that I had not in in almost to not have had an interest
In that I I wasn’t there at that meeting I I couldn’t attend the meeting I have seen the site and I would concur actually from what I have seen that it is a rundown area it’s listening to the um the lady who spoke against um this um
And she sent us some really uh videos of like of just just how it is and the the Carnage there is cars parted out side now to me that is um one that I would be concerned about um and maybe something could be conditioned but I am at least
That that it it does seem that potent there’s a potential a potential for actually improving that situation with this there is a potential for improving that given the parking on site given the the fact that we you know we will get you know at the moment it’s I mean the
Officers said themselves that the Marquee there doesn’t have Planning Commission it seems that it’s a bit of a wild west out there at the moment some of the um but let let me just come back to the one thing the one one point um because I’ve spoken long enough on this
One which it does seem to back to and it is the green belt and and yes I I concur that is is are there very special circumstances and if there are not then we have to refuse this um if there are then we may approve this now to me um I
Won’t repeat what I’ve heard but I I would add another one and I mentioned it the last time this came to um to panel a few months ago and this is um a a an example of where special very sorry very special circumstances were identified
And the panel was minded to pass and it happened here it was um well I’m not sure in this room but it was to do with the Legoland hotel now I think that there are some specific things that that are very similar number one if you like
You have a discrete site it is a discrete site it is not just here’s a bit of land and we’re going to put something it’s a discret this is the diton park you know well D Park versus Legoland um number two you have a development or proposed development that
Enhances the existing asset that is there um and I think that that’s you know people now certainly that we’ve seen that you know we we’ve all um had to you know we’ve all been to the Lego hand Hotel absolutely lovely and I just reiterate on the economy on visiting yes
Um as cancel Bley said there are 8 and a half million visitors only but we we need we need Hotel spaces and I think we especially need the sort of high-end Hotel places that I suspect would raise that area up in a way that it you know
That that it is needed and I worry um because if you like this is a second bite on the Cherry I worry that if we reject today what will happen Okay uh State status quo but the status quo is not very good at the moment the status
Quo is a bit of a wild west out there a rundown area and and a Heritage asset that might fall into disrepair thank you anybody yes um councelor Davis uh my main concern is with traffic and noise um getting residents live nearby um it is a large development it’s going to have increased
Traffic and noise um the Marquee or out outdoor weddings take place provided a lot of noise before we have video proof of this uh it’s going to be moved close to the housing and it no longer has the house blocking the noise I’m not sure if we could condition
For noise impact assessment before any that Marquee is built that’s for our guidance on that but without it I wouldn’t want to approve this um I don’t want I don’t think the overall Improvement both to Heritage arguably and uh economy is worth sacrificing local residents thank you um I’m going to go
Take people who haven’t spoken and then I’ll come back to you so councelor sharp thank you I think this is a very very interesting development but unfortunately it’s in Green Belt and we’ve had youve heard the officers outline very clearly that there is a presumption against development in the green belt so
Whilst I I love the idea of a flourishing hotel with a sideline in weddings and all that sort of thing it it sounds like a a great little business but actually it’s in the wrong place because it’s in Green Belt and as soon as you start saying it’s all right to do
This what we are doing here is actually driving a coach and horses through the green belt policy throughout the burrow this is not just about about this specific site it’s about how we can manage the green belt throughout the burrow and whilst it’s it’s really lovely to think that you know there will
Be a new Scout Hut and all those things it’s all highly commendable but having sat on planning for many years now and sat through many many hours of people coming up with policiy with proposals for development in the green belt and there are many of them that
Have taken many many years to get through and here we’ve heard from the officers that actually the special circumstances that are being talked about from a planning policy point of view do not meet the requirements to over to outweigh the harm to the green belt that is being done by this
Application so whilst I I’d love to think that we can have this development actually when you look at it from a a planning policy point of view and that’s what we really should be thinking about not whether or not we like the idea of these things but from a
A planning policy point of view view we need to really consider carefully what we’re doing and if we approve this tonight we are build we are driving a coach and horses through our Green Belt policy and you will very quickly see applications coming through in all sorts of areas that you haven’t thought
About which we will find very difficult to defend because this application has gone through so we need to ensure very carefully that we are following the correct legislation as set out by the government on our planning policy and that we’re doing the right thing for the residents in the area who are very
Concerned about protection of the green belt now we all know that we want developments in many different areas but we need to be sure that we’re doing the right developments in the right area I would love to see this development in an area that wasn’t green
Belt and I’d love to see it come forward and make a splendid success of this sort of scheme I can see many many benefits I can see that potentially employment and Open Access and all sorts of things which would flow from this but I’m afraid that
From a planning policy point of view it fails the test and it fails it we’ve been told by the officers very clearly that it fails that test very substantially so you would unfortunately have to come up with with some incredible tautology to be able to pass this
Through the system so whilst I totally totally think a scheme like this would be a real major benefit in this place it’s not and we should and I I want to uh propose that we move officers proposals and refuse this thank you I’m going to go to councelor Carpenter
And then you like to speak now and then we’ll go to officers for some comments then we can come back if there’s any more after that okay thank you um so uh yeah I I um hear what everyone else has said I I would like to question some of
The uh reasons for the rejections um so first see the biggest one is the green belt um from what I can see um some of the the development um will be on existing replacing existing development that’s already there so for example some of the extension will replace the existing I’d
Say quite sorry I would say ugly Marquee that’s there already um and that hasn’t got planning permission anyway so um the fact that that has already been built on green belt without any permission um surely sets a precedent um and also that the development that’s going to replace
That seems to be more in keeping with the current development that’s there so actually an improvement um also the proposed gym um seems to be you know replacing a a car park that’s there already um and really the only exception to this would be probably the Scout Hut
I suppose which is going to be quite close to the ancient Woodland but also precedent seems to have been set with that because there’s already a concrete path going through that ancient Woodland so you know i’ maybe question some of that you know it’s not like we’re building we’re knocking down you know
Hundreds of trees to to to do that um in terms of trees I know that some will be lost it looks like um more than four times that are going to be planted in in its place but some of that seems to relate to a pathway that actually we
Asked for so maybe that needs to be reviewed um to to save some of those trees um in terms of the noise I know that noise is a concern to the residents and and we watched um a video that was sent thank you today um from one of the
Residents but I actually think that this could be an improvement to the current situation um because a lot of the people that are coming now seem to be parking close to the trees that are aligning the entrance so I mean I would have thought that would have caus more damage to
Those trees than the new proposal that’s going to have a car park um that seems to be in line with National Trust guard guidelines so um you know I actually think that the in terms of parking and cars being abandoned all over the place that that would be an improvement to to
How it is now um because if we do nothing it’s going to continue that noise and parking chaos will continue if I’m not wrong um so you know I do think this could be actually an improvement to that um what else one other thing I was
Just going to dispute was about the the Heritage harm and I know um Council Lu already mentioned this um but I would dispute this um that it’s a significant Heritage harm because I think it’s actually the opposite this building seems to be in need of preservation um and it seems that a lot
Of the um plans were changed after we um deferred it last time because we requested quite a lot of changes and things like um you know windows are no longer being removed um so a lot of the heritage of the building is actually being preserved so you know I I think I
I probably dispute that and and some of the things they’re looking at doing in keeping the heritage in terms of the the radar history and and things like that and and definitely obviously trying to restore that Chapel um because you know that that’s a a benefit as well um so
Yeah that’s I I would dispute some of the reasons anyway why why we’re um rejecting thank you I’m gonna just let councelor luxon come in because then everybody has spoken once and then we we’ll go to offices thank you Jan Like This Ss a very complicated application I’ve sat
This one before and we’ve gone through all this and I do agree with a lot of things that the councilors have said about you know things have to be looked at on both sides and this is a Heritage item place and it has good things and
Bad things going to to it bad negatives and positives and um I I have a bit of reservation yet because of the planning policies that we put in place and we have to follow and I also agree with many of the points that people have said and I do
Sympathize with the residents for what’s happening at the moment with the parking and everything that is happening so I’m going to sit on it for moment and I’m sitting on the fence over here deciding what I should be doing definitely sitting on the fence because there are
Positives and negatives in this and I will wait and see what will take the better of me at the end of it thank you very much thank you okay we’ve got quite we’ve had lots of discussions there’s probably a lot to come back on I’ll let
You thank you um so first of all there’s I suppose just a couple of sort of factual things to clarify um I think it’s really important to bear in mind that while the site appears to currently be being used as a wedding venue and that seems to be the occasions on which
There are these particular issues with uh particularly the kind of pressures in terms of car parking both on the access into the site and on the surrounding roads that use at the moment doesn’t have planning permission so I think to compare what’s proposed to that is is
Not really a fair comparison we have enforcement Powers if you know following investigation and if it was decided um that it was expedient to do so the council does have powers to uh you know take enforcement action where there’s an unlawful use occurring and I think it’s
It’s important to bear in mind as I explained at the beginning of my presentation the current lawful use is as a conference venue so I think when you’re thinking about the impacts particularly in terms of Highways and and impacts on residents making compar between the lawful use as a conference
Venue for 250 delegates versus a hotel and wedding and Conference venue with 500 guests I think those are the kind of comparisons that need to be made rather than the the current unlawful situation of the use as a wedding venue um I think just something else to
Clarify as well um something to just kind of Bear in mind it’s the council has made it very clear that when not objecting to the principle of a hotel use on the site there are obviously concerns about the wedding venue use but but overall as as is discussed in the committee report the
Principle of the development is not disputed it’s the it’s the fact that it’s in the green belt and it’s the detail and the kind of scale and extent of the proposals as it discusses in the committee report there’s 15,000 square meters of built development and that is
You know as as we discussed earlier anything over a thousand square meters has to be referred to secretary of state if it’s being approved so you know we’re not saying no a hotel could never take place in this location the exact proposals scale and extent of them is is
The issue that that is you know particularly harmful um I think just to add to what Gillian said in relation to the community benefit of scalp Hut and what weight is afforded to act um obviously Gillian was talking about any Financial uh sort of contributions that might be made towards
The Scout group outside of the provision of the Scout Hub but I also just want to clarify the main uh sort of purpose of the provision of the Scout Hut is to achieve policy compliance so the proposals would result in the loss of the existing Scout Hut which it’s
