Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 20 May 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Tuesday, 20th May 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the May 25th meeting of the Planning Applications
committee. My name is Tony Felmson, I'm the chair of the committee. I'm also the
Councillor for Battersea Park Ward. Now I will ask members to introduce
themselves as they make contributions rather than go through everyone right to begin with,
but I will ask the people on the top table here to introduce themselves.
So Mr Calder. Good evening. You've already introduced me,
haven't you? Mr Calder, Head of Development Management at
Wandsworth Council. Good evening. I'm Gareth Pinwell. I'm the
Good evening. I'm Laura Campbell from Democratic Services. Thank you.
I never liked that name, Democratic Services. That means Laura takes the minutes and tells
us what we decided after I decided it.
Good. Good.
I haven't even gone on to…
I know you haven't. I just want to forget the business…
is one issue, which is about the withdrawal of St Anne's,
but also the late papers, there's an error in the map
of the first item, we deferred Skeena last time
because of issues, I'm a bit concerned
about lack of attention.
Thank you, Councillor Givindia.
Perhaps I can take it in the order I was intending
to take it in any way, and we'll get to those items.
But when you do that, I hope you will focus
on improving the quality of papers for public consumptions
as well as the committee.
Councilor Govindia, you are not the keeper
of this committee.
I know you're used to thinking that you are.
You're not.
I'm doing it and that was the order I was going to do it in.
And first of all, I ask members to declare
whether there are any interests or not.
No interests, right?
Secondly take the minutes of the last meeting. Have you seen them council humphries?
Is it okay if I sign them as a correct record agreed right?
Just let me
sign them
What's the date?
Right, what I was then going on to say
is that the second, sorry, which is it,
It's the item five on the planning applications paper.
I'm afraid it's withdrawn.
I can only give apologies.
There was a mistake in the,
between the figures in the paper
and the figures in the drawing.
And I was advised, not sure I needed that advice
because obviously it's correct that in the circumstances
we have to take the decision on the correct basis
of the correct information.
So I was advised to defer it.
So if you don't mind, members, that item is deferred.
Hopefully we'll get it done next time.
I recognize, as you do, Councillor Gavindya,
that there are one or two errors.
I'm just about to come to another one.
This is partly to do with pressure of work
in the circumstances that planning officers
are very thin on the ground in London
and there's a lot of competition for them.
So there's quite a lot of difficulties in that area.
And that's most unfortunate.
So whilst we're about it, I will point out
of that, the map, I think this may have been the point
you were going to make, the map associated
with the application dealing with North Drive 2024 -2059
application is slightly wrong and has been corrected
and is in the supplementary papers which I'm sure
members will have taken the opportunity to see.
Apologies for that as well.
I'm sure none of us like the papers to be wrong.
Certainly not deliberate, but a bit of pressure
in terms of getting things done and ready for the committee.
Now, if I can now move on to, in fact,
the plan, the applications, and the paper 25165,
North Drive. I'll ask Mr. Grainger to introduce it.
Thanks, Chair. My name is Nigel Grainger and I'm the East Area Team Manager. This is an
application for the erection of six sheltered accommodation units. They comprise of four
times one bed one person units and two one bed two person units within the rear curtilage
of the existing building.
These are single -story structures,
along with other works and landscaping,
including works to trees, alterations to outbuildings,
and creation of cycle and refuse stores.
You can see from the paper that there
has been assessment and discussion about applying
the right use class, which is important to then applying
the correct policy analysis in terms of it not being,
these units not being permanent class C3 residential units, but sharing the attributes of permanent
class C3 residential units. But because of the end user providing care for those that
are in need of care and the other details that have been outlined within the paper in
of controlling those uses, then this is a matter for assessing these potential sheltered
accommodation units as use class C2. The application is recommended for approval
subject to conditions and the heads of terms that have been outlined in detail in order
to control the use into perpetuity and there on page 38 and 39. It's recommended for approval
on these grounds.
Right, application for units associated with number 5 North Drive.
Any comments, any queries, any questions?
Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, Chair. Just a question of fact to start us off.
Sorry, Councillor Guy Humphries, opposition speaker on this committee and a Councillor for Southfields in Putney.
As you say Mr. Grainger, one of the key things on this is the use class and where we can go with the back gardens that we wouldn't be able to go if it was normal residential.
What I was trying to find, and I haven't succeeded in doing that, is have you got, and I'll sort of ask this first to give you a chance to have a rummage in your papers and see if you can find it,
a map showing how much the garden is being taken up as a footprint with the new development. Is there an illustration of that or if not a number?
I couldn't find one in the report.
I didn't have time to look online to see
if there was one on the papers in the report.
Or even a number which gives us a percentage of the,
that was, that's kind of key to the whole thing.
