 Yn gweithio, dweud bod yn dweud o'r cymdeithas. Mae'n cyfrifol o'r cyfrifol yn y cyfrifol, ond mae'n cyfrifol yn gyfnodr, a fawr yn cerddodd ar y teimlo i'r Cyfrifol Llyfrgellau Siadol Cymru. Mae'n cyfrifol yn cyfrifol pwysig, ac mae'n cyfrifol yn cyfrifol. Mae'n dweud o'r cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol. Ond mae'n credu'r cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol. If anyone has any questions on how proceeding for this meeting work, then ask now or democratic services will advise, I'm not proposing to go into the, what I call the small print, to the extent that we sometimes do in these meetings. Committee members in the chamber, I'll now invite each of you to introduce yourselves, so if you would, after I called your name, turn on your microphone, say your name, so your presence may be noted for the minutes. As I've said earlier, my name's Councillor Peter Fein, I'm one of the members for the Shelford Ward, my vice-chair is Councillor Jeff Harvey, and we have with us here today Councillor Henry Batchelor, one of the members for the Linson Ward. Councillor Dr Martin Cahn, one of the members for Hysdon Linson Ward. Councillor Bill Hanley, one of the members for the Villages of Over in Willingham. Councillor Dr Hoomey Hawkins. Good morning, to me Hawkins, Godicott Ward. Councillor Peter Sanford, one of the members for Caxton and Papworth Ward. Councillor Richard Stobart. Good morning, chair, thank you. I'm Richard Stobart, I'm a member for Gertin Ward, which includes the Villages of Maddingley and Dry Drayton, and I'm substituting for Councillor Ariel Cahn this morning. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Good morning, chair, Richard Williams, I am the member for Wittlesford-Tripleau Heathfield and Newton. And Councillor Mark Howell. Thank you Chairman, Mark Howell, Caxton and Papworth Ward, thank you. I can confirm that the meeting is great. Do we have any other members present, either in the room or online? We have two officers with us in the Chamber for the duration of the meeting. Phil Macintosh, who's our interim delivery manager. Morning chair, morning members, Phil Macintosh, interim delivery manager for the shape planning service. And Vanessa Blane, who's our senior planning lawyer. Good morning everyone, Vanessa. We will be joined by case officers throughout the course of the meeting, we'll introduce them then. And we have of course our democratic services officer, Lawrence, please introduce yourself. Thank you chair, morning everyone, Lawrence Damari Hyman, democratic services officer for the planning committee. And our technical support today from democratic services is provided by Jonathan Walton. Good morning chair, thank you, I'm live streaming this meeting. Thank you. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make that known? Perhaps the Vice-Chair has recorded in the minutes. We'll take a break from this meeting as and when, so I'm going to give the time now. I hope that members will have received the main agenda pack and the online plans pack supplement dated 31st of March. Please let me know if you haven't seen any of those documents. Thank you. So item two, apologies. Lawrence, are there any apologies for absence today please? Thank you chair, three apologies today, coming from councillors Heather Williams, Ariel Kahn and William Jetson Wood. We have councillors Richard Stobart and Mark Kown kindly setting in the subject. Thank you. And now we come to item three, declarations of interest. Members, do any members have any interest to declare in relation to any item of business on the agenda? And I would say that if an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting, perhaps he would raise it at that point. Any declarations of interest? None. Item four, minutes of the previous meeting, you have the minutes in front of you of the meeting held on 8th of March 2023, which are up for approval today. Page five of your agenda pack. Any comments or corrections, any amendments to these minutes? Page five. Page six. Page seven. Page eight. Page nine. And page ten. Page ten. I see no request for amendments. Can we take the approval of these minutes by affirmation members? I see some nods. Do me audience, I need to... Sorry chair, I wasn't at that meeting so I cannot... We'll note that. Thank you. But those who were present at that meeting, I think we can take that by affirmation. Thank you very much. Let's move on then to the subject of our meeting starting with item five, which is in Dry Drayton, application 22.03729 full. This is the Dry Drayton Methodist Church, Park Street in Dry Drayton. This has been called in by the Parish Council. It's an application for the erection of a single story side extension and a first floor rear extension, together with the provision of two parking spaces and eight cycle parking spaces, and the creation of a vehicular access to the site. The presenting officer today is Dominic Bush, who I see is with us online. Dominic, thank you. We're with you. Thank you. I'll just share the presentation. Can I just confirm you can see the presentation on the screen please? We can indeed, thank you. Perfect, thank you. So as you mentioned, this application is at the Dry Drayton Methodist Church, which is located along Park Street, and the application is proposing a single story side extension and first floor rear extension with the provision of two parking spaces and eight cycle parking spaces, and the creation of a vehicular access into the site. There are no amendments or updates to note since the report and plans pack were published. This is the red line plan for the site and Park Street running to the south of the site here, and this is another map of the surrounding context. As labelled, the site adjoins the grade two listed number 65 Park Street here to the northeast, as well as number 67 and 69 further to the rear of the site. The site is surrounded by the school playing field to the west and northwest, with the preschool and listed public house located further to the rear. The application site is also located within the development framework of Dry Drayton, but not within any conservation area. This is the existing and proposed block plans of the site, which clearly show the sizing of the proposed side extension here to the southwest of the existing building. This is the existing proposed site plans for the site, which perhaps show more clearly the scale of the proposed side extension, which is clearly set back from the front elevation of the existing building and set in from the rear elevation. It also displays the proposed cycle parking here to the north of the site, as well as the two parking spaces which utilise the proposed access into the site. This is the existing proposed floor plans of the building. On the left, you can see the existing floor plan, which is just a single story, including the access ramp to the side of the building here. Within the proposed ground floor plans, you can see the use of the side extension as the new chapel, as well as the alterations to the sloped access into the building. Whilst the first floor plan shows the proposed staircase within the first floor extension to the rear of the building to access the classrooms on the first floor. Here we have the existing and proposed front and rear elevations for the building. The proposed side extension is clearly visible within the proposed front elevation with the central feature visible here. Within the rear elevation, the first floor rear extension can be seen here. Along this side, the height is such that it matches the existing roof, whereas along this side, it's set down from the existing roof under the ridge. This is also evident within this slide, which shows the existing and proposed south-eastern elevations, where the proposed rear extension can clearly be seen as set down from the existing ridge line here. This is the proposed north-west side elevations, which show clearly the scale of the proposed side extension against that of the original building. As previously mentioned, it is again set in from the front elevation here and from the rear elevation here. The central feature here is set down as labelled from the existing ridge line by approximately 0.8 metres. This slide just shows the view into the site from along Park Street. This space here is where the proposed side extension would be sited. Whilst this is a view from within the site, where the side elevation or the side extension would be sited, looking towards the playing field to the rear of the site, and this is the flat roof currently at the rear of the building, where the first floor rear extension would be sited on top of this. Finally, this is the view from along Park Street. In the foreground, you can see the grade 2 listed number 65 here with the church visible in the background. So the proposed side extension would be largely screened by the existing church when located to the side of the building. It's noted that the Paris Council raised concerns with the impact on the nearby listed building, however, in line with the comments from the conservation officer. It was considered that the proposal preserved the setting of this building. It was also noted that concerns were raised with regard to the impact of the proposed development on parking within the village. However, as laid out within the report, the applicant has confirmed that there is no planned increase to the congregation numbers as a result of the proposed development, whilst in fact the proposal includes an increase of two parking spaces from the zero on site currently. Also, as mentioned in the report, there's an agreement in place with the school located to the northwest of the church to pay for the use of their car park on Saturdays when the church currently meets. For these reasons and those on this slide, as per the officer report on page 23 of the reports back, the recommendation is for approval subject to the conditions also starting on page 23. Thank you. Brief opportunity for members to ask any questions of clarification by case officer, Councillor Henry Batchelor. Thank you, Chair. Dominic, this is a very quick question of clarity. So, am I right in thinking that the proposed building, the ridge heights of that would not exceed the ridge height of the current building as it currently stands? Is that right? Yes, yes, that's great. Thank you. Any others? Quick question from me, if I may. Dominic, would you go back to the slide which showed the red-lined boundary? Yes. Or part of the red-lined boundary, please? Give me a second. Is it this one? Thank you. So, the red-lined boundary is just the immediate area around the Methodist Church. There was a previous one that appeared to show it extending rather further, but that was perhaps something else. I believe, yeah, this one is not the red line for the site, but that includes the school playing fields. The red line is just the... So, that one that is up on the screen now is the correct red line? Yes, I believe so. Thank you. Right. Here we have two more questions. Can I get you to answer a lot of Martin Cowell first? What advice was sought on the design of the extension and what considerations were taken into account? I noticed that it's been set down at a lower level. So, what considerations were thought of? I believe there was a pre-app previously at the site where the design of the site extension was quite a prominent feature of the discussion, and as part of this application, the height of the central feature, which was shown at the front of the proposed extension, was set down slightly to make it less, or to make it more subservient to the existing building, and the width of the windows at the front elevation of the proposed site extension were also reduced. The current design is very different from the existing building to which it is attached. Was that considered a consideration? Yes, it was. I think it's considered that it's clearly differentiated itself from the existing building while it's modern in design. It's clearly visible as an extension rather than trying to correlate with the existing building as such. Yes, thank you, chef. One of the objections raised is the interference with the operation of the existing lebi. Is that a sort of official highway's lebi, or is it just a sort of area where the road is slightly wider and a sort of gravel area where you can pull off the road, and would this result in, if it's the latter, would it result in any kind of improvement of the lebi? I believe it's just, as you mentioned, just sort of an indent within the road, within the pavement. As the highway's office has raised, there's a number of conditions attached to the proposal to limit the impact on the highway and the impact that it would have on this lebi. But I believe it's just rather than a formal lebi. Okay, thank you. I think perhaps you can help us on this. For you, chef, I'm just going to confirm that he's part of the public highway council. Right. I hope that clarifies the issue for everyone. Any further questions? We will, of course, have an opportunity for the debate later. What will then progress to our two public speakers? First, I'd like to call on the agent for the applicant, who is Dominic Padolino. Are you there, Dominic? Hi, I'm taking place with Dominic, because he's not available today, unfortunately. My name's Chris, I work for the DPA Architects. Chris, please excuse yourself. My name's Chris Hill, I work for the DPA Architects. Thank you. Right, Chris, the floor is yours. Good morning. This application is presented to you today for an extension to an established church located in this residential area. The proposed extension has been designed to be subservient to the main church, not caught in harm to the street scene, audience-tracing-listed building, as already noted. The conservation officer has supported the scheme and he's supported the design approach of us using the modern materials, which separates the character of the old building and the new building, so the old building still is visible and obvious. The design falls within the dry-tracing development framework, and is compliant with policy S7. The proposed extension will support the main functions of the existing church. The proposed also has to support the local highway authority who has not raised any objections and are happy with the church's agreement with the school, which allows the congregation members to continue parking. The church has around 41 members and meets regularly once a week on a Saturday, and sometimes around six times a year on a Sunday for special services. The average attendance out to those 41 members is around 30 on a Saturday and approximately 10 on those six Sundays. The proposed extension will not alter or increase the meeting frequency or seek to increase the congregation. I know that was a concern. The congregation's size remains static for the last four years since the church was acquired. The church has advertised in dry-tracing and the local vicinity for new members, but not a single local person from dry-tracing area or the surrounding villages attended any of the services, nor has there been any of new members. As we know, a church membership in the UK is steady decline, and they do not expect this to increase members of the church. I think the plan officer has mentioned all the design comments, and there's nothing further we have to add. Thank you for that presentation. I don't think we have any need for members to see clarification on that. Thank you very much. Our next public speaker is our parish council representative, councillor Sean Ruhian. Forgive me if I pronounce your surname wrong there. I have dry date in parish council, again online. Sean, before you speak, just to remind you, you have three minutes, and then if you would stand by in case there are questions of clarification from members, can you just confirm that you have the agreement of your parish council to represent you today? Yes, yes, we agreed that I'd represent our views. Thank you. Well, the floor is yours. Yes, so I am Sean Ruhian from dry-tracing parish council. There are two parts of this application that we are concerned with, really. The first is the parking. We've got very little public parking in the village, and some residents rely on street parking. Most residents have their own parking, not everybody. The creation of two private parking spaces seems that it will reduce the public parking in the lay-by, which is a tarmac play-by. I don't know what its legal status is, but the access would cross it. So we would lose parking space here, even when the private parking spaces are not in use, so it would be a threat the week we would lose that space. And secondly, if the arrangement with the school is suspended or the site use grows and that the school parking is no longer sufficient, then there will be parking on the street, which is likely to significantly interfere with the spaces that residents use for their parking. I have noticed that when the site is in use, the lay-by is quite busy, as it looks like children and families are being dropped off, and then the vehicles go round to the school to park there. I struggle to see how the required visibility display can be maintained when there are vehicles parked in the lay-by. It's not a particularly safe place on the road at the moment. The second aspect of the proposal that we're concerned about is the appearance. The front elevation of the proposed extension is not really in keeping with local environment. Neither the white rendered finish or the exaggerated doorway style seem appropriate, and they appear to be designed to draw attention to the building. Given the proximity of Warrington Farm, it's difficult to understand how this has been judged to have no adverse effect. The nature of Park Street at this section is of fairly sparse construction, giving view to open spaces, and all of the developments going on here is gradually eroding that. The appearance is quite a significant problem with the application, as far as we're concerned. That is the summary of our objections. Thank you. Any questions of clarification from members on that? Councillor Tomathing-Cham. What would you, regardless of an acceptable appearance, what aspects of the appearance do you find... What would you find as an acceptable appearance, and what modifications would you want to make it acceptable? I think if it were in a similar construction style to the existing building, I think that would be less intrusive. So, the Cambridge White Brick, that sort of style, or something else similar to the traditional style, but not a very modern style. Thank you. And Councillor Henry Batchelor had a question for you. Thank you, Chair. Good morning. You may or may not have seen in our papers that the highways department are actually recommending a number of conditions should planning approval be granted. I wanted to ask if you have seen them, if any of these conditions would satisfy some of the parish council's concerns regarding the highways issues that you've raised this morning. So, the only issue that seems particularly useful is the visibility displays, and I don't understand how that can be achieved if the lay-by is maintained. I don't think anything else particularly addresses either the long-term use of the school or the safety of that access. Thank you. That's perhaps a question we'll put to the case officers in a moment before we start the debate. Thank you, Chair. Just on the topic of the design, I presume that you have seen the conservation officer's statement whereby it seems that it needs to be different to the existing and not your response as you would prefer to see it being the same, whereas the conservation officer's view is that it should be different. What's your view on that? I struggle to see how making it different and more visible will enhance the straight scene. What's presented appears to be a new building will make it look better, and the majority of the buildings and the majority of the village along this part, the village, is not new modern buildings. We have very few modern buildings in the village. I don't see that we need any more. So I don't understand why making the extension different to the existing building is seen as a benefit. I have no further questions for you, so thank you very much for your presentation. We will now proceed to the debate. Before we do that, I wonder whether the case officer would like to address one possibly two of those issues that were raised by the Paris Council. How the visibility display can be accommodated and possibly the question asked by Dr Jimmy Hawkins, which I think is fairly clearly set out in the conservation officer's comments. Dominic, if you're there, are you able to comment on either of those? Thank you. In terms of the visibility displays, generally in agreement with the highways officer, I wasn't entirely sure of the use of the labour it's used by cars for parking for the school, et cetera, but I think we believe that the two-metre visibility displays, either side of the labour and the entrance, the access to the post could be achieved, hence the condition being applied in this instance. In regards to the design, as within the report, it was considered that while it is a modern design, the site is not within a conservation area and the design is to contrast with the existing more traditional form and appearance, but that's considered acceptable in this instance. Thank you. Right, let's proceed to the debate. We say here we have no comments from local members, but I'm glad to say that we have Councillor Richard Stobart with us as one of the local members. Do you wish to speak first in the debate or to speak as local member? I would, Chair, if you will allow me. Can I proceed now? Please. Thank you, Chair, thank you members and those who've presented. Drydraithon, just to give a little background, is not a large village, but a significant one that is within site of Cambridge and yet quite separate. I think there are several points made about the public transport situation that's alluded to. It has quite an open format that has also been referred to in the prior discussions. It does suffer from a high-speed connection and it was never intended that way, but that's how it's worked out for the village between the A14 and the A428. It's problematic for the village and in fact I don't think you'll have seen this development actually sits on that busy road, so Park Street is actually one of the roads that is part of that route between the A14 and the A428. The emphasis on road safety I think is particularly well made. If this development were to proceed then I think those safety issues need to be just gold-plated a bit more and then monitored. The concern about the labour is quite legitimate. The labour actually runs across the frontage of the church and to break local habits for parking which is going to be required might actually result in some issues as people are just not having that space or making some change to their parking schedule. That is a quite legitimate concern. As for the appearance of the church I think the