Acknowledged is a quite outdated building but the there are policies in the local plan that prevent the loss of community facilities and that that is what the reprovision would be doing it would be complying with that policy it’s actually a smaller facility and I think that’s you know that’s explained in detail in
The committee report that it’s acknowledged that it’s it’s effectively the main purpose of of providing that Sky Scout Hut is to rovide the Scout Hut that would be that would be lost it’s acknowledged that it’s a slightly smaller building but it’s obviously a mod standard and so overall that’s the
The rationale for why it’s only given given limited weight and as a kind of General principle policy just policy compliance on its own isn’t something that should necessarily be treated as a benefit going above and beyond policy compliance obviously that that can be treated as a
Benefit um just a couple of other points in in terms of the kind of discussion in relation to the um Heritage considerations um I think it’s also worth stressing that as far as as as far as the case that we’ve received as far as the application we we aren’t aware that the
Existing business on the site isn’t viable if if that was a case that was being put forward that’s something that we could consider and there’s a you know a kind of particular route for considering uh enabling development to allow development in the setting or affecting Heritage assets that wouldn’t ordinarily otherwise be acceptable
That’s not the case that’s been put forward here and I think in terms of thinking about the existing conditions of the listed buildings we haven’t seen any evidence that there’s there’s not a kind of viable business at the moment that would enable those to be brought back into a
Good standard and as Alicia explained earlier and can can say more on you know the council does also have powers to compel the owners of listed buildings to carry out repair works if if that’s deemed to be appropriate um and also just just another point on the Heritage the sort
Of assessment of the Heritage impact and I think this goes back to what Gillian was saying about being mindful of what the kind of rationale and justification is for coming to a different conclusion to what policy says or indeed you know what’s what’s kind of set out in the
Committee report I think particularly when it comes to assessing ing the Heritage impacts obviously you know there’s a lot of material with the application and there is a Heritage um assessment submitted by the applicants and there’s detailed comments from Alicia the conservation officer as well as heritage satary heritage consules and
I think it’s just important to bear in mind that that is a professional assessment that follows a kind of recognized methodology for the assessment of impacts to designated Heritage assets that informed by an understanding of their significance and I think if if a different kind of assessment or a different conclusion is
To be reached about uh what those impacts are that does need to be sort of Justified and explained um I think I just wanted to say a couple of points as well and this kind of goes back to the the question of what the current lawful use of the of the site is
In terms of the potential for there to be improvements in terms of parking um as I say Obviously the current situation is unlawful in terms of the wedding venue use but I think it’s also important to note that the the proposed development would result in quite significant reduction in car
Parking compared to the existing parking within the site um there’s 177 car parking spaces that would be proposed as part of development off the top of my head the existing car parking I think I think is around 300 spaces within the site so it is I I can check those
Figures but it is it is quite a reduction um and then the final point I just wanted to make was in relation to conditions and there have been a number of comments about whether kind of outstanding technical issues could be addressed by condition um those relate those comments related primarily to
Highways impacts and uh noise impacts and I think this is this is kind of explained in um paragraph 9.76 of the committee report where it refers to the five tests that conditions have to meet as as required in paragraph 56 of the mppf um so in order to to put any
Conditions on a on a decision decision makers need to be satisfied that that any of those conditions comply with those five tests um in terms of reasonableness that is that is one of the tests and so I think um as I say it’s discussed in in detail
In the section on immunity in the committee report really careful consideration has been given to whether using conditions would be a kind of acceptable route for mitigating those impacts and the justification for why it’s concluded that it couldn’t be dealt with by a condition it is set out in
Detail and I think um there’s there’s kind of two main parts to that one is is the Marquee and the the kind of lack of the noise impact assessment that submitted with the application acknowledges that the Marquee if if it wasn’t mitigated would give rise to significant impacts to imity and there’s
A discussion in the committee report about the fact that the the kind of range of mitigation that’s suggested as part of the noise impact assessment is not sufficiently clear to demonstrate that the noise levels could actually be reduced sufficiently to protect immunity and the other point is in relation to
The kind of noise and disturbance from vehicle movements and again I think imposing conditions that restricted that would would undermine the actual operation of it as a wedding venue and so it wouldn’t be reasonable for us to do that um so again in terms of thinking about how that relates to
Highways the the principal concern is in relation to the impact on the junction um between A4 and D Park Road and that’s to do with the the vehicle movements associated with uh particularly the wedding venue use the assessment is that we don’t have enough information at the
Moment to assess the impact on that Junction in terms of Highway Safety and so that’s not something that could be dealt with by condition because such a condition would inevitably kind of restrict unfairly restrict the the capacity of the wedding venue and and undermine it um I think that covers all
The points that I wanted to uh wanted to raise um oh just one other thing um just in response to councelor Carpenter the the points that you made in relation to the green belt um I think in terms of the Marquee as you acknowledged the the existing Marquee isn’t lawful so so that
Shouldn’t be treated as as kind of an existing um structure in terms of the green Bel impact um and obviously also in addition to those buildings that are proposed within the motors area the accommodation block and the um the gym and back of house block there’s the Marquee and the car park as
Well and it’s not in terms of the kind of um potential impacts on openness it’s not just from built structures the the physical presence of cars the hard surfacing the bards you know even the kind of activity associated with the proposed uses that would be introduced into the site those all have the
Potential to to impact on openness um so as I say it’s not just about the kind of volume of the of the buildings um and just one other point it was in relation to the impact on Ancient Woodland um I think it’s also you referred to the fact
That there’s already a kind of concrete road through the ancient Woodland um I think again it’s important to stress that an existing feature that that potentially when it was introduced might have been harmful to the ancient Woodland doesn’t justify causing further harm um and I just refer back to the
Wording in policy um uh in paragraph 186 of the mppf that that says that uh development that would result in deterioration to ancient Woodland um should be refuse unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances um yeah that was everything I wanted to than you thank you um I just wondered if
A conservation officer would like to add anything at all come back on any of the points made um just a couple of points that few of the points that were raised in terms of kind of the point about the 20th century history of the site and the the
Radar history of the site um It’s Not Unusual for a scheme like this for us to impose a building recording condition the building and the site um because of the the change that would occur on this site and so that would be a planning condition that we would apply and the
Weight given to that would be shouldn’t be given considerable weight because the building reporting condition is Not Unusual on a consent of this sort so yes the applicant has highlighted that they would provide interpretation of the site and it’s more recent history however it could be kind of secure
Through the planning process as a as a condition due to the development scheme and the changes that will occur to the list of the building itself it it shouldn’t be given considerable weight as in it would only happen because of this development I was just going to ask if
Alicia could possibly dis you know describe because I think the the term that’s often used with Heritage structures is less than substantial harm that sounds as if it’s not important that the harm that is being undertaken isn’t important but if Alicia could maybe um you know comment on what the
Harm to the park and the structures is and also what this term less some substantial harm means yeah so in the mppf in the framework there are three levels of defined harm and that is no harm less than substantial and substantial in this case we’re sitting in the bracket of less than
Substantial policy does not dictate to scale within this the bracket however it does dictate that the harm should be outweighed by public benefits these benefits aren’t solely Heritage they can be a broad scheme of benefits however you have to look into the detail of those benefits versus the harm cause in
This syst we’re looking at harm to a registered Park and garden um a listed building multiple listed buildings in this incident as well as their setting so it’s impact to built fabric as well as setting um to these multiple Heritage assets less of substantial harm in its
Own right is less than substantial harm to the significance and setting of these assets and on top of that we have a duty you have a duty as a decision maker to consider the planning and stability Act and the sections of preserving that significance and setting in that regard
As well um so that less substantial harm is one policy Factor on top of the GT under statutary legislation um setting and significance of these buildings and the less of substantial harm is on the setting and significance of these Heritage assets there is no kind of
Scale in between it to consider it is whether it is harmful or not in this case even a small amount of harm will still sit in the less than substantial brackets sure if I could just highlight obviously in the report it say so a whole you know discussion on the impact
On the Heritage assets and the object that um our own conservation officers have but I would like to identify to members that the two statutary consules for this site um both uh the the gardens trust and uh the georgean what Society now is it it’s a Jordan whatever group
Yes Georgian group um have both uh from their specialist uh perspective have both objected to the um the work the development and proposals on this site thank you chair okay I’ve got some more councilors waiting to speak so David and then s well thank you chair um I’d like to
I’ve got three points actually I’ll bring them all up at once um firstly um I just wanted to clarify of officers um the use of the building in the past has been used by the mod when we talk about historic and Heritage obviously we know that the mod don’t don’t need Planning
Commission to make changes to the building that made substantial changes over the decades to the property without planning permission which has obviously could be deemed a significant harm to the property in the past so in terms of being concerned about Heritage and damage there we have allowed this or we
Have another choice in that but it’s been done before um and these PL are in some people’s opinion bringing this Heritage and historic property back up to to mark in regards to conditions and I’m I’m notified to to regards to concerns to Residents um the noise limitations we’ve
Spoke about conditions and I think I I disagree with officers I think there can be conditions put in regards to noise limitations I think there can be limits to the number of people limit it to 450 rather than whenever I think there can be limits put in place in regards to
Times we could we could limit it to 10:30 with everyone leaving the area in the Marquee by 11:00 p.m. I think in regards to the statutary consules and the objections to highways I think we could look at putting a condition in place by having a separate entrance to
To contain it without um affecting the applicants um consideration and business model as put forward by uh officers and I think the Heritage and historic program should be put into a condition in respect of the applicant has made that um statement and I think we should condition that um to make sure the
Historic history of the property in particular to the uh invention of radar which we wouldn’t have come through we wouldn’t be sitting here now if that hadn’t been invented that is so substantial it’s beyond it’s beyond belief um so I think we can put a number
Of conditions in around this and I think that that that we one of the areas so which mitigate the statutary obligations in regards to trying to help other councils in regards to the green belt I I totally listed M very special circumstances and in regards to councilor Sharp’s concerns about
Prestent in regards to Green bill you know I I I’d like to see a property that’s got this history economic benefit Community benefits uh offset of net gain and a place that invented radar um and we’ve got conditions here which made it make it very particular Council Reynolds went
On to State a number of these conditions that would make it a total different situation to any other Green Belt application that would happen anywhere in the bar and I’d say anywhere in the UK so I think we have seriously special very special circumstances to look at uh