Certainly, there's in the external amenity space
in Parra 4 .14, page 28,
talks about the external amenity space.
I did actually think about this earlier as a question,
fortuitously.
And I'm gonna have to unfortunately work
a little bit backwards because there's a total provision
of 1252 square meters of external amenity space.
And that's divided into various uses from the rear garden
and the activities in the rear.
But if we work backwards and take the floor area
that's in the region of 273 square meters,
I think that we could equate that to be 10 %
sense of the overall garden take.
Councilor Govindia.
Councilor Govindia, East Buttey Ward.
Just in the area of the garden space,
in Power 1 .28 there's a reference to 50 new trees.
Can that be correct?
I mean given that this is a large site,
but not that large, and 50 trees seem to me
There's going to be a lot.
I just wanted to find that out.
And the second question about trees is that
there's a suggestion of translocating some of the trees.
Can you let me know whether we have had
translocated trees elsewhere and how successful
has translocation been?
I know it's easy to promise, but does it actually succeed
is what I wanted to know.
So on the question of the 50 new trees, obviously they're arranged between different specimens
so some can be more upright. They don't all have, you know, vast crown spread so there
are an array of different specimens all indigenous and that our tree officers will in future
get to. I mean there's a landscaping plan that shows an indicative layout but all of
this is to be examined at detail when the landscaping,
the landscaping plan comes through.
But 50 new trees, I mean, there are clumps,
there are specimens that are trees
that can be planted in clumps
that can survive that add to numbers,
but there are also individual specimens
that are much more grand and have larger tree spreads,
so crown spreads.
So we have to take the tree report
and what's proposed on face value.
And we also have mechanisms to ensure
that 50 new trees are provided upon further examination of the details.
So that is something that can be reviewed and ensured at a later date.
I don't have the expertise, I'm afraid, to advise on the success of tree transplantation
but as and when specimens come up I can only hope that the arboricultural expertise is
in place to give the specimens the best chance of survival
if they are moved.
Yes, Councillor Galbinder.
Follow that up.
I mean, I'd welcome when you are able to share the list
of 50 trees and species, I'd like just to think for myself
whether that's a good list or not.
And secondly, it'd be helpful if you could,
through Council's own agricultural,
find out where the translocation has worked elsewhere
in the borough and let me know.
Because I appreciate that.
On a slightly separate point on the same application, Jim.
I'm kind of concerned in Para 513,
the cycling provision.
So the applicant is required to provide cycling stands
in conforming to London plan and our requirement.
But given that this is sheltered units,
and given that there are wheelchair units as well,
it seems to me rather strange that we require
almost as a kind of a computer says,
so that's why it must be a reaction to saying
that's the policy, so you must have them.
Here's a charitable organization being asked
to provide cycling provision for its clients.
None of them will be riding the bike
or using the bike at an expense where the money could have been better applied elsewhere.
I just find that kind of, because the policy says we don't need to think for ourselves
approach to slightly dispiriting.
I must confess that I got some sympathy for that viewpoint.
I rather thought it myself, but presumably this is because lots of grandchildren are
going to cycle in and visit.
I wonder.
Any comment, Mr. Grainger?
Not really, I mean the area and location
that the main, the new cycling accommodation,
the cycle shed is going to be located
is hardly a structure of notable significance
in terms of how it's made and what it does.
It's pretty low key, so I don't think
I think it's a big financial drain
on the overall scheme itself,
and it's in a very discreet location.
So yeah, it meets a standard,
and that is the London Plan standard that's been achieved.
Go on.
I mean, I find that slightly, as I said earlier, disparity.
We should be able to think for ourselves.
There are going to be people of certain age,
and actually certain ethnicity,
where the chances of them actually learning or having bicycled and therefore continuing to bicycle in their old age is very, very slim.
We're asking them to provide a facility which may not be very expensive or a thing of beauty,
but nonetheless it's going to cost them something.
And I just think that because we don't think for ourselves,
We simply apply this policy and require an organization
that could apply the money to a better use
or a different use which might benefit the residents more.
I mean sure, it won't break the bank
and sure nobody will use those bicycle stands
and in time they might put them to some other use.
We will have ticked our policy box,
we'll all feel better for it,
but frankly it makes us look a bit silly.
Before I jump in and support Councilor Govindia further,
can we, I mean apart from the utility not being very clear,
cycle sheds themselves are not usually
the most beautiful objects in the world
and disused ones certainly wouldn't be.
So it's a bit of a negative.
But maybe we're missing some crucial thing
that Councillor Humphreys or Councillor Apps
is gonna put us right on.
Councillor, you were coming,
well, the IRA, you wanted to give way for,
well, the two of you, make up your mind.
Councillor Apps.