parish council has expressed their view quite clearly. I mean opinion is going to be divided on this point, but I believe the parish council is expressing a clear view that two different and appearance is actually representing a loss to the village as opposed to a gain. I would emphasise those two points. The appearance and also the road safety question. The continuing relationship with the school which is an actual for safe parking is a risk. There is no indication that that relationship would be affected or that permission would be withdrawn but it does remain a concern. So I would support very much the parish council's view on all of this. I know the parish council's view leaves the opening for this to proceed, but with I think strengthening of the conditions as they've been defined. So that's my view chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. Who would like to speak next in the debate? I have councillor Peter Sandford I think. I have to think that one of the two parish council objections regarding parking is not particularly relevant to this application. If the school decides to withdraw the informal arrangement where the congregation park in the school, there's going to be 30 plus cars looking for parking, street parking in the village regardless whether this extension is approved or not. In fact, if it is approved, there will be a large number of cars less too so in the unlikely event the permission is refused. There will be a slight positive impact from the extra two parking spaces. Thank you. Next I think councillor Batchelor. Thank you chair. So when I first read the application two points jumped out on me as being potential areas of concern. One was the impact on the neighbouring grade to listed building, which obviously is the highest grade of listed building. We tend to see in applications like this. But I was reassured by the conservation officers comments. They don't go as far as to say they would support the application but they said there's no reason from a conservation point of view that the application should be refused and in this particular case I don't feel I'm in a position to second guess those comments. So for me that particular concern of mine has been eliminated. The second was the impact on the neighbouring school but I think as we've heard from various speakers today the school as it currently sits is supportive of the church, i.e. they allow them to park cars in their car parker weekends when the school isn't open to pupils and I think as has been said that may be withdrawn in the future but as it currently stands I believe they are still supportive of that so that does eliminate the second issue that I had identified before coming here today. We've heard a lot about highways concerns regarding highway safety and parking and again we do have a no objection return from the local highways development management and we also do have a raft of conditions that the highways officer recommends that are incorporated which I see our planning officer has done which I'm supportive of. There was some talk about beefing up some of these conditions I personally think they're fine as they are but if other members wish to make a proposal to beef them up I wouldn't be an objection to beefing them up but if they weren't I'd be happy to support them as they currently sit as well. So all that taken into account as it currently stands I feel the benefits for approving this application by far outweigh the harm so I would be supportive of this application. Thank you. Next I have Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you chair. I'm going to address my comments to the design issues that have been raised and I think as everyone has made clear this is a very modern design and it's not designed to be in sympathy with the existing building at all really and I think that's the point. I think this is one of those very difficult cases. I do have a general concern about a proliferation of different architectural styles in villages which start to look very messy and start to lose local character. I take on board the comments we've got but this is as I say one of these very difficult ones where this fundamentally comes down to a matter of judgement. I mean if we look at policy HQ 1 in our local plan 1A talks about design should preserve and enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to context and the wider landscape. Paragraph D talks about designs being compatible with their location and appropriate in terms of scale density, maths, form sighting and design and proportion textiles, materials or texture all those very materials etc etc. I find it very hard to conclude that a very modern design complies with all local plan policies but I do accept that it is fundamentally a matter of opinion and we do have our consultees telling us they don't think there is a problem but that's their opinion I have a different opinion I rather suspect I know which way an inspector would go if it came to an appeal but I'm not happy with the design I don't personally think it according to our local plan so I do have concerns about the application Thank you Councillor Dr Martin Carned Councillor Richard Williams has stole my thunder I noticed there is generally an assumption that with buildings with a certain character it is better to have a different design to show the difference to leave the original building in its style this building I pass regularly because I quite often come to by bait and from Piston and Ipington to Canborn so I know the site well I often pass particularly returning down the hill you'll see this building is quite visible it's quite charming no great architectural very pleasant typical of a small chapel in a small village with a particular style and I find the I don't know when this is linked to the the beliefs or the style of the church that is taken out from a Methodist church to a different rather more evangelical church I suspect this needs to have this sort of feature but from the architectural point of view I take a I don't always feel that it's best to have a distinction I think sometimes it's better to follow the existing style and that's what I feel would probably work better in this location, in the village location something which kept the character of the existing building and it's a matter of opinion I don't happen to agree with the conservation officer in the circumstance and like him I think there are local plan policies which would support that view and all of the other aspects I think the highways authority issues and the point the council has made about the existing use of the site so I don't think there's a highways reason for objection at all from my point of view the act of extending the building and the impact upon the adjoining building because it will be hidden from the adjoining building I don't think that's a listed building I agree with that, I don't think that's an impact but the effect on the building itself I feel and on the character of the village I think is important, particularly on the main route that people pass through the village and I don't think I can support it on this application on that grounds and that grounds solely even if an application came forward in exactly the same size but which fitted in I suspect that I wouldn't have these objections Before I invite other speakers two speakers have referred to this question of the design we have before us this relates to paragraph 10.9 just wondering whether a condition perhaps as to the choice of materials would satisfy the concerns as to the design or is it the actual design of the building to me is the actual design I feel that you could do a much better but the job that reflected the existing building would be rather than a modern design would actually be more appropriate in this location particularly as the actual building is going to be larger than the the extension is going to have a larger faith than the existing building Councillor Williams I think I share the view of Councillor Cahn I think it's the design it's not just the materials even to change the materials you'd actually be requiring a different and that's which has been put forward to make it acceptable Thank you and now Councillor Tewby Hawkins Thank you chair I know this building very well I drive past it maybe once a week I even parked at the valley by on one occasion when I dropped my son off at a friend's place it is unusual I find that we have a situation where conservation has agreed to a different contrasting design usually is always conservation don't like this and etc but in this case there is a reason for doing that which we might not personally like but there is a reason for it because it's been built at this time and the idea is so that it contrasts with what currently exists Yes, Methodist Church is small ones tend to look like what is there now and yes I was born into this tradition so I understand that Sorry, can you say that multiple again? I was born into the Methodist tradition which is why I know what they look like because I've seen a few of them here Now, I actually agree with the conservation officer and I think it's a good thing that the Methodist Church, even though it is small actually is putting this together I know there was a point made that congregation numbers tradition have been going down may be in traditional churches but not in the newer churches that's a misunderstanding completely but anyway that's not the material of my consideration As far as the parking issues go this is something that will be used once a week on Saturday it's not every day of the week and maybe sometimes on a few Sundays so actually the usage of it I don't see being a problem at the times when it is used as far as the highways issues go I agree with highways recommendations with the conditions that they have proposed and I think really for me that is it I will be supporting this application Thank you Councillor Bill Henley Thank you chair Like several members of the committee I actually pass this place every time I come to Camborn so quite regularly The chapel we are talking about is quite a simple chapel quite typical of lots of little villages in Pembrodshire I think personally it will be a great change to change it it's quite a striking prominent building even though it's small I agree it won't affect the great touristic building very much from one direction but it will be a striking change coming from the other direction and Drydraithon isn't it is a traditional small English village I struggle with this I really do The other thing that I don't like I'm really disappointed as no one from the church here to answer our questions because the gentleman from the design designer claimed that this is not going to make any difference to the congregation numbers why are they doing it then it's virtually doubling the footprint the size of the footprint so if they're not going to increase using the church what would be a considerable expense so I'd like to have asked those questions frankly and we haven't got the opportunity so I'm I'm really actually in a similar I'm in a similar frame of mind with both Doctor and Doctor Williams but it's and I don't agree with the conservation officer on this I'm sorry I just think it's the wrong type of alteration to a traditional simple chapel That's my view I think that when we saw the forgive me I'll come back to you in a moment that when we saw the floor plans it was fairly clear that the nature of the proposals involved the conversion of the existing chapel area into separate classrooms with the new open meeting area being in the extension and does that deal with the concerns you raise about the need for change I just know the point I was making was that it was claimed that there would be no increase in the congregation in the numbers and that's what I'm finding a bit hard to understand and to believe frankly Right Council Doctor, do you be Hawkins Thank you for letting me come back to you to address that As a churchgoer I know that when you've got young families the children go out outside of the main service to go and have their own Sunday school and at this point in time there isn't the space for them to do that I presume there are young families which is why they want to increase the space so that they can have a Sunday school for the different groups of children they have different ages both in different classes and that is why they need that space and that if you look at the diagram that was drawn from the floor plan it's exactly what they're going to do to the current building when they move the congregation to the bigger building Council Doctor Karn wants to come back again and then I'll come to the vice chair Actually I was just going to support Council Hawkins on this aspect of it because my wife runs the reform school in Cambridge runs the Sunday classes for that and the schools they've just moved into a new school five years, seven years ago and they run the head of the Sunday school within the school and they find that the design didn't take enough account of having classrooms and separate rooms for the different year groups so I'm sure that that seems to me a sound reason why they might need the extra space without necessarily increasing the numbers the numbers haven't increased in the short because of the fact that they've got a new building that's determined by different social issues rather than the buildings so I would support Council Hawkins like those common and before I come to the vice chair I see Council Richard Williams wanting to come back on this Sorry I feel bad for the vice chair I just wanted to make a small comment though and we are getting into the rumour speculation here so I don't think we can go too far down this road but I would imagine that proposal is to increase make it more possible to have a Sunday school that increases the attractiveness of going to the church so I wonder if that could take us back to the question would it in fact increase usage because if you improve the facilities presumably it becomes a more attractive place to go I don't know but I just wanted to make that comment Chair what have you company that about a church growing? Council Dr Hawkins Can we just clarify that current because I'm not sure to what extent this is relevant to the application we've had assurances that the intention is not this is not designed because the church is growing or any growth is anticipated but what is quite clear is a slightly different use of the existing building and a new meeting room beside it Do we have any reason to question that Council Dr Timmy Hawkins I didn't quite catch your comment just then I wasn't sure if you were wrong I'm sorry Chair I was just surprised that we seem to be questioning or saying a church shouldn't grow the church currently they have said the agent who represented them said that they had advertised for more members that's what churches do the fact that they haven't grown in the last four years means they might not grow they haven't had any new members but that is not a planning consideration though is it I'm sorry Vice Chair forgive me but Councillor Bill Handley who raised this point are you satisfied that we have no reason to question The reason I raised it Chair is that if there is a significant rise in the number of people wishing to use this place as a result of this extension it will figure on the parking that the parish council is so concerned