Approving this application I don’t agree we should defer to officers for application I think we should approve it tonight and my proposal is to approve this application tonight with these very special circumstances noted thank you um I’ve got Council next thank you J um I have a question at for the
Officers today tonight whether the planning permission is granted or rejected it would still go to the Secretary of State wouldn’t it because it’s 1,500 square meters is that right if it’s rejected it’ll be refused and the decision will be out tomorrow if members are minded to approve the
Application it would go to the Secretary of State for both green belt and Heritage reasons because you are going against the um the statutory expert Consul tees um based on Heritage and as Sarah said earlier it’s the scale of the development that would um would result
In it going to the Secretary State but it would be going with whatever the recommendation of this committee and the reasoning for that recommendation would be can I come back so so what if it’s like you said if it gets granted today one way or the other it
Will then go to the Secretary of State and then it is in their hand to say a yes or no to the application like how in the past it has happened am I right yes I mean they they would they would either if they didn’t they might say oh yes we absolutely
Agree with you and then we get it back so taking into consideration the special circumstances like what they are given to us they could actually even go and say that was a good decision or it could go the other way that’s what I’m saying
Yes I mean it’s up to them to make the decision thank you very thank you um councelor D Costa uh thank you chair um having listened to the debate listened to the officers um and I’ve been doing a bit of reading as well at the same
Time um it would appear that the park itself is also listed and this is where the greater development is proposed to take place that’s a huge footprint and when you compare when you compare this footprint to what is currently existing subject to planning consent I take the Marquee out of bit
It’s massive it’s absolutely massive in this um Green Belt I personally would rather see an application come before us that looks at developing the house into a hotel or um wedding venue where we can look at the the man of house being uh looked after well we can preserve those wonderful
Historic things not just from World War II but going right the way back this is this man of house is much older than just World War II that’s where the radar was was um invented and that’s amazing and you know that is that is something that we should treasure and we should be
Very proud of but for me I think the development of the house for something that would be used for the community and preserve the historic facilities there would be a far easier application to to um consent to because that would also preserve that ancient wood it would preserve the the
Lime trees and all the um biodiversity that goes on in a beautiful Green Belt area and that said we have this application before us we don’t have the application that I would like to see and so as such we do have to make our decision based on what’s before us
And hearing that there would be no reason why um a separate application couldn’t come back with regard to just the house I would be inclined to propose that we um go with officer’s recommendation um because so I just say councelor sharp has already proposed I’ll second it I’ll second it yeah
Because we’re looking at having to add so many conditions to make this fit what we want it to fit this application does not fit what we’re saying we want and as such I think we need to reject itly um councelor thing you are next to
Speak you thank you chair um yeah I just wanted to um just come back on um Council cost comment on the the application I mean the application is the application what we’ve got in front of us um the Marquee is a temp pre-building um you know in an Ideal World you know
We’ it’d be brilliant to sort of um you know turn the house into a wedding venue but the issue we’ve got is at the moment you know officers are saying you know they don’t even one one of the rooms subdivided you know them rooms that we went into yesterday and they’ve got
Concerns about that and to turn the the actual manor house into a wedding venue would you know would be another application and you going through this process all over again and it may it may not come about so my um my point I come back on on the Green Belt as well
Um um look there’s some confusion I think about the green belt and what what the purpose is of the green belt um and and I just want to look just to the definition in paragraph 143 of the nppf and in it it says Green Belt serves five purposes a to check the unrestricted
Sprawl of large builtup areas B to prevent neighboring towns merging into one another C to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment D to propose the setting and special character of historic towns and E to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derel and other Urban Land I don’t see this
Application encroaching on on that at all um and and the the the benefits that this scheme is is providing us are huge absolutely huge I mean if if you know if if this was anywhere else in the burough and some an applicant proposed a refurbishment of of
Their their site and they offered the community a scout her a a gym facility SAA you know I mean we we we would bite the hand off for it it this is a huge huge benefit and it it it may not come back and and the other thing is uh
Regarding the enforcement of of um listed status I mean and and the mark the mar has been up to for several years that’s not been enforced why is that still up it’s not been enforced and it won’t be enforced don’t know maybe some point in the future maybe but I don’t
Know now the other thing is about the the listed stat is there is a building in Eaton High Street and is is called the cockpit that building is a listed building got great big Timbers up there in the roof and and there were probably trees around when William the Conqueror around that
Building is derel and it’s half finished building project there’s been pigeons flying around there there’s a file about that big with contenance to there’s not been any enforcement there bur hasn’t taken a sight on it’s very very very difficult to enforce this that that Chapel there is in an awful State we’ve
Got an opportunity now where we can regenerate that area give it a a breath of fresh air the the whole area the you know that that um that green area the Parkland is is described here as poor poor condition we we’ve got an opportunity this evening to defer and delegate
That’s what that’s what I’m proposing to officers we can go through the conditions and we put it back to officers we’re the decision making uh we the counselor here this evening we are elected on behalf of residents we’ve got decision- making power here not the officers officers can guide us by down
To us and I’ve been here many many times and the other thing as well is if we refuse this application this evening there could be concern that if applicant goes to appeal cost could be awarded against the bough because we’ve already seen in the
Last 24 hours at least one of the or is are two conditions that have been that uh reason for refusal have been knocked off I I I’m going to propose to uh defer and delegate um subject to um uh section 106 agreement and uh the
278 and uh the the conditions and I can run through the conditions with officers if someone happen to Second proposal thank you and Julian we’ll go to you and then I’ll ask Ian to come back on some of the points that g made um yes C can I just um Ju Ju
Just where where where to start goodness me there’s a lot there’s a lot to be said here um first of all um let me just uh Ju Just say what what will happen if we if we approve here what what will happen um one of the things that has
Been said is that um is that it will go to the Secretary of State and I think that’s been held out out as a or it’ll go to the Secretary of State and that’ll be sort of really bad no that that is that is unlikely it’s it’s in practice
That has tended to be a bit of a rubber stamp the the Secretary of State and it’s and there’s sort of no as I understand it there’s sort of no comeback on us you know if if they disagree with us on the other hand I’m going to actually uh don’t worry about
This I I’m going to almost um uh say something that the say something that um the officers might be likely to say which is that if we reject this I think that because they they put the officers put such a comprehensive case together there’s there’s it’s likely that it won’t be
Sort of seen as an unreasonable thing so I I sort of support officers there but what I will also say is I just observed that I think we’ve heard probably a lot more from officers today than we have from the counselors um and and it’s this
Is not the officer’s fault this is just the this is just an observation that the officers do an enormous amount of work they provide all of the um you know the hundreds of pages that we that we that we’ve looked through that we’ve ped through they present it before the
Meeting they present it during the meeting they answer questions and all that thing but what they are not here to do is make a decision they are not here to make a decision that is for us counselors and we are allowed to we are allowed to make a decision and and um
So just um just to sort of um a couple of the things that the officers did say and and and um one of the things that um we we heard that there was no you know if we you know if we say no tonight well there’s uh it’s a wedding venue now
There’s no planning permission we’ve got powers we’ve got powers to do something about it uh there’s there’s no evidence we’ve seen that we could not bring it back we’ve got powers to compel the repair works here well I’m sorry but we need to move into the real world we need
To move into the real world here because in practice what how how was it two three years it’s been up there and nothing’s happened in practice we know what will happen to that that site it will fall into a state of disrepair we know in practice that it will that the all of
The things that actually um all of the things that we’ve seen you know that the the Carnage of you know the the sort of the Wild West that we’ve seen that will continue we know that the economic benefit that you know that there is a clear economic benefit and I
Won’t say it again um I would actually um listening to councelor um sharp I I really um appreciate what he said actually I I just pick up something he said he said that he would love to see this if it was not in the the green belt
That that’s fair yes you’d love you know if if there was such a thing and I sort of agree I think we’ve heard a lot from E of just reiterating that this is in congruous that is that there’s a Heritage harm and actually completely disagree with that completely disagree
With this idea that it’s that it’s that it’s actually this will enhance this will enhance this now on the Green Belt that again just to reiterate it is it is all and I think this was said earli and it’s been repeated a few times this is all about
The very special circumstances well the bar is indeed High it is very rare that a coun that Council officers will say you know what this this is in the green belt but there are very special circumstances because XY Z and we’ve therefore uh uh suggest you approve
That’s very very rare and so that the officers we cannot criticize them here they’ve done the right thing they’ve done the right thing in pointing out look this is a substantial harm and they have been to be fair they’ve then said but look look and it is then about a
Waiting thing and it is for you to decide um and as I think we’ve said that that we believe that there are the very special circumstances I think that in terms of um noise that there’s I I think there’s there’s there’s there’s obviously sill um there’s there’s signage there’s curfew I wouldn’t be
Specific about the time I’d say let let’s just you know let let’s not make us that specific on that um Council Buckley I I would be sort of minded to support your um your sort of proposal but um but actually I think that we do
Need you know the section 106 so I think I’m minded to Second councelor um G sing’s um proposal to go against officer recommendations and approve this subject what what you subject to 106 condition so just F and delegate uh what we do this evening we just delegate
To offic right and the one just the one final thing yes and and and just just the one final thing as I said this is I think you know it it it’s again just going back to um something that Council dcosta said um it’s this this I
Understand it is a head and heart thing um I would just say look I think this is this is what we have in front of us is good um and it’s understandable that officers have have sort of suggested the way they have but we do have this very special circumstances clause which
Allows us to say well actually we believe the these exist so we we are approaching nearly two hours discussion on this and I understand why it’s really important um do any members feel that they haven’t had the opportunity to say anything that they would like to on this
Yeah so if we reject this they’re probably going to come back with an amended proposal and if we’re a to um delegate delay and delegate we’re going to come back with the proposal what is the Practical difference so I’ll come to Gillian to answer a couple of points thank
You I need to start with the issue of the green belt um and counil saying I picked out a particular part of the policy but it’s very important that there’s a clear understanding by members as to what green belt policy is because you must have an understanding of of the
Policy to make a decision and yes there are the aspects that um of green belt policy the five purposes of Pol of the policy and it’s very difficult to see that um you know that that those you know that this development does not encroach because
It’s in the green Bel it’s built form by its very nature it encroaches so taking that one aside and I think you know there are other aspects as to whether you could discuss various aspects of of that the those five purposes but really absolutely core is paragraph 152 of the
National planning policy framework which says inappropriate development and this is inappropriate development it does not fall in the definition of anything that is appropriate therefore it is inappropriate inappropriate de development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be approved in very special circumstances and all the case
Law every commit every appeal decision you read on the Green Belt will refer to impact on the openness of the green belt and this because of the built form and the scale and the um urbanizing features like car parks and um fuit paths and roads all of that have an impact on the
Openness of the green bell so any decision you make you have to make it with that in your mind in terms of the condition can I ask you to stop talking amongst yourselves please and listen just for a minute thank you in terms of conditions and I think we’ve been really
Clear the conditions that are being proposed or that have been mentioned would not meet the tests they would not meet the tests required of a condition they would not be reasonable and they would not be on that basis enforceable they would therefore be challengeable and they could be challengeable by
Appeal um and so that’s advice that we would have to give we would have to to give that advice that what is being proposed is not is not reasonable when it comes to the issue of yes it is up to members and you know it is a members
Decision well it’s a members decision as to what then potentially goes to the Secretary of State but it is a member’s decision but you as a committee must act as a reasonable decision maker so if you are going to depart from the waiting and the balancing of the issues um then you
Will need to be clear in your um description of you know how that is is differently weed and as was said um earlier it isn’t just a case of saying oh well it just slightly Pips the benefits just slightly pip the post of the harms it needs to be clear it needs
To be clear but that’s I don’t know I mean there are legal issues here and I don’t know whether I would want would like to just go to Helena actually because so we’ve got we have one proposal that’s been seconded to accept officer recommendations and then we have
A proposal then from um councilor Singh which has been seconded but I’m not totally clear on exactly what the proposal is I can give you the proposal thank you um so look The Proposal is um to defer delegate yeah um subject to the condition and I I’ll give you the conditions and
Um subject to section 106 and the the 2 278 um so so so right so the condition which I want to run through is in the report um section uh 9.72 uh regarding the hi process um that one I want secured by way of condition uh for that’s a herited rearch
And recording work um in in the report it says it can be secured by condition so I’d like that to be secured and added on as a condition secondly 9.75 the the Amendments of the scheme do not materially alter the proposals in respect of impacts of the development on
Residential imunity as set out in paragraph 10.99 uh and this is regarding antisocial behavior that one in the report it says um security measures which can be secured by condition I’d like that added on as a condition so that’ll be delegated to officers to um to age with
The applicants then I would like um to have um uh SE the section 106 legal agreement uh secured um as a condition and the section 278 works i’ like that secured as a condition additional additionally 9.99 it says is regarding air the applicant uh is also proposing that a Parkland
Restoration and management plan um is secured by condition I like that to be added on as a condition as well um so that’s very important as for the ancient Woodland techical note um then uh I would like um the the the in in the i’ like a condition to be added um
9127 on your ecology and biodiversity is paragraphs 10117 um subject to conditions C in a c p uh and innovasive and nonnative species method statement and biodiversity gain plan details of theology sensitive lighting uh the proposal um so so all of um that stuff B basically see construction environment management plan
I want that all secured by condition uh construction management plan I want secured as a condition um the clearance of of vegetation uh section 278 will stick that on as a condition and um yeah an updated draft travel plan uh Bas basic final travel plan I want that secured as a condition please
Uh this will be a lot of conditions on this I wonder if there’s I wonder if there’s a more efficient way of doing this um potentially I think we should take the vote on the first motion that we have um because this it may become immaterial if I can I was just say
Also just the reason it’s obviously come to committee as well is it can’t be delegated to the head of fny as I understand it so just to be very clear on what your proposal is if I can councel so because you say defer and delegate so just want to make sure that
We’re very clear on what you are proposing uh defer a delegate but but it can’t be when you say delegate sorry that’s that’s why I’m taking it you because it can’t be delegated to the head of planning to make a decision yes so I just are you proposing to defer and
Bring it back to commit no no no no I don’t want it back to committee because we we can’t take up valuable committee time for this this the second time it’s been there but the head of plane doesn’t have delegated powers to make the decision that’s the issue we want to
Delegate Authority but he you can’t do that under the con so we want to approve it subject to conditions okay so can we could we move to take V on the first the first motion yes I just wanted to um respond to a couple of points that came
Up just to clarify um there was reference to sill this development wouldn’t pay sill if it was approved it’s um it’s not s liable I can’t remember who it was who mentioned that but it’s it’s not it wouldn’t be S liable so um so it wouldn’t be charged
Um and just a point in relation to the Marquee I think you’d referred Council Singh to the fact that it’s a temporary building just to clarify it would technically it’s a temporary structure but it would be granted planning permission permanently it wouldn’t be a temporary Grant of planning permission
Thank you okay now um 9146 um Council thinging can we take the vote on the first one and then if that falls then we can finish the long list of conditions that that’s I that would be the reason to do because otherwise you’re going to have to list them all
And it’ll be for then the reason sorry reason why I wanted to do it because you may have some counselers here who have got certain concerns which I I will address with with my conditions uh and it may sway sway the vote because someone’s minded to refuse it because
They’re concerned about noise well okay how how many more conditions do you think you have you wish to add on uh I think about two more let me in relation to conditions that are kind of referred to in the committee report those are referred to or described where where it is deemed that
Harmful impacts could be mitigated by conditions so that the conditions you referred to for example the draft travel plan the construction environment management plan if if if there was to be a decision to approve the application there would be further conditions that would be required that that would need
To be drawn up to address the other harms that are identified condition would additional conditions would need to be drafted above those that are referred to in the report to to mitigate those harms just just to clarify that ones I’m giving you yeah okay okay we can go for that as
Well um now the other condition is um right I’d like a condition added on uh to secure the uh car park uh parking management plan that’s very important put takes some Vehicles off off site keeps them on site um I’d like signage um sign just played around the site to respect neighbors and
Um let let you know let people know about noise and nuisance you know to keep the noise down when they’re entering and exiting the site think that that anybody do you as the officers just said do you have conditions that go that are in addition
To the ones in the report to to mitigate the harm um if you need some time to think about that maybe we can just take the V do do do officers want to make any suggestion of any exra additional conditions I think we’ve in in our recommendation we’ve made it clear that
Where we believe things could be addressed by condition that’s set out in the report okay where we don’t think it can be addressed by condition we’ve come to the conclusion that that there would be harm ad conditions miate that harm okay in that case that that will be all
My condition that I’ll be adding okay thank you that’s a lot of conditions there we haven’t put that many conditions on an application um this year okay thank you so Mikey if you just could you just take us back to where we are so that everybody knows exactly what the vote is
Going to be taken for thank you so this vote is for the full application not for the list of can said that’s a separate vote so this is just for the full application The Proposal the motion sorry is to refuse the planning permission with the reasons identified
In section 13 of the report it has been proposed by councelor sharp seconded by councelor dcosta I will take a name vote whether you are for refusing planning against refusing planning or abstaining from the vote with that in mind councilor Bucklin so just to repeat that no no wor
Yeah so so it’s to refuse to refuse the Planning Commission in line with off officer recommendation with the conditions listed in section 13 of the report the vote is for refusal against refusal or abstaining from the vote councelor Carpenter against councelor dcosta for councelor Davies for councelor luxon councelor Sharp four councelor
Singh against councelor Amy teasy four councelor Julian Tey so that is five votes for and four against so the motion carries chair thank you and thank you to everybody members and officers for the time consideration building oh yeah continue because we still hav’t motion the second so the council sing’s
Motion has fallen away but we do need to now vote on the listed building concern Council Bley okay yeah sorry question you just wanted to go straight through the motion okay so councilor D Costo is proposing um that we go in line with the officers recommendations at
This time thank you and councilor sharp is seconding thank you Mikey one Second so this is for the listed building consent vote it is um proposed by Council dcosta seconded by councilor Shar to refuse listed building consent for the SE for the reasons identified in section 12 of the report the vote is for refusal against refusal or abstaining from the vote with that
Councelor Buckley against councelor Carpenter councelor dcosta councelor Davies councelor luxon councelor sharp for councelor Singh councel Amy Tey for councelor Julian Tey against that is four five votes for four against the motion carries chair thank you and so once again thank you to all members and um
And officers for your time this evening and the a lengthy debate but getting into issues yes councel lley yes absolutely certainly and we are yeah we’re nine o’clock so we will have a quick uput Break um some offers are G if you would like to stay and listen to
The next item please do but take a seat and we can get we can get on because it’s going to be a late one as it is thank you okay so we we’ve slightly changed the order this evening um just to make things run a little bit easier so we’re
Going to go to the last item that was on the agenda there which is the um crushed concrete High then Farm foils crushed concrete High farm and thank you it’s Nick who’s going to introduce this item hello everybody this application is the fs crushed concrete site in
Wbury sorry can you hear me yeah it Forward yeah yeah right sorry I’ll start again is that better okay this application is for the fs crushed concrete site in wbury The Proposal is for the replacement of the hard standing with concrete surfacing maintenance access and drainage infrastructure associated
With the lawful storage and processing of waste material in the Northwestern area of the site of the existing waste recycling facility the reason the application is before you this evening is because it’s a major development as defined by being waste development and the Constitution requires such applications to come to planning
Committee furthermore councelor L called the application into into committee due to the fact the area is in a flood plane this is a resubmission of an application that was originally submitted in July 2023 there was a single reason for a refusal that single reason refusal related to the design of the surface
Water storage area uh would have been used for stockpiling materials which reduced the area available for surface water to be stored the absence of acceptable surface water store strategy resulted in the development failing policy dm10 of the Central and Eastern birkshire joint minerals and waste plant the application is in the red area
Before you on the screen there uh The Wider site is in blue the entirety of the area is in the green belt and also the large proportion of it is within flood zone 3B there are TPO trees around the perimeter of the site the out the area uh for consideration
This evening is Circa 0.5 hectares with 7% of the at to the overall site and the access to the site retains to be uh via feathers Lane in per purple in the top left corner this is an aerial image of the site um clearly the development takes
Place inside the tree line perimeter um and the site question is in the red in the Northwestern Corner the temps is shown to the South I and Farm Road is on the right hand side of the screen feathers Lane the access to the proposed development is in the
Northwest corner and Ferry Lane is to the east of the site there is a need for this application because the environmental permit uh requires there to be an impermeable surface for processing waste relating to demolition waste and dredging waste um to ensure that there’s no infiltration into the ground of
Contaminants uh the application is deemed to overcome a single reason for refusal there are no statutory consult objections to the application uh some images before you uh this indicates the existing site layout um stockpiling on site is evident equally the surface water um is on site
There and that would be Sim to what it proposed um it’s notable that in the bottom right corner there is a enclosed bond that encompasses the entirety of the site this was approved in 2003 bya a lawful development certificate um and that is not in uh Up For Debate this
Evening so the proposal is on the left hand side it’s a far smaller surface water drainage area than what previously considered it’s also so deeper in nature so the proposed surface water area is 19% of the overall slab rather than the 49% that was the previous version um the
Required storage for the development is 910 square m and they provided um over that at 1,32 Square met so developments considered to comply with uh policy DM 10 of the central Midlands uh but joint minerals and waste plan there some additional photographs for context this shows some stock filing on
Site uh this is a conveyor belt from the south of the site uh which prod uh Imports some of the waste to the host area again um some undertaking of uh the operations on a day to-day basis thank you thank you right so we do have three
Speakers on this item um starting with the public representative Reginald Marsh would you like to come forward so you have three minutes and the time begins when you start speaking you just need to press the the button in front it’ll be a one minute warning as well this site was designated as highest
Level of flood zone 3B uh a lot of it is no longer a 3 with result in increase in flood levels uh minimum 5 cm but it is on planning aspects that we need to show this application is flawed so I hope you got my Fuller brief which I will
Priceing undefined chamber capacity the sample changer is chamber is the major factor of flood mitigation but in the report it is undefined we know it needs has to accomodate as shown 1085 cubic met capacity referenced uh on page 2 but all that we can see shown are two
Dimensions 1.2 by 1.5 M which clearly the capacity is zero if you calculate the thir Dimension against cubic meters it is 62.7 M which I presume is not the depth on this parameter alone the flood risk assessment fails transportation and Wheeler tankers one of the other mitigation proposals is through
Tankering water and taking it offside the flood risk assessment does not define number capacity operations or protocols or where the other site is further it does not define when they would be used and whether the operation is feasible 365 days a year this again means the flood risk assessment fails to
Deliver a practical usable solution to remove surface water when most needed lack of specification for dust suppression if the sh sump was defined then the flood risk assessment states that some of the water will be used for dust suppression and again no stated volume or how much goes back into
Surface water again this part of the flood risk assessment is inadequate omission of existing underground Chambers on site the FL risk assessment does not acknowledge the existence of other underground Chambers to take the surface water from other hard sanding the whole site needs to be looked at and how the additional element
One minute remaining depends on levels gradient and flow of the surface water in isol we do not understand the overall impact on the site again the flood risk assessment files previous flood uh risk assessment inconsistencies if we look at the flood risk assessment from 2017 it highlights several unknowns to
Current drainage and range quoting from page 19 two collected chambers of unknown size the pipe sizes are and radiant are unknown the depth of the chamber is unknown the exact dimensions of the tanks are not known these are farther further reasons why the current application cannot be looked at in
Isolation the flood risk assessment is 170 Pages for a reason they know the pressure planning are under and the constraints they face we had an engineer look at this and they stipulate that is a cut and paste tick box inadequate and all uh levels and standard standards
And under the flood risk assessment I would suggest that none of you can look Us in the eye and say that this additional hard standing will not add to the flooding risk that we already has seen increase thank you we ask you to stop you there thank you very much
Okay um and then for the applicant we have guy tickman again three minutes and uh one minute warning thank you chair counselors the planning application for you is very simple it is the resubmission of a planning application which was refused in July 2013 which the applicant considers was
Based on highly belated and flawed reasoning this planning application is to construct a concrete surface with a sealed drainer system either out or below ground level in the Northwestern a sites such in certain way already accepted at site rest stored and processed pursued to conditions of the environmental
Permit this is not a planning application for the waste storage and processing operations themselves as they are already consented it is simply to make changes to an AA servicing the planning application has been submitted with minor evisions to the previously previously proposed scheme not because the applicant considers they are
Necessary but because it is a pragmatic approach to get plan commission over line although there have been a series of objections to the development from local residents and an objection from rby Parish Council there are no objections to the development from the statutary or technical consules including the environment agency lead
Local flood Authority Environmental Protection and the highway Authority the key issues for consideration have been identified in the committee report and include the principle of the development the location of the site in the greenb climate change and sustainability blood risk Environmental Protection Highway and parking and the C ecology and
Biodiversity all these issues have been addressed by the applicant in the planning application planning application and in summary and in the absence of objections from the stat Tre or technical consules it is explained in the committee report that none of the these key issues are grounds for refusal of the
Application the majority of the objections from local residents and the objection from risby Parish Council related to flood risk the need to consider flood risk was identified by the applicant and a detailed flood risk assessment was included with the planning application it is concluded in the detailed flood risk assessment that
There will be no loss included flood B capacity and a proposed scheme flood blows therefore there will be no effect on flood risks of third party land as explained above the environment agency and the lead Lo flood Authority not are not objecting to the planning application the applicant has worked
With the planning authority to review planning conditions including pre- commments on conditions there have been some minor changes to the conditions but these minor changes not impact on the reasons fall or the objectives of the conditions the recommendation before you is to authorize the head of planning to
Grant planning permission subject to the planning conditions this approach is supported by the applicant thank you thank you and then finally we have councelor Lam again you have three minutes and you’ll be given a one minute warning thank you shair I’m glad I called this one in because otherwise we wouldn’t
Have potential objectors here it would have just been rubber stamped I urge you to defer your decision on this and to go and actually have a look at what is going on there you have in front of you a little planning application for a little bit of
Concrete but the issue is far wider far broader than that it is the nuisance the cumulative nuisance of what is happening here many many hundreds of Lorry movements a day along residential roads absolutely totally inappropriate this place has grown like Topsy from green belt on flood plane
Adjacent to the temps it was a farm when I was young and now there are enormous Earth embankments so you can’t even see uh that restrict the Overland flow of water they should not be there the whole thing is absolutely out of control anyway I I have no decision to make here
Uh you will make the decision you will live with it I ask you to defer it actually it’s called management by walking around by going there and looking at what is going on and I learned that 50 years ago thank you very much thank you
Counselor okay so um I will open it two members for bate who’d like to go first yep Council bule thank you chair obviously listening to the public speaker and the representative for the applicant and the local War counselor um i’ just like to point out that you know we’re in the
Applicant States there’s no statut objections um it’s not quite true according to the report that I’m reading so if offices can be clear um there are statutary conses that not objected but what it’s not objected on the basis of conditions being set now these conditions are very very clear and one
Of them is based on free from storage area now one of the things we considered when we looked at this application before was the ability for officers after an application like this is uh either approved or in this particular case if it’s recommended for approval and it’s very similar to the last
Application we met it’s the ability for our Council to actually enforce or deal with these issues after they’re done now in regards to the uh stat uh consult local F Authority basing his no objection on the basis it’s free from storage area I raise it as an issue because and I think
Council Arkham is quite right I think you need to get a basis of the sites and I think if the officers could bring up pictures of the site in its Uh current situation of working um that would be very very helpful um to get some sort of
Understanding of how a large site like this works and and as we’ve said there are you and I’ve seen seen this myself in many different other locations hundreds of lores and and and thousands of tonage going out of this place it’s very very difficult for officers unless you’re there 24 hours a
Day to manage and oversee a site like this it’s physically impossible so once you once you look at this application you see that you could stockpile material on this um I think that you you have to look at how this would be uh managed by the local Authority um on the
Basis that the statutary consules have said you know this needs to be free from Storage um we’ve looked at the bands that are also around the site which is 3 MERS high and coming from area is flooding annually and my property actually floods on an annual basis I can
Actually tell you that flood water doesn’t necessarily come from a river it comes from under the ground and if none of you have experienced flooding you need to uh probably understand that the water table around this site is probably 10 miles across either side so 20 miles
In diameter and there’s no way you can stop that water coming up from underneath and disperse into other properties so if you place a ton of material on that site or in that place then it will the water will go somewhere else and it will disperse onto other
Properties so I’m I’m recommended to have deep concerns about this application purely on you know we are in flood flood zone 3B which is you know one of the highest levels and the more we put into this no matter how how little it will have a detrimental effect
Somewhere else in regards to the uh representation from the residents I’d like officers guarantees and commitment that a uh cubic capacity has been proven is in this application as they’ve raised this issue um that the dimensions aren’t satisfactory in the flood risk assessments we need guarantees that
There is the suitable there when this application doesn’t actually show it if the representatives are correct but my main concern is just how you how you manage this site 24 hours a day um to make sure there is no stop piling in this area and it’s in the applicants
Interest to stockpile because that’s where they make their money so you’re really in a position whereby in my opinion unless you can guarantee you can enforce this 24 hours a day this this application should be refused but I’ll leave it to other comments and and considerations by the panel um before I
Draw a conclusion and make a motion thank you thank you anybody else like to speak councelor Carpenter hi yes so thank you for the speakers and and thank you for the information um I would just say that um obviously you know we did um we deferred this last time right did we
Rejected sorry sorry Council C we we refused this the previous so we refused it um but we asked for some you know amendments to be made and those amendments look like they’ve been made so um you know I I don’t know that we can really object to those on on the
Basis of last time we said well it was uh you know it was in the flood zone and there was too much uh you know at risk so um it looks to me like yeah that’s exactly what I was thinking um so those Amendments have been made so I think
It’s it’s going to be difficult for us to reject it again because we know we did ask for for that and that’s been done so councilor dcosta um thank you chair um I’ve just got one question so if you keep the slide up so on the um right hand side
The um the image there shows the blue taking up probably 23 of the area and then on the other side we’re looking at just a Slither at the bottom now is that because we’re saying before the new um don’t know what we call them tanks Wells whatever they
Are underneath the ground before they they put in place that’s how much area the surface water water needed to take up before causing flooding and therefore less area is for stockpiling or is it that um there’ll be no stockpiling that’s why I can’t quite get my head
Around thank you um yeah let’s just um go to councelor Davis and then I’ll put some clarification thank you so I’m just trying to get a an idea of the scale of it con slab 5,175 M squared sare 72 so visual at 72 M by 72 M if that
Helps if that gets flooded but there’s if there is a a flood event and the whole thing is covered in water but the material stored would displace water that would increase fing elsewhere I can’t quite get cented but 70 Me by 7 seems like a negligible amount negligible amount especially the