Councillor Apps, Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward,
and I can't resist saying that cars themselves
are not the most beautiful of objects in my view.
I wanted to come on to the purpose of the units.
I mean, so Mushka Asan is a very well known charity, it does incredible work within Wandsworth
and I'm sure none of us have any doubts about the public benefit of this, but I must admit I did miss
the little table which describes the kind of, you know, how many private rented, how many social
rented, because obviously it's not so applicable in this case, but I was interested to know, do we
know the basis of, is this a, is this sort of charitable unit where people will be for a shorter
time or is this going to be long -term residencies for some people requiring more social care?
Do we have a sense of what the actual use of the new units would be?
In short, it's more of the use class that we're seeking to capture because the whole
thing has to be regarded, even though they're divided up and you can say that there are
the next amount of units, the whole thing is acting as one planning unit as C2.
So it's unlike C3, permanent residential, where each of those units is an individual planning unit.
So this is one unit.
So that's why the heads of terms outlined at the rear of the report all seek to act,
to control this facility as an entity, leaving a lot of the day -to -day management and not
being overly prescriptive to the charity as to how they operate it and who they place
into it because it's their business.
Had there been a quantum of accommodation where it could then have triggered affordable
housing contributions, and then that's heavily nuanced as well in terms of what actually
qualifies for affordability contributions with nursing homes and extra care.
All of the arrangements go to seeking to...
It's largely, it sounds opposite in a way of controlling it, but the way it works is
to prevent these units ever being permanent residential.
Because if they are, they become a single planning unit and then they would be capable
of being sold on the open market and we wouldn't recommend six units or one bedroom units in
a back garden for just general housing purposes. That's contrary to planning policies if it was
used class C3. So because it's C2 and because we can control it in that regard as a single planning
unit as an entity and leave the management responsibilities to the charity but have,
you know, there has to be care provision, they have to be over 55 years old, all of those elements
that goes to controlling this unit in an acceptable manner as a care for as a extra care facility. So
It's about being prescribed
Finding the right balance of prescription to prevent something what's also enabling something
Councilor Apps
And so so do we make that so the plan permission is conditional on that being the case
but do we nonetheless worry about any sense of precedence of back garden development,
which is featured in more than one paper tonight, but obviously the other one potentially being withdrawn?
On this occasion, no, because it's class C2, so it's not a permanent residential unit in a back garden.
It has residential attributes, but they're controlled to be specifically for a person
at a particular time of period of their life that requires care, which is very much different
to potentially finding or assessing a residential unit in a rear garden.
Different policies would come into play.
So it's controlled by conditions, but it's controlled by a section 106 planning obligation
as well, which is the strictest level of control that we have.
So that's why we wouldn't, you know, we could never condition the heads of terms
that are outlined in page 38 and 39.
They wouldn't be enforceable.
So we have to obtain these particular controls as provisions within a section 106 planning
obligation which obviously, as you all know, which is a deed on the land and a document
and that's enforceable through injunction.
Thank you.
Ah, Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, I'm afraid I haven't got anything
to contribute on the bike shed issue
other than to say that you gave me an idea.
I've made a note, I'll allow Councillor Grimston,
I can see a potential illustrated pamphlet coming out,
bike sheds of Wandsworth,
which might be a mass market appeal.
My question was a bit more down to earth.
I note that all the units are one -bed, one -person, or two of them are one -bed, two -person units.
But it says in Para 1 .7 on page 15 that the applicants' agents clarified that although
care staff would not be permanently based on site, they would attend as required and
have the capacity to remain overnight where necessary.
So it might be restrained beyond the realms of our planning hat here, but I was just thinking,
where will they stay in the main building or somewhere separate?
because obviously there's capacity,
I don't think the immunity for the people in the home
isn't going to be encroached on by a carer on a camp bed
in the living room or whatever it is to make that work.
I read that as well and thought the same.
But I have, I've slept next to an injured child
at St. George's Hospital overnight.
And I think if somebody really did not need
that level of care, then a pull out bed in a living room
is something that could easily be provided. So I thought that's how I thought about it
and I thought it squared up.
As long as that was on an emergency situation, not as an ongoing situation where somebody
needs to regularly might have to rethink their housing provision if that was the case. Right.
Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Councillor Ayers.
I'm Fina Ayers representing East Putney for the Labour Party. Mine follows on from Councillor
Henderson's conversations about the management of the caring
that is going to be provided.
I was concerned about the workers, the care workers,
have a totally tough time, as I'm sure you probably all know.
I know it personally because I had care workers come in
for my late husband.
And they are very stressed all the time.
And they need, I would have thought, one space,
and I hope it might be provided in the main house,
as a sort of staff room.
And then going on from there, are any of the parking spaces
designated for the care workers?
I mean, like reserved for the care workers?