about so I believe it is a material consideration but we can't speculate I agree we can't speculate but that's the reason I raised it We then come back to the comment that Councillor Peter Sanford made earlier on that a possible increase in parking whether or not it can be accommodated would be the same whether or not the size of the building is expanded so that it can be subdivided into classrooms I will come at last my Vice Chair has been patiently waiting to get it here Thank you Chair I think all of the logistical points if I could put it like that have been perhaps covered in terms of the effect on the labour, the parking etc and because there is this subjective aspect of the debate I think I can still add to that because it is a personal thing and I a bit like Councillor Toomey Hawkins natural position would be to support heritage buildings but I think in this case there is a particular thing about the form of a church the symmetry of it and I think to try and add something if it were in the same style would inevitably destroy that symmetry and therefore destroy the essential form of a chapel or a church so in this case I do agree with the conservation officer that if you accept that it is perfectly reasonable to want to have a bit more space for classrooms etc and I think this is a facet of community life and as such should be supported then I think I do really see where the officer is coming from in that really have to make it recognised to be different because otherwise it becomes like a sort of adapted house that comes like a double fronted house and you can sort of see which is the new bit and which is the old bit and I think that would cause more harm to this asset than what is being proposed which I think it is done enough using high quality materials you know would be the right way to go so that's my opinion I'd like to just comment on this application myself there are I think three issues that have been raised with us the first I think is fairly easily dealt with which is the possible effect on the listed building that wasn't raised by the parish council and we have I think those who have spoken have been accepted the advice of officers that it wouldn't have any significant impact because it is the other side of the church and so on the next is the parking and the third and perhaps most crucial one of in terms of planning is the design before I comment on the parking I would just say that I know this building very well myself I lived in Drydraith and for some years I was a member of the parish council until nine years ago but I haven't discussed this with the parish council separately I did actually take the opportunity to visit the church this morning I parked outside in the labai no other users there I was there for just over five minutes during which time two cars passed on Park Street I noticed that the three people in the community speed watch were not having a very busy time this morning but I'm not suggesting that need to be representative in any way as to the so I think we have to take the advice of the highways authority on this point I haven't heard anyone take up council a bachelor's suggestion that we might reinforce those conditions that they have suggested so I think we would be working with the conditions they have suggested so it then comes down to this question of design is the parish council right to say that it would be better to put an extension on that would meet with the existing design that would be a compatible point that I think was the word to council which Williams drew attention to or are conservation officers right I would refer you to paragraphs 10, 8 and 10, 9 on balance officers are of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable in the design terms and they refer to the conditions they've imposed overall the proposed development is considered to be a high quality design that would contribute positively to its surroundings now there are two views on that but I think the church authorities if you call it that the church users in this case and their designers are entitled to take a view on this and they have proposed a strikingly different design which is broadly supported I would say by the conservation officers so I think the question will be do we have any reasons to question their future plans when they have clearly said to us they don't see any expansion as council Hawkins has said why would we object if they did do we have any reason to doubt their current arrangements on parking or to suggest that this extension would make any parking problems that might arise in the future any worse than they would otherwise have been and do we have any reason to say that they are wrong to broadly take the same view as the conservation officers and go for a strikingly different design in this location I think those for me are the three issues I don't know whether we need any further debate or whether members are happy now to proceed to a vote I think there's a feeling we should proceed to a vote we have taken a number of different views on this so I'm proposing to have an electronic vote we're being asked if we want to name reasons for the fuel I think that is fairly clear from the debate I don't think we need to specify that so just before we council a bachelor I think you propose that we move to a vote I can do it share do we have a seconder that we move to a vote right council Hawkins seconding it thank you so we are now able to proceed to a vote I said that halfway through the vote do we need to start the vote again or are we happy to have one thing yeah I mean it would be I think if we were to reject this it would be good to know what the grounds would be now you know what I mean before the vote actually I appreciate that you know the officer recommended that we move to a vote I think we should appreciate that you know the officer recommendation is for approval and it may be difficult actually to difficult for me to suggest why we would reject it I just wonder if you can give some help and maybe the officers can give us some help on that I think perhaps councillor Richard Williams might be able to suggest what reasons yes thank you my reasons would be it doesn't comply it doesn't preserve or enhance the character of the local rural area or respond to the context of the area in the wider landscape and that it is not compatible with its location in terms of materials design and proportion and colour in relation to the surrounding area so policy HQ one paragraph one A and D okay so as I said councillor to me the proposals thank you chair can we have the officers view on that please because if this goes to appeal I'm sure that we will lose it I think that the officers view is very clearly set out in paragraph 10 nine the proposed development is considered to be high quality that will contribute positively to its surroundings and specifically in relation to policy HQ one the proposal is compliant the South Gameshire local plan policy HQ one and with the NPPF so we are entitled to take a different view but I don't think unless Phil would like to correct me that we need to hear from officers again on this because the officers view is so clearly set out in our papers so I'm sorry that we've had a further discussion when I thought we were starting the vote but that being the case we have a proposal from councillor that we move to a vote seconded by councillor to me Hawkins so I would now like to do that so could we start the vote again please and those who are in favour press obviously the blue button and then the green button do we have any abstentions you can press the third button if you wish to abstain formally in an electronic vote I think we can probably proceed without the need for