Slab is now under the level but it was previously so it would take away some uh I just want to put that out there and let others think about it and add to it any other members have any questions or queries before I go to officers to ask on
Those no okay would you be able to come back on those those points please yes um by means chair um dealing with the first point in terms of the size of the underground storage chamber um that was raised by the objector there is um an update sheet that mentions um
That that was clarified by the applicant um I presume members have read the update sheet but uh essentially those dimensions are given by the applicant and they have been given in an email I believe it was the 20th of February I sorry is this in the update that came
Through today this afternoon yes yeah members may not have seen it if they were working so um would you just could you just let them know what it is okay um yeah there is an update sheet that was circulated um ear today and within that there is mention of um the
Clarification of the size of the underground storage chamber um and that was previously given to us on the 20th of February uh if members are specifically concerned about that I see no reason why you couldn’t put a condition to stipulate the dimensions the precise dimensions of that feature
To be submitted to and agreed in writing before installation um in the grand scheme of things um the capacity of that underground storage chamber is is 20 cubic meters um whereas the um the overall storage is 1,32 square m sorry cubic meters um which is well in well and above the required
910 cubic meters um so we are 122 cubic meters over what where the the the maximum storage should be at um and that’s designed for a one in 100 plus 40% climate change 7day continuous flooding event so there is a considerable freeb uh built into the
Proposed design um the image on the left hand side just leading on to um a sec second question on stockpiling um there will be no stockpiling on the left hand side image in dark blue or light blue and officers think that is realistic expectation given a the size of it is
Far reduced from the previous a proposal and also because size is decreased it’s increased in depth um so there will be a noticeable slope in that area which would make um it un not not not the most suitable location for stockpiling in the first instance um and obviously there is
A separate environmental permit um that that is running that maximizes the amount of stockpiling that can take place on that site so all these things combine mind um in my opinion and in the opinion of the statutary consules in particular the LFA we have a um much more manageable
Scheme here that conditions can suitably control any other comments yeah councilor Buckley okay just coming back on a couple of points that supplementary document that we received this afternoon as the statutary consules being abil to respond to that have they had time and have they responded after this supplementary documents has been
M um well there there was nothing um supplementary uh that the llfa or the statutary consult T um was not aware of um it was clarification um on matters within the report so um that element related to the size of the uh the capacity of the underground storage
Train but I think I was also made aware of an email sent late last night to members where there were a series of questions one of which related to the um the size of the underground chamber not being given um so part of that update this morning was actually it has been
Given um it’s not within the flood risk assessment it has been given via email from the author of The Flood risk assessment dated the 20th of February G just for come in thank you I only wanted to make one comment is there has been quite a lot of comments from
Certainly from um the speakers about the general nature of the site and the amount of activity on the site that isn’t before members today it’s already a local site that was okay looking around just trying to catch everyone’s eye just to make sure there’s nobody else that wants to ask anything
No no council Buckley sorry I just wanted to come back on to a point um in regards to deon’s point on size I think I think I’m probably very sensitive about this but you know because I flood every year and I think if people aren’t really understanding what flooding is um
Is a very serious nature and and that’s why this is flood zone 3B and not for any other reason any addition change to this um would have serious consequences elsewhere and I think the the local flood authorities clear point that this there’s no objection subject
To this to be free um I’m just going to read out their their point um is a free space their their non-objection is based upon there being no free space they’re being free space however how do you manage to stop ping and I know I get the officer’s point on
Slope you you know it doesn’t take much tonage of stockpiling to remove a slope and then just build up straight on top of it um the concerns here is will there be stockpiling that was one of our concerns going back to council the car just reasons for refusal originally one
Of our concerns was our ability to enforce this and manage this site and what pressure it will put on officers and and um enforcement to do that and I think you know so just to refer everyone to the original refusal one of the the concerns was
Um our ability to manage this um once it’s approved um but I think in regards to stock piling and this you’re watching it 24 hours a day you’re not going to be able to manage stock pil unless you so you either accept it or you don’t accept
It that’s my main point so I I’ll close for the oppos come back sorry thank you yeah thank you I appreciate the concerns councelor and I think that they’re very valid and I’ve read all of the comments that we got from local residents but when we talk about um
Keeping that area free of stockpiling I do think that is a realistic expectation one of the reasons for that is that this Fe this image here shows you um the existing conveyor belt coming from the south of the site um south of the site collects the recycled material um and
Then that is brought into this area which is the um this would be the dark blue area if we go back a couple of slides so the dark blue if you look on that slide on the left hand side if you see in the bottom left there’s a there’s
A there’s a yellow line coming into the area okay that is um this feature um and as you can see there’s a lot of infrastructure there um in situ and it’s their operational business to ensure that that is going to be clear of stockpiling and and any stockpiling that
Is going to be there um is going to be cleared on a daily basis otherwise they simply couldn’t function as a a business with the with the featured uh coming in with with the waste coming in from the south so the fact that it’s reduced quite significantly in size and the
Infrastructure is already in place I think it’s a realistic expectation it’s going to be free from stockpiling okay can I come back to those two pictures are very important can you go back to the purple picture with a yellow stripe please two screens ahead I think that one there yeah so the yellow
Stripe is that that uh piece of apparatus that transfers the material into that area correct so you can go back to the main picture which shows it in real life can I just clarify is that stock piling that I see there that’s on that area what what happens is on a daily
Basis um a significant amount of waste comes into that site area um and it is distributed it then goes into a trumel and it’s Blended down into smaller material that smaller material then goes go onto the stockpile so it wouldn’t be in the company’s interest to stockpile
In the one area where the waste comes in um that is my understanding of being on site and talking to the applicant that is removed on a on a on a daily basis um and I have no reason to dispute that I think the evidence speaks volumes
To me to be perly frank um and great greatest we in the worldness we manag in this 24 hours a day I don’t see how you manage this site it’s it’s a very very f moving operation and when you’re flooding there can be you know looking at that there now there’s probably I
Don’t know how many hundreds of tons worth of stock piling there in the evidence there so I have deep concerns over this this application and I think the panel should be concerned about our ability one to enforce it to be a to manage it um I I I appreciate the
Officer comments in regards to being the best interest of the company but this is sometimes the problem the best interests of the company don’t suit the best interests of the res residents and the and the bur so I think we need to understand if there’s going to be conditions here are
We going to be able to enforce them um and secondly you know so my proposal is and I’ll be very Frank just on the evidence we’ve seen today um and and you know the information in regards to what’s been put before us I I I feel very uncomfortable with this um this
Application and I think the rest of the panel should be asking themselves if they feel this can be managed um you know we’re all in flood zone 3B and flooding is particularly difficult we’ve I’ve spoke about the water table and you can see water on the surface there as
Well this area of the bar didn’t flood this year can you be quiet please because councilor about please talking this area of the barel didn’t flood by 5 cm 5 cmers more would have meant water in people’s back rooms and Gardens everywhere it would have been everywhere
And and I think so the situation is that we have to we can’t can’t underestimate what 5 cm is to everyone and flooding for this area we need to we need to be aware of what it will cause and if we can’t manage it and we can’t oversee it
We’re really pushing this risk onto other people and other residents locally I think it is really in their duty to to look after those residents so I ask the panel to um think deep on this one but I I’ll be happy to to make a recommendation on refusal um but I don’t
Know everyone’s want to back me up on a second I think okay councelor te and then councelor sh um yes hello I I was um when I looked at this before I must admit that uh I I I because we’ve seen this before and it
Was um you know as as um I think Council Carpenter said we we had we seen it we put in conditions and we said um okay meet these conditions on the face of it they had met the conditions but actually I’m I’m sort of being swayed here a bit
To I’m honest because um because there’s there’s um there’s it’s once again as as we’ve had in a previous debate there’s an in theor in practice thing going on here um in theory uh oh yes this will be you know it’s not that it’s not in their interest but I I would
Question where where did that come from it appears that that’s that’s obviously what the owners have told us um and in the very little effs we have I mean literally we we we can see it sorry but I I and and it would come down once again to enforcement and again going
Back to what we’ve seen in the previous uh debate it it looks like enforcement is not necessarily something we’re very good at um and um I’m sorry to say but uh I I I do to the question um I I I’m not I I would want to hear more before I
Sort of commit myself but I’m I’m now skeptical in a way I wasn’t and I’m I I have some deep concerns here thank you councelor sh thank you chair I’m I I just want to make sure that the the mitigations that have been put in place and suggested by way of
Condition and that the storage system that has been proposed is actually going to meet the requirements of not only the site but of the residents to make sure that they are not put at increased risk of flooding I think this is this is a very sensitive issue and I think we need to
Ensure that the actions that we’re taking here actually meet not only the legal requirements and the specifications for a site such as this in this sort of environment I I mean I’ve I’ve seen sites like this I haven’t particularly seen this one but I’ve seen sites that are very similar to
This and I’ve seen the way they churn through a lot of rubbish and a lot of material on a on a daily basis and I’ve seen it piled high and I’ve seen it disappear Within within 24 hours so I know how I’ve seen exactly how they they
Work and they can they can get through a a tremendous amount of um material I think we need to I’d like to in ensure that if we are to go with officers recommendation which is to approve this that actually we have put in sufficient mitigation to ensure that
The residents are not but at increased danger of of flooding which seems to be the main issue here I don’t think we can particularly stop this site working because it’s a a regular operational business right now and although it’s changed as as we’ve been told over the
Last 40 or 50 or 60 years it is it is what it is right now we need to make sure that we’re taking the right decisions in terms of um ensuring that the mitigations are correctly in place so I I guess I’d like to understand that the the flooding the
Tanks that they’ve got in there although it said it’s a a 1% probability once in a 100 Year type thing with the with the climate change that we seem to be experiencing we seem to be having having incidents that are supposed to be once in a 100 years taking place twice or
Three times in 10 years so do we need to consider for example doubling or tripling or quadrupling the size of the tanks that they’ve got in place and would that reasonably mitigate that sort of risk and help the residents to be uh clearer about it so so I think that’s
Where I’m coming from really with this because we don’t want stop businesses doing what they do and operating in the way they do thank you I’m just going to go to councilor Davis because I missed him out before sorry about that and then I’ll come to so entering this meeting I had for
This be a fairly simple case or development at a below flood level so shouldn’t contribute to flooding apparently not it’s a bit more complicated than I thought and I don’t think I’m in a position to judge this in a way that I’m comfortable with so I
Would like to defer this for month if we can so we can me that 170 page planning report and really think about it thank you and I just want to ensure that members are clear that and I did comment before but this application is to ensure that there’s hard standing that is
Impermeable and therefore you know protects um the soil it it isn’t about the use which I have commented on um in terms of the issues involved here there is a significant and the reference to how big the flood the report is this is an incredibly technical um matter and I’m not going to
Pretend to anybody here that I am an expert in flooding that’s why we go to the experts in flooding both the flal flooding and um the the other flooding um and in this case the principal consulty that is important to this is the local lead flood Authority and they have had all this
Information and they have given us the view that this is acceptable subject to the conditions and the conditions are the ones set out in the report and I would have to say that we would wouldn’t put conditions on if we didn’t think that they were defensible and that
They were robust and that we could defend them and enforce them because we mentioned earlier in the meeting about the six tests that you have to ensure the conditions meet so the conditions here are considered to meet that and yes if there is a problem or a breach as happens on some
Sides then we would look to see whether it was expedient to take enforcement action but I don’t think it’s reasonable I mean the government are very clear in government policy that where you can mitigate or where you can address an issue through a condition you should do
So and that’s what’s we’ve got here we’re addressing the issue through um conditions and if there is if it doesn’t um if there is a breach of that condition then there are enforcement powers that we can use and I hear comments about enforcement in the B but
Actually we a very active but in terms of enforcement and we issue a sign ladies and gentlemen I appreciate there is strong feeling but please do keep quiet a significant number of breach of of condition notices um so yes we consider that the tests are met by the conditions the
Conditions are enforcable where taking the advice of the experts in forming this report and coming to you with this recommendation any other members wish to contribute or counciling yeah thank you um yeah look I’ve heard that the officer say they very very good at um enforcement
Um just brings me to mind a couple of sites in on the drift Road um there’s one site down there which has um been stockpiling and stockpiling and stockpiling they’ve got loads and loads and loads of stuff there and it’s just been left um I think the bar ended up
Picking up most of that when the when the the site owner disappeared there’s another site um not too far from the drift Road and they they’ve got they’re piling up piling up piling up waste and it it’s got to be about 40 or 50 feet high and I’ve I’ve been contacting
Enforcement about that it’s right up to the Pyon and nothing’s been done my my worry here is um how are we going to enforce that that where where where where the machine is pumping out and and uh mixing is it clear clear in the s s in the waste you’ve got
The you’ve got the the metal Grill and and um the the drainage system underneath there I just don’t understand how it’s going to work you like officers to come back on yeah could yeah yes please Nick yeah sorry can I just make something clear um there is two ways that um stock piling
Arrives on site one way is from the south southern conveyor Bel but that’s not how um the totality of the stock of the waste material rides there only the recyclable um waste that is um separated into individual Bays on the southern side is transported via the conveyor
Belt the rest of the um demolition waste um comes in via the access there’s a there’s a there’s a there’s an access point um to the east um effectively the east of the site through the brown area into um the the entrance and exit Road um that’s where the majority of the
Larger um Rubble stock piling comes in um so it’s it’s not everything coming in on the conveyor belt to the South that’s actually a smaller proportion of of waste and if we go back to the image if you look here um as I say that’s the recyclable image from from the South but
If you look for instance um that stockpiling um is is a is a different type of material and and that’s that that machine there is bringing that straight in from um the the access road so it’s it’s happening in two directions it’s not solely coming from the conv up
To the South okay okay look look if I can come in on that um yeah look I’ve got concerns I I want to go with recommendation on this but there there are there are concerns raised uh the ward counselors uh have raised concerns um flooding is is an issue I know when
You put concrete in the ground um you do affect the water table um I I I would be I’m inclined to defer this as well a second proposal to defer and um we’ll come we’ll have a site visit with officers present and then and then come
Back and um once we we got a better understanding because at the moment I don’t not comfortable I don’t understand it as as um what do you hope to gain by a site visit what do you think you might learn from a site just to get an idea why you
Why you wish to thank you so so so so carrying out site visit we be um a bit more comfortable I know about the activities that’s actually going on what’s actually happening on the site um it is it is a big site um I want to see
The well I mean there’s water all over the place at the moment I mean it’ be interesting to see um if the area is flooding and an effect that’s having on nearby houses at the moment um you know obviously want want we stick a load of concrete in there if it does because
Heaven forbid we prove this application um at 6 months time you have a bit of rain and people end up getting flooded nearby who don’t normally get flooded because there is this sort of flu flu flooding I mean you know that comes up from the ground and
Um you know if we do end up putting people in uh in danger risk of flooding as a result of that vacation and especially when um members haven’t even carried out sight Vis it I mean that would be that would be opening us up for um possible legal
Action than thank you um councelor Carpenter so can I just confirm that you know um surely whether we approve this or reject this this evening the site remains because the site has plan inform permission to do what it’s doing so that’s not going to make any difference
To the benefit of the res you know the resident don’t want it to be there from what I understand so you know but we’re we’re um looking at the piece of concrete that you know that just one that one piece of concrete not the whole
Site or or anything like that so I’m I’m correct right so so it’s not going to make any difference to the site itself whether we approve or reject that piece of concrete am I am I misunderstanding something that because it’s not about the site itself so um councelor dcosta please um
So my my understanding is that um residents are really concerned because we’ve had another severe flood in that area um we saw it in 2014 it was awful families living there um I worked in the area at the time and it wasn’t um and from when we we listened to this
Application last time when we asked for some amendments to be done there were very few residential concerns about it then and since then we’ve had a huge amount of rain um this isn’t just about the flui flooding which comes from the rivers this is about rainfall this is
What we’ve seen recently it’s the rivers and the rainfall we’ve had an awful lot of rainfall um and I understand that emotions have been stirred up because of recent flooding but if we’ve got the experts telling us that the the water displacement can be mitigated with these underground
Chambers we have to listen to The Experts I’m not an expert in flooding I know when there’s water in the ground I know when I can’t go into my garden because it’s soggy but I’m not I’m not an expert in flooding and I have to listen to the reports and I have to
Listen listen to The Experts none of as a flood experts here and I do know that there are some areas within the barough that are much more prone to flooding than others and there’s a whole political debate about that that is not for planning um
And my concern is that if we keep on deferring and keep on deferring we’re actually not going to get a a a solution we’re going to get get this resolved and at the same time operations will still continue and that could actually become an even more increased risk to the area because if
We’re not resolving where this displacement is going we could end up like another year down the line for example where where people will be affected so I would much rather listen to The Experts and um put our faith in the experts rather than than um emotions in this particular case I was second
That so were you sorry were we making a proposal there no she wasn’t so were you making a proposal what’s your proposal councilor lexon I’ll I’ll go for the officer’s recommendation because like we said we are not the experts over here we can if there is a problem the council
Will go back to it and sort it out um councelor um Buckley you wanted to come back in yes I just wanted to give some reassurances C the cost to come in there um the the recommendations from the Specialists the local flood Authority are based upon certain things happening and in free
Free of stock P these one there there’s a number of objections and and basically they all go on to say with such conditions in place the local flood Authority have no objections however they have objections if there isn’t conditions and there aren’t conditions that are enforceable in regards to to
Our responsibility in regards to flooding everyone says he’s not flooding experts but all your experts are telling you that if you don’t ad to these conditions there are serious issues my concern is as officer said they’re putting conditions down but we have a responsibility as well to make sure
These conditions are enforceable can be done and are realistic and I don’t think that these conditions in this situation this situ are realistic and and fair and reasonable for us to be able to be held responsible too so my counterargument with officers is yes I agree the
Conditions all sound great and and I agree with you conditions I just I’m not assured that we can manage these conditions and on that basis I would I would still go by my recommendation to to go against uh appes in regards to council Caron’s point in regards to
Concrete I understand it’s difficult to understand we again I refer back to the specialist we are in a flood zone 3B it’s the it’s the it’s the highest level of flood you can have if you put a CBO box in it it can affect something sound like and we’re talking about millimeters
And centimeters here about it coming into your kitchen your front room and you need to all be aware I’m not a flood expert but I get flooded annually these things don’t happen for some people every three years or 10 years they happen for some people annually annually sometimes twice most people now are
Still flooded now from January they’ve been flooded again in March this isn’t seasonal things you have a responsibility here and if you feel these conditions can really be enforced and managed then I would I I would be supportive of that but I have as much as I listen to officers conditions and they
They feel they’re realistic I have concerns that they’re unrealistic and unenforceable and as councelor sharp said they can move a, tons of concrete in less than 24 hours and you need to be realistic about the size of this unit and the movement of of tonnage and stop
Piling so it could flood the situation you could have a thousand tons of concrete even there one minute it’ll be taken away and the situation is then um you won’t see what’s actually affected that flooding down the road so you have a responsibility in regards to day-to-day use this this site is being
Used it’s very successful it’s very profit it will continue doing that without this application okay so there isn’t any mitigating reason I can see from the business practicality point of will affect their trade or affect their business business and on that basis alone you know we have to really fall on
Protecting residents and I think if there’s any doubt and local flood Authority have been very very clear they have said that subject to these conditions they’ve got no objection but don’t be don’t let’s not kill ourselves not got any objections so do we believe the conditions we set will be manageable
Will not put any more pressure on officers and everyone else to manage and can we manage this site on a 24-hour basis which will need um to be a manage this process and I think that’s part of what we have to take a responsibility on
Here as a panel but I’ll put it to to all of you I’ve made the recommendation I haven’t got a second but it’s I’ll leave that proposal there but I don’t get a second after the go thank you can I just quickly before I bring you in
Just ask um C Council Buckley was saying that you know if we didn’t approve it wouldn’t affect the business and so so can we just be reminded of why why they’ve brought this this in the first place because it’s it’s to it’s to fulfill the Environ the environmental permit it’s not for
Business reasons per se yes that’s correct it’s because it’s a requirement of the the the permit that’s required can we let go someone else just let councilor teasy yeah um so I find myself in in weird agreement with um just about every everything that’s been said actually
Including on both sides even though both both sides have actually almost some are saying let’s go with officer recommendations and others are saying let’s not go with officer recommendations um I think let’s let’s see where we are so it looks like um number one this is better than was was
There before and I think most most it’s better it’s it’s arguably it’s more credible in terms of the the the in terms of what was there before in terms of the um prevention of um the stockpiling um but I think a lot of us have got concerns over the sort of in
Theory and in practice as to um well look there is going to be stockpiling there let’s be honest okay it might come off you know but guess guess what flooding will happen at any time um and it you know it might happen and it’s it might be stockpiled at the time it might