Even the bicycle spaces could be reserved for the care workers.
And I'm also concerned that the bedrooms where a lot of the care will take place don't have
a lot of space for the workers.
I had to do some domestic alterations for there to be space for the care workers to
work around the hospital bed that my husband needed at that time.
And so I'm a little concerned about the bedroom being just a bit tight for a care home.
Overall though, I think it's a very good scheme.
I think the natural lighting is good.
It's not a greedy project.
The sill heights are low, which is wonderful.
You so rarely see low sill heights in developments these days.
So I'm delighted about the sill heights
so the old people can sit and stare through the windows
at the sparrows pecking around in the garden just outside,
instead of having to look a long way away.
And there's small detail that one of the hobs
is right in the corner of the kitchen,
which is not where you should have your hob,
but that's a tiny detail.
But overall, I think it's a good scheme
and I will support it.
I imagine the pictures on page 10,
which I guess one could loosely describe
as an artist's impression, are not completely inaccurate.
And going back, I mean I'm sure they're not
absolutely precisely to scale,
and there's no intention that they should be.
But when I think it was Councillor Humphries
started at the beginning said how much of the space is being used. One can get an
approximate idea there, one from the pictures and it does look quite nice.
I don't normally make these comments, nor do any of us, but I do think that people
who write in with comments really ought to spend a couple of minutes thinking
about their comments.
When you look at a development like this
for a purpose like this,
and you get comments about the scale
and massing coming through,
I can just suggest to whoever wrote that,
they ought to come and try and live in parts of Battersea
if they're talking about scale and massing.
The various comments here that are, frankly,
do not actually show the objectives in a very good light,
in my opinion.
I don't know whether other people share that view,
but I wouldn't normally make that remark,
but it's a bit extreme in this case.
Go on, Councillor Gavindya.
Well, if it's open season to have a go at objectives,
I find it interesting that there are objectives
to various applications on this agenda,
and previous ones who have absolutely no relationship
with the location.
And they come from great distances.
And yet there are list as being objectors
and making up numbers.
And I just wonder whether there is any provision
for us to make a judgment about star rating
or something similar to say that if you live there
as in case of the next application in Coolsden,
the chances of you knowing anything about
tweeting back road is only as you're making your way
to Coolstone rather than anything else.
I do find it sometimes amusing where people live
when they make an objection to an application.
My favorite objection of all time on this,
you may well have been on the committee at the time,
Councillor Galindy, and no one else will have been,
but was an application for something
at Battersea Power Station.
and you may or may not remember Battersea Power,
for those old enough, Battersea Power Station
starred in the front cover, the cover of Pink Floyd,
LP I think they called them in those days,
and we had an objection from the Pink Floyd fan club
of Australia objecting to the fact that we might be
doing something to the Battersea Power Station.
I think that's the most extreme I can recall.
A little bit more local.
There's been some concerns raised about the impact
on Streatham Park Conservation Area.
I myself live in a conservation area
and have some very special characteristics.
And I think most conservation areas
do have their own particular character
and the nature of why that area is special. Could the officers please detail what is special
about this particular conservation area in full? I know some of the details are in the
report. And what impact do you think this could have on it and whether or not you think
that that impact is mitigated?
I can only steer you to the summary of what characterises the Stratton Park Conservation Area.
It's quite spacious but it's also supposed to link in with some of the heritage assets with the London Borough of Lambeth.
We do have quite lengthy documents that go into this that I don't have memory of on recall, I'm afraid.
and we've got quite a lot of conservation areas, but...
What the proposal...
This is harking back to a lot of items we have on the agenda,
not least what the discussion relied on last cycle about harm.
And when a proposal is considered to exert less than substantial harm,
what public benefits flow from the development in order to mitigate that harm.
And there are several physical,
I mean, not as stark as the main item of the last cycle.
This is a single story.
So not for the very beginning, it's already at an extremely low level
that doesn't particularly challenge the existing heights of the garden perimeter wall.
So the degree of harm, the building is still within a conservation area,
so we still have to assess, it's not about the other debate, it was about the setting.
We're actually in one now, so it has to, it's different.
We still have to assess that degree of harm, it being less than substantial as we've identified,
and then look at the public benefits that flow.
So in this instance, if you recall, there were three strands to the NPPF,
GPF, social economic and I can't remember the other one, it will come to me, but certainly
in terms of environmental, there you go, in terms of the social benefits, it's very, very
clear what this does in terms of the social benefit and what this could do for the community
and the charity in terms of the client base. And there are other situations in terms of
the economic benefits that are less.
I mean, that can be regarded in a weighing table
as a significant benefit.
But economic -wise, you know, there'd be a small period
of economic activity through the construction phase,
the employment of care staff
would provide an economic activity,
and the environmