 Rwy'n pwy, pan ydychu. Cyngor, rydyn ni'n cyfrannu cyfrannu, wrth gweithio cyfrannu, a'r cyflosiedd yma, o bobl gydouwnt codi gyrach mewn gwirioneddau ar ôl y cyfrannu us Pathzau. Felly, nad ydych yn chweithio eu cyfrannu'n gweithio. Wrth gwy chefdau, rydyn ni'n sefydiatio i fynd i dda nhw, rydyn ni'n eisiau ei ei ddim. Pwy, café'r cyfrannu rhoi'r pob ei ystafell arweinydd ei wneud i gweithio. Rydyn ni'n ddim yn cerddion eich credu eu gydgrun, Maen nh annoyed� sydd supnewch ychydig sydd yn ied Basefcairiynau'r ddweudog. Mae'r bobl sydd yn iawn i'r gweithio. Rydyn ni'n mynd i'n bwysig, ydych chi'n gweithio. Rwy'n credu'r cyfreifio a phrygau. Yn gyfrifio o'r gweithio, mae'n ffordd 162, rydyn ni'n credu'n gweithio. Mae'n credu'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio 155, ac mae'n ceisio. Mae'n credu'n ceisio. Mae'n ceisio. Mae'n credu'n ceisio. Mae'n credu'n ceisio. ac yn ymddangos. Ynch chi'n ddweud am yw'r cyffredinol yn ystafell arlo, Ynch chi'n ddweud am hynny'n fawr. Felly mae'r ddweud yn ymddangos o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Ynch chi'n ddweud o'r ddweud mewn ddweud. Rwy'n credu yna'n amlwg yn 6.30 oed. Rwy'n credu fyddech chi'n ddweud. Rwy'n credu i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r 8. Mae'r un bach o oedden nhw yn bwysig yn Bington. Rydyn ni'n ddechrau. Rydyn ni'n bwysig cofnwch chi'n gweithio yma ym 11-1, ac efallai ym 9-1. Rydyn ni'n ddechrau yma ym 10-1, lawer oedd ym 30-1 yma, mae ym 50-1 yn benghaffoeth. Ydw i taeth wnaeth bod ym 70-1 yn hefyd. My proposal to the committee is that we again re-order the agenda, take what is listed as item 11, and then, if time, take what is listed as item 9. I mention those two because under our constitution they both have to be dealt with by the planning committee and there is of course no further committee till June. Is that acceptable to the committee? Yes. So, we then proceed to item 11 on page 235 and our director has kindly agreed to stand in as case officer on this. Chair, thank you. We actually have the case officer online, but mindful of time and with your agreement, Alice, I think the application itself is relatively straightforward. It's a proposal for works to an existing bunglo and I think it's well detailed in the report, the merits of the proposal. There is a first floor being created, but the fundamental essence of the scheme is driven from a desire to reduce the carbon footprint of the building. There are no material objections or comments that have been received. You can see long stand in parish council have no objection and there are no representations. So my suggestion, Chair, unless there are particular points of concern that Alice certainly is available to deal with is that we don't offer a presentation for this item. Thank you. I'd like to propose we go to the vote and I'd like to propose that. That's seconded. Wall agreed? Let's take the vote and because of the nature of the decision we need to do this by the formal process as well. Obviously, if you're in favour, green. Everybody voted we unanimous. Good. If only we could get that way to progress on all the rest, we wouldn't still be here. Let's move on then to item nine, the land to the rear of 90 High Street Melbourne and I note that Councillor Joe's hails has a potential conflict and he's going to withdraw from the meeting for this item. However, we remain quarried, page 197. Who's presenting on this one? Chair, I believe the case officer Jane Rodden is going to be presenting on this if she's still available online. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Can I just confirm that you can see my slide? That's all right. We can now, thank you. Okay, so this application is for the construction of a new dwelling and alterations for the existing access to the land to the rear of 90 High Street Melbourne. Here's a location plan. As you can see, the access is adjacent to 90 High Street Melbourne and it's to the rear of the site. Here's a proposed site plan. As you can see, it's quite heavily treated with access running along the south-western boundary with the dwelling at the rear. Here's a constraints map in front of you. As you can see, the application is outside the development framework boundary, which is the black dash line inside the conservation area, which is the pink line. And adjacent to Stockbridge Meadows, which is the green hashed area to the rear. Here's proposed ground floor plans and first floor plans. The building is proposed into a U shape with a mixture of ground and first floor elements. Here's proposed elevations, west elevation and north, south elevation and east. And here's a further detailed plan of the access that's being proposed. Here's some photos. I'll just go through them quickly for you. So this is looking into the access site. Looking north at High Street south. Here's the current structure that's on the site that's to be demolished as part of this proposal. It's some of the trees that you can see looking into the site on Stockbridge Meadows. And this is the other dwellings further to the north of the site, but from the view outside the proposal site. So my recommendation is refusal due to the principle of development and the proposed visibility space that's been raised by the High Road Authority. Thank you. Very much for that presentation. I trust there will be no questions. That seems fairly straightforward. Let's move straight to our