Not be stockpiled um we have agreed that the experts the the environment um sorry the experts have said well look subject to these conditions um this is this is fine um and and actually we’ve we’ve heard across the floor that actually we think they’re the right conditions um it
All comes down to sort of the the sort of the enforcement there’s one thing that’s sort of just occurred to me as it were which is almost like what would happen if what would happen if we approve what would happen if we don’t if we if we approve then I there are definite
Concerns about the enforcement of those conditions that we are putting in place but if we reject I think that those that it’s the same I think that we still will have a problem with enforcement it might actually even be harder because because almost you haven’t sort of set in stone
That those are those conditions so it’s almost partly with um regret but partly in on on the basis of practicality that I would be willing to um second Council of’s Council luxon’s um motion to go with officer recommendations here and the one last thing I would say is I I
Don’t think we can just defer unless there’s a specific thing we’re deferring for and I we just can’t keep kicking the cam down the road this is the second time this has come back I think we just need to decide one way or the other now
Shar thank you chair it it just seems to me that um you know having having had an application rejected last time round the applicant has gone away done their due diligence worked with the officers and has come back with a an application which at least on the surface from from an
Officer point of view and they are the expert um meets the requirements so I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t actually accept the the recommendation of the of the officers it it doesn’t seem reasonable to defer certainly and so given that it meets the requirements and
You know we have an ongoing business there who have been operating for many years I don’t see I don’t see any reason why we should why we should not accept officer recommendation and move ahead with this to be honest unless someone can come up with a a killing reason but
I no one seems to have done so far so I think we should just agree with off a recommendation and move ahead thank you um can I just remind members of the public to keep quiet please during the debate it isn’t a two-way thing fortunately if you wish to speak you
Were able to register as as some people did um Council Costa and then I think we’ll probably be ready to move to a vote um just a very very small point that um as as members of a planning panel if we don’t have confidence in um officers conditions then we need really
Need to question what we’re doing here because we’ve just had somebody real off a list of conditions that they thought would make a planning consent um acceptable and now we’re saying we’ve got conditions on this one that we we we’re not not happy that it can be
Enforced I think we we have to to go with good faith and say that these conditions have been put on the applicant has has changed his original application conditions are on there stock piling is not meant to occur in this place and we’ve we’ve got to go
With Goodwill and say that this is the conditions in which this can be accepted go just quickly if was a condition of no stop filing in some way would that be just pop your microphone on so that sorry if we put a condition of no stock piling I think there’s a requirement for
No stock piling but it seems to be in the condition in the conclusion rather than in the conditions I couldn’t see it in the conditions and if we put a condition of no stock piling in the area would that be something that would be considered to be reasonable yes that’s perfectly
Reasonable condition um I think the condition seven uh to be carried out in accordance with the details of the flood risk assessment um that obviously relates part of that relates to the drainage strategy um that is before you on the left hand side of the screen and that specifically says no stock piling
In the um surface W drainage area um obviously there will be a temporary um stop piling from was in the South but that’s continually removed on a daily basis um otherwise obviously there would be no further material to be received from the south so it would make sense
For them to move them consistently but in short yes it it it is fair to add that condition as well if I can say that what we would do is we would amend condition seven um to refer to the um stock piling but the the movement of the
Material through the through the area would be would be um you know possible so um Council Lon would you be willing to accept that the condition to be put on yeah and you’re happy to continue seconding that sorry I’m sorry sorry it’s quite late so you know we
We’re getting to that point now thank you so are you happy with that coun okay in that case then Mike I think we’re ready to so the first vote is actually for defero because we had a proposed and a second up so did it was proposed by Council Davies to
Defer and seconded by counc yes you did propose to defer prop yes yeah did did you propose to defer would you wer proposing that we do we both seem to have written down that he proposed it so we do have to take a vote on
It V it so it is for deferral against deferral or abstaining from vote councelor Buckley councelor Carpenter against councelor deosta against councelor Davies against councel luxon against councelor sharp against Council Singh councilor Amy Tey against Council Julian Tey so that is that motion Falls chair we can move to the
Second vote so that is to permit planning with conditions listed in the report with an with an amended condition seven in relation to the stock piling that was proposed by councel lone seconded by councelor Julian Tey so it the vote is for permitting the planning against permitting planning or
Abstaining from the vote councelor Buckley against councelor Carpenter for councelor dcosta for councelor Davies four councel luxon for councelor Shar four councelor sing Against councel Amy Tey four coun Julian teasy so seven to two chair so the motion carries we’ll just have a moment whilst um public leave the meeting if they choose
To now before our last two items thank you for coming yeah very quickly because no could you just wait one second let’s just let the public go and then if you want to take a break then Okay so did you want to just have know don’t dinner yet you have I six and half miles okay thank you everybody we’re now I’m restarting now um the next two items um I have obviously declared a conflict of interest as I’m the the cabinet member for children’s services so um as
The vice chair isn’t actually here we need to appoint a chair for these two items um do I have a nomination for chair so I do just have to take a name vote really quickly so the proposal is for car cost councel car c to chair the remainder of the meeting proposed by
Council luxon seconded by councilor Sharp councel four councelor Carpenter councelor Davies four councel luxon councelor Shar councelor sing councelor Julian Tey unanimous so you may proceed thank you I’ll just leave the ring sorry onto the Lawn Nursery thank you I’ll keep the presentation brief because it’s quite a simple one um so
Yeah the application seeks plan mission for additional parking space um within the site of the Lawn Nursery so use the site location plan and then the additional parking space um next to existing ones and here’s a photograph where will go um and there’s no conflict with policy it’s consider to be
Acceptable you we don’t have any speakers on there though I’ll open it up to the panel for discussion um I I I think that we we we’ve um just for the for the purpose of the meeting we’ve um we we we’ve seen this before that the the problem we had
Before has has been certainly mitigated by the removal of parking space and without further Ado I I would recommend we go with officer recommendations can we go straight to the vote yeah of course we can so that it is proposed by councelor julan seconded by councelor sharp to Grant
Plan permission with conditions listed in section 12 of the report councelor Bucky councelor Carpenter councelor D Costa councelor Davies councelor luxon councelor sharp councelor Singh Julian Tey unanimous chair we can wrap that one up the next item is um Hilltop first school CL Hill
Road you um so this is a bit more of a complicated application so the application is for a extension um with some rais decking and then relocating some fencing within the site as well and some three additional parking Bays by um reconfiguring existing parking within
The sites um so I’ll just bring up the plan so the red line shows the application Site Area um this shows the existing site plan um and then you can see the proposed extension to the Northeast with a decking around that and the purpose of the application is to provide additional
Space for um send peoples so that requires relocating where the existing Nursery room is within the extension and then reconfig that existing space to accommodate that that classroom um and then you can see the the parking spaces which are sort of parallel down the access so they’re just
Reconfiguring that to get more parking onto the sites um but it’s to ultimately cater for an existing um students but then there could be some more additional ones as well but not a significant number um so this just shows you the proposed ground floor plan where you can
See the extension with the nursery playroom and the external decking um the roof plan and then these are the elevations showing where the extension is going so you can see the decking beyond that and just um the other profiles of the extension with the decking and you
Can see the the lowle fencing in between um for the playround um and then this is just a closer graph of where that extension will go within the s and we don’t have any speakers against so I’m going to open it up to the panel one quick question before we move
On uh the external debt looks like it’s only accessible by stirs from the outside unless you want to go through the reception PR one Nursery play is that going to be a problem so look at the top down plan that one no there the external deck looks like it
STS only if I’m reading right unless you go through the nursery reception so um yes sorry I’m not sure if the existing building has got ramped access to it other than that um I think a ramp I if you go on to the side elevation it looks like there’s it does
Look like stairs yeah yes sorry so what I’m saying is I don’t know if the exis in building has another accessing that extension it is stairs decking does appear that you know if there’s a if there’s an access issue that it is possible to get out from onto
The de from inside the building and so the issue would be getting into the building and I don’t know the the specifics of this site but it does look as if it would be possible for any body to get out onto onto that deck through the building any other phots you this
Photographs getting into the the me part of the building I would be more concerned about evacuation yeah and again can’t use that word s oh sorry disabilities can I say that I think realistically operationally there will have to be an evacuation plan so you know what that evacuation plan and
Whether it’s a chair or whether it’s a ramp um there will have to be one yeah um so I would I would strongly suggest that there must be a way in and out of the building for those with um with any form of mobility issue yeah and and I
Assume that it has to comply with accessibility so um there must be something that we’re not seeing yeah and building regulations yeah yeah yeah okay okay does that so far as concerns are address by other things and regulations acation yeah okay in my case I don’t mind proposing to approve and offer’s
Recommendation okay I think there were a couple of other indications so I just a second okay that’s fine did you okay go ahead um I’m actually the world counsel the school so I just want to declare that but um I just wanted to ask like how many additional children is this looking at
Um um so um I’ve got from the design access statement it’s expected up to 10 more people will join the school to make use of the resolve space and three more members of sta thank you I concerned about thank you um oh Julian thank you I I think we should
Welcome the fact that there’s some additional send facilities in the B we’re probably short of them at the moment and it’s important that they’re spread out across the B it’s not you know most of the send facilities that we have are actually in Maiden head and
It’s good to see some coming to Windsor as well um so I think overall uh I mean it it looks like this from the previous planning applications it looks as if the school has grown over the last several years 10 years or 12 12 years or 15
Years in quite a sprawly way and there’s quite a lot of development in the in the area from what I can see from the previous applications um it’s not a thing of great Beauty I don’t think but I think it’s practical and it it works probably in the context of the environment and
The school there so we should I propose that we accept OPP this recommendation and uh move ahead with this one thank you um so we we have had um a motion to accept from um from Council and a second from councel pleas so um if we can go to the vote that’ be
Great no worri so we have a motion on the table to Grant plan permission with conditions listed in section 11 of the report proposed by councel Davies seconded by councel Buckley take a name vote for to permit planning against commit planning and abstain from vote councelor Buckley four councelor
Carpenter four councel dcosta four councel Davies four councel luxon four councelor sharp four councelor Singh counc Is unanimous the motion carries we can grab answer yes we did have a couple of questions is councelor dcosta chairing for the rest of the meeting uh yeah we can other rest the meeting
Yes okay so we’ve got planning sorry we’ve got planning appeals received and planning decisions reported um is the panel happy to note that is there anything that you wanted to ask any questions about noted okay thank you then um I will CL