electronic registration of the abstentions we've all seen Dr Richards sorry I hit the wrong button so do we have the result so by six votes to three the application will be approved with one abstention from councillor Stobar okay so that application is approved let's progress then to item six item six is on page sorry, page 27 of your papers this is an application relating to 27 Silverdale Avenue in Cotin a two-safetory side and rear extension this the applicant is councillor Michael Atkins which is the reason that has come to this committee it is an application by a member of the council the presenting officer is John McAteer are you with us John? yes John the floor is yours thank you councillor Fane I'll just bring up my PowerPoint presentation if I can I just confirm that everyone can see that please we can thank you thank you councillor as councillor Fane said I'm John McAteer thank you for your time today councillors I'm here to discuss 27 Silverdale Avenue in Cotin which is reference number 23-00352 HFUL which is for a two-story side and rear extension this has been called to committee as the applicant is a local councillor Michael Atkins so I've got the site location plan for the property raised there you can just see it along Silverdale Avenue with the two properties here 26 and 28 as the adjacent properties and this is the street scene of the property from 2014 I believe just to show you what the front elevation of the property looks like and we have the existing elevations here with the site plan on the right and some floor plans for you as well and the proposed extension we can see here along the side this is from the front elevation of the property and to the rear here we can see the extension at the two-story level and the proposed floor plans as well so the principle of development and design and I've just taken a few pertinent points from my report the application is located within the development framework boundary of Cotin where policy S7 of the local plan supports the principle of residential development the proposed side extension element would be visible to the public realm however the extension would be set back both from the ridge line of the property and from the front elevation 1.6 metres would be added to the width of the property visible from the road the proposed two-story extension element would also be set down from the ridge line of the existing property and would be sited within a large garden considered expansive enough to support the level of development proposed the proposed extension would match the eaves height of the existing dwelling and the extension would extend beyond the rear elevation of the property by just 1.7 metres the proposal would not increase the footprint of the building extensively and the development would be subservient in scale and design moving on to neighbouring amenity the impact on neighbouring properties would be limited and it is likely only the neighbours of 26 and 28 Silver Day Avenue would be affected at all the side extension element would bring the dwelling 2.7 metres closer to the adjacent property at number 28 however there is only a single glazed window in number 28 elevation and the impact to amenity is considered to be small the rear extension element would be visible from the gardens of both adjacent neighbours but due to the sighting of number 28 Silver Day Avenue the rear extension would project no more than 0.6 metres beyond their rear elevation and it is considered that the 45 degree rule outlined in the BRE guidance would not be violated on their habitable windows as the rear extension is set in from the eastern elevation 26 Silver Day Avenue is less impacted by this addition it is concluded that there would not be significant impact upon residential amenity the proposal would not be overbearing or cause an unreasonable sense of enclosure loss of light or overlooking under normal circumstances officers would have approved this application under delegated powers however as we've discussed the applicant is a local counciller there are no pertinent constraints upon the site no objections have been received from the local parish council the trees team nor any other consultees the proposal would not expand the existing dwelling in a way which is considered inappropriate or excessive nor would it significantly impact the street scene neighbour amenity would not be significantly harmed as a result of the development and no adjacent neighbours have been objected so it is officers recommend approval in this instance thank you for your time thank you John for that clear presentation could I just ask you to go back to the photograph of the front elevation of course I ask that really because the photos are different from 2014 that's right yes they've developed the garage since then but the actual size of that side element is the same okay so the carport shown there has since been replaced by some sort of a garage yeah we can see this in extension yes and a paragraph 8.5 you say this would enclose the gap to the adjacent neighbour number 28 but this property also benefits from a similar two-story side extension which I think we can see in that photograph yes right I think that's clear do any members have any questions for John on this no shall we we have no thank you very much John we have no public speakers so we can proceed directly to the debate does anyone want to debate this or indeed to make a proposal to cancel a doctor Martin Cahn I simply wanted to comment and it's not going to affect my decision anyway but here we have the proposal to reduce the risk line and set back and this is a general policy decision taken by in development I find that sometimes creates a rather finicky look and particularly with buildings of no particular merit this is a state house I think they would be better if the existing line was just extended as part of the same building and you looked at the whole building as a whole rather than trying to not impact on the building which might be a good policy with buildings of particular architectural merit but I don't think it out of the particular feature but I don't think so in this instance but it's not a reason to refuse it it's perfectly acceptable as it is it's just a comment that I would make as the opportunity arises I think as you said that is not a reason for refusal Does anyone else? Councilor Dr Tumi Hawkins Can I move the motion to vote? We haven't moved the motion to vote Do I have a seconder for that? Councilor Henry Batchewa Do we need to I suppose in the circumstances we probably do need to take a recorded vote on this so despite my habit of messing up the recorded votes if you would proceed to a recorded vote thank you I confirm the outcome Thank you chair that is an anonymous vote for approval of this application Thank you that is approved We then move on to our enforcement report and I think we have Chris Braybrooke Good morning chair Can you hear me? Can you hear me chair? We can hear you That's a start Excellent, good morning Thank you The apologies again to the committees just the preparation of this report was just slightly prior to the full numbers for March just because of when I needed to produce the report get it published so I still don't have quarter one of 23 just to let you know so we're still showing the numbers for 2022 in the report there's not really a lot to update on we didn't issue any in enforcement notices there's an update that we're obviously out at this moment in time or a new officer and I will update you in the next meeting and in this report I'm just also letting the committee know how the online referrals are now going so you can see from the beginning of December we've received 168 enforcement