first speaker, Stuart Everett. Don't know whether Stuart Everett is the agent. This application is still with us. Are you there, Stuart? I am. Can you hear me? Well done. Thank you for staying on with us. Yes please. You have the usual three minutes when you're ready. I'd like to start by talking about the principle of development and then I'll move on to the driveway issues. So planning policy defines development bound. Thank you. I didn't catch who this gentleman is. Mr Everett, perhaps you would just start by explaining your role in this. Introduce yourself and then you'll have your three minutes. Of course, yeah. Sorry, I'm the architect and agent for the proposal. So yes. Planning policy defines development boundaries to prevent encroachment of the countryside and incremental growth into areas of insufficient infrastructure. The land under consideration is part of the historic garden of 90 High Street. The boundary of this garden can be tracked through historic maps for over 100 years and is still clearly recognisable on site. Despite being inside this garden boundary, the proposal sits just outside the development framework boundary, which suggests that it's in the open countryside. To put it simply, we don't believe this to be the case. The plot is part of a large domestic garden which has been in use for many decades. It consists of a large natural clearing, garden buildings, has a mown lawn. There's a swimming pool just off that mown lawn. In our eyes, it's undeniably domestic in its appearance and use. Referring back to policy, the word encroachment suggests approval of this scheme would set a dangerous precedent for development of neighbouring plots. Again, this isn't the case. If you look at the site plan, this is the last plot that doesn't have a building in this location. What we've essentially got is an area of land that's not in the development framework, but also not in open countryside. So, if for a moment we sidestep the principle of where that line is drawn on the map and look at the aims of local and national policy, which are essentially to provide sustainable growth in locations that can support it. Here we have a proposal for a house, for a local family, which has been acknowledged as architectural acceptable in a sustainable location with pre-existing access services within an existing pattern of development and which also doesn't set a dangerous precedent for encroachment to the countryside. So, we would argue in balance that this proposal meets the greater aims of planning policy. It's worth noting that this principle has been acknowledged across local appeal decisions within the last five years. Moving on to the driveway, there's two matters. One, it's been suggested that the introduction of a house would unduly affect the existing neighbouring access. I don't believe this to be a relevant planning matter for two reasons. The first, the proposal seeks to merge two driveways. The applicant owns both these driveways in their entirety and they maintain the right to use either driveway as required without planning permission. The current status of infrequent use is by choice and not any legal limitation. To put it bluntly, the applicant can choose to park on either driveway. They simply choose to park on the one that favours them at the moment. The second reason is that the applicant, Mr Celia Rhodes, currently lives as a guest of the owners of 90 High Street, so there's already three households using two driveways. There's no new traffic that will be generated by the house and any suggestion of intensification of use is purely theoretical. Whilst it's noted that merging the driveways is a material planning matter, this has been acknowledged as acceptable by the conservation officer. And you'll see from that photo that Jane showed what we've currently got is two very narrow driveways and a high hedge in between. The proposal is to merge those two driveways into one, which will drastically increase safety for all three occupants. And whilst we don't meet current standards for new build highways access points, we are offering the best that could possibly be offered within the historic setting. That's it. That's your presentation. Thank you very much indeed. Right, I don't think we have any questions for you. We now come to the debate. Does anyone want to lead off? Thank you chair. I'm looking at this and the only objection I see from our statutory consultees is from highways. It seems to be because of the disability displayed, but then from what the agent has just said, that doesn't seem to be a problem, so I am confused. And we have some clarification. Director. I wonder if the case officer can show the site access arrangements and just explain the basis. Thank you. Not a problem. One second. Can you see that slide? Yes we can. So this is, if I assume in a bit here, so this is the proposed access here. The hedge that's being removed is probably where this car is in the middle. The issue that highways authority have is this blue line here is the visibility display. And as you can see, it just cuts off the neighbouring property. That's the concern that they have that all the visibility space couldn't be provided inside the ownership. Assuming a bit further, it's this area here is their main concern. If we ask for an explanation of what that means in real life, does it mean that if you were coming out you wouldn't be able to see the person at number 88 High Street if they were coming out? Is that what we mean? Potentially the concerns from high authorities is you were coming out and you were turning left. You wouldn't have clear visibility up the path if something was either put in here. Of course, most visibility space requested by the local high authority would have a condition on them to be kept clear over a certain height. Of course, that's what we couldn't guarantee in this case if these visibility space were used. We couldn't guarantee that that small or that triangle there would be kept clear, which would be a condition requested by the local highways authority. Right. Councillor Radden wants to come back on that. I was just looking for the report of the highways. Thank you, Mr Rodgens. I just wanted to understand driveway, which you've got highlighted in grey, is obviously very narrow as it goes between the house line. I'm just wondering what would happen if somebody was trying to... Sorry, does it also provide access to the house to the right, which is number 90? Was it originally a shared drive and that's why 90 is so close? If I go to this plan, the first photo here probably best shows it. So this is the current access at the moment. So this is the access to number 90, which turns right on that photo. And then this is the access to the other property here. So as the agent said at the moment, this access, this one here, if you turn right to this property, turn left to this one. This access is owned by the current number 90. So to get to the new proposed property at the back, you'd still have to go down number 90's access as your cursor shows it. Yes, you'd have to go down here, towards the ray here. Do we have any photographs that show the viewpoint as a car would emerge from that driveway? These are probably the best ones I could get. So this would be looking left up the road here. And it's just this corner here is where the visibility display cuts off. And then this would be looking right down the other way. I don't have any photos stood here. I don't think we're going to get all the information we might want on that. Just on that point, it seems to me that we're talking about hugely marginal issues here. And we're not talking about a huge entrance to several properties. We're talking about one additional property. And so the number of exits and entrances on that seems to be really pedantic. I detect an inclination. Sorry, you wanted to interrupt me, Chancellor Bradden, and why was that? I think you were going to say you detect an inclination to maybe move on. No, that was not what I was going to say. But thank you for anticipating what I might have been about to say. I detect an inclination from comments. Forgive me, Chancellor Bradden. Let me say what I was detecting an inclination from comments in the room of a sympathy to approve this. But if we did so, it clearly being a contravention of the assessment of the Highways Authority. And I want to just seek the assessment of our director or indeed of the police officer on that. There are two issues that mount the reasons for refusal. One of which is the site access that you're being asked to refuse planning permission on. If you're of the view that the impact on highway safety is not determinative in this matter, then you're entitled to remove that as a reason for refusal. The other reason for refusal relates to the position of the dwelling beyond the settlement boundary, which you've heard from the architect, the rationale, and you've also seen the point in the report from the planning officers about the reasons why we believe that this isn't just a residential garden. This is a dwelling being constructed beyond the settlement boundary. We understand the points made about the functional or the relationship of the existing garden and its use. But in this case, the dwelling itself is beyond the settlement boundary. I think it's that. Were it just the domestic garden to the property, that would be less perhaps a pivotal issue. But in this case, my understanding is it's the building itself. And that is a broader policy matter. Although you've heard from the architect their reasons why they feel you should set aside that in this case. The matter is with you. You can see from the presentation and indeed from the comments made, the characteristics of the site. But yes, you are perfectly entitled to prove an application or refuse the application for the one or both of the reasons or indeed any other reasons that you may wish to bring forth. It might be helpful to have some comments on that particular intended refusal reason, which is a paragraph 79. I just wanted to ask a question about the agent suggested that there were many other adjacent properties with similar background developments. And I can't see from the Google map, for example, whether that's true. And I don't know if we've got a diagram or a map of properties in the immediate vicinity. I think we're bringing up a map that should hopefully show that existing property. And somebody mentioned the swimming pool. The application site itself has an outdoor swimming pool that's part of a domestic pool used in the summer. I think it's suggested in the garden. But I think the point that was being made is that it's a domestic garden at the moment, rather than the suggestion that it's open countryside, but it isn't a built upon garden. Right, Councillor Bradman. Sorry, is