referrals 103 of those are made by the e-form so that is being used well obviously I will continue to update you just to show that this change to the e-form referral is working well I'll keep you updated on how that is going and obviously just sort of showed the closed cases as well obviously we've got a lot of older cases that won't have been e-forms as are obviously all aware as well the compliance policy consultation is finished and that policy has been adopted and we're now in the process of pushing that information out into the wider public and making sure people are aware of this new documentation that's come through and that's about all I have for you all Thank you Chris I think I have a question from you from Dr Tibi Hawkins and then one from Dr Martin Khan Okay Hi Chris, thank you for your report It's good to see that the e-form is working but I there has been concern expressed that some people are not wanting to use the e-form because they don't want to put their names down I'll have it as associated with your report but we are saying we need to have the contact details but that it is also confidential can you explain just how the process works please? Yes, not a problem we are requesting contact details so that we can keep people updated and just kind of avoid on vexaceous complaints as well which can sometimes be an issue if there are members of the public that don't want to give out their details then obviously they can contact the local parish councils or their effective member to obviously getting contact on their behalf and to be a contact point this is something that I'm pretty sure is in the new planning enforcement policy so that is the direction that we would put people towards I think it's going to be on the website if it's not then that's something that I can take away from this meeting and get information on our website to say contact your local parish council to discuss the matter or your elected member and we'll provide links on how to see who their elected members are and how to contact them and we can push the referrals that way obviously you know it's a preferred option for those people council audience does that deal with the concern that you've raised there please yes just to come back what if the local members go I don't want to be receiving all these complaints then can you reassure people that actually the information is confidential and I think their personal details don't get passed on so I can when it comes to details we do not pass on complaining details when requested under freedom of information request we can refuse to give out those details under the environmental regulations so we have a process where we can you know legitimately say we don't hand out hand out peoples details there is a caveat to this if a case goes as far as prosecution and we have to provide details to any defence defence solicitors or barristers through discovery evidence discovery there is a chance that some details may be revealed and we would need to kind of look at that that is the only circumstance and it's a very few and far between circumstance that cases obviously get that far where peoples details may be revealed and obviously that is something that we would address at that time Chris I think we can say that it would be helpful if it isn't already on the website that is accessing the e-form could be informed about that including possibly the caveat perhaps I can just have from the chair that I would have and I don't know whether other members would reflect this limited sympathy for any members who said they didn't want to hear all these complaints I think we have then a question for you from Dr Martin Cahn Yes about the biways enforcement in this Hearthstone on behalf of my son who is a councillor for that ward there has recently been an appeal refused for that enforcement notice because of apparently lack of detail of what actually needs to do to conform to the report notice I noticed there still seem to be a number of appeals an enforcement notice is could you update to me exactly what the procedure will be I've already asked Steve Kelly about this this morning so perhaps you could liaise with him but I would like to have an update on how you are proceeding with this and how you are dealing with it OK I'm going to have to tell you this isn't as I understand it because the notices were issued before my joining the authority the first notice that was issued was a breach of condition enforcement notice that notice seeks to have the developer comply with conditions on a planning permission it was very orly worded I will concede that through the appeals process it became evident to the planning team Tobi Williams that the notice would not likely stand the scrutiny of an appeal and therefore the second notice which you are talking about that's still outstanding was therefore issued a full enforcement notice which is currently subject to an appeals procedure I have looked at that notice and that notice to me appears to be one that deals with all of the issues and is defendable at an appeal I would say that the requirements of that notice are clear and precise and I'm very happy with that and I don't see any problems going forwards that notice would be quashed have you any indication about the time scale at this moment in time enforcement appeals are taking anywhere between 12 to 18 months just due to the backlog of appeals with the planning inspectorate that is not something we can speed up written representation appeals are moving quicker than hearings and enquiries obviously but like I say there is a substantial backlog at the moment unfortunately so it will be some time thank you for that and a question I think from councillor Bill Hanley yeah thank you it's related to what has just been said about the backlog there's one case in my village where residents are very concerned that the longer the appeal goes on the more likely it is that people who are have mobile homes businesses, livestock on a piece of land without planning permission on agricultural land would be able to claim a change of use because of the time I just want to reassurance that because it's with the planning inspectorate it might take 18 months that's the clock stopped so when the authority issues an enforcement notice that is when the clock is stopped on the 4 and 10 year rules for any enforcement so the clock stops the notice comes into effect basically so I can reassure you that the appeals process whilst it is lengthy will not have any bearing on any legality going forward over uses of land or operational development buildings that are erected or anything like that on those 4 and 10 year rules thank you Chris Chris I think you've satisfied all our questions or possibly all our concerns but thank you very much indeed for that presentation thank you chair let's then move on to item 8 and I think Phil is going to respond to any queries on this this is appeals which is on page 37 is it yes there we go page 37 a gender item 8 appeals against planning did you want to add anything to this or does the report speak for itself thank you chair I'm happy to take any queries from members on the appeals that are listed before them I haven't got anything further to add though thank you any questions or comments councillor Dr Richard Williams it's just a comment to thank the officer for the change that I raised last time the indication of what's the delegated decision what's the committee decision that's really really useful so thank you very much for doing that yes I echo that thank you any other questions or comments so that concludes our meeting for this morning so I'll declare the meeting closed at 11.19 thank you all very much for your attendance