it appropriate for me to speak? I'm sorry, we have heard from you and I appreciate that you may well be able to help us on this point. Maybe I'm going to proceed with the debate which we've embarked on, so my apologies. I think what order we're going to take is in. So, Councillor Cahn first, if we may. I went out to look at this site because I wasn't sure about the application and the highway's access and the other. I wanted to see what it was like on site, on grounds. Obviously I couldn't see behind the building because I was any access from the road. As I understood, I didn't have the application with me. I thought they were coming out of the number 90 rather than joining the driveways together. If you were coming out of the number 90, the visibility was dreadful. Having heard what the proposal was, joining the driveways together and the fact that already the households are using the access, the access on the number 92 is actually much better. My general feeling is that it would improve the actual safety of the... I think it's a minor infringement of the visibility display. I'm not very worried about the highways and I think that would not be the reason for refusal. But it is outside the village development framework. That is contrary to our local plan. If we're going to maintain our local plan, we really would not normally encourage that outside the village framework. It's open to the applicant to seek on the field, to see whether an inspector would decide for the reason. But I don't think we should be approving it. That's the reason we're approving and downgrading our local plan. Nansal Abraddon, do you have any points to add? The point I was going to make when you thought I was interrupting you before was exactly what you were going to do, which was to say that you thought we might take it by affirmation, which I didn't want to do. And I just wanted to explain why I don't subscribe to that view. I was not proposing to suggest that we take it by affirmation. I'm hoping to move to a vote very shortly. How shortly depends largely on yourself. So what I wanted to say was that, notwithstanding the point about the merging of the driveways, which might make access more reasonable, what concerns me is the principle of the development outside the village framework, because this is basically garden development in the garden of number 90. And the building that was there before, as you saw, was very dilapidated and it was just a garden pavilion. It wasn't a house in any way. And so my concern was that I don't subscribe to us encouraging the development in that location for that reason outside the village framework and within the conservation envelope. And there is only, as far as I can see, one other dwelling further back, which is number 80. Right. Thank you. I don't subscribe to that. Councillor Batchelor. Thank you, Chair. I think we have two reasons for refusal in our recommendation, in our agenda. I think we've had discussion and debate around both reasons. We've had explanation on both from officers, as well as the agent. So I think there is much more to be gained by prolonging that debate. So I think we, as a committee, have enough information to make a decision. So I would like to move to a vote. My second. Right. Are we all happy we now move to a vote? Can we do it formally for technical reasons? Right. So the recommendation is refusal. If you agree to that recommendation, you vote green. If you want to approve it, you vote red. There we go. That's everybody. Right. So that is refused. Six to two. There's only one other item, which I suggest we need to do within the time. We have already told those involved in item 10 that we will not be addressing it tonight. We clearly don't have time for item eight. I don't think it's realistic for us to take the enforcement report, except that we can take that as red. That's item 14. Appeals against planning decisions. Is there anything that it is? I just said that we cannot deal with item 10 because we don't have time. Do you disagree with that? No, good. Okay. So let's pick a pardon. I heard you say that we didn't have time to deal with eight, which I quite agree with. But I didn't hear you say that about 10. Yes. Fair enough. Is there anything crucial that we hear under item 15? Or can we just take the note that is red? Are there reports for information? Yes, Chair. Okay. There is one further item, or two further items we need to deal with. Firstly, I need a proposal to exclude the press and public hardly relevant in order to approve the minutes of the previous meeting, which was, of course, restricted. Subject only to the appointment to councillor, which was made earlier on about repeating the item number. So do I have a proposal that we exclude the press and public, in which case we will go offline for this? Chair, sorry. Do we need to formally defer all those other items first before we go? Of a sooner-no-perception, and then come to this item. Okay. Can we have a proposal? Yeah, I'll propose that we formally defer the other items on our agenda, which is item 8, as listed, the former Bishop's site, Cambridge Road in Pington. And item 10, under 7, West Green Barrington. Do we agree that we've seconded? Thank you. All agreed. All agreed. Deferred. Item 716, exclusion of press and public. Do we all agree? Affirmation. Can we then go offline, please? And when you tell me, we'll then go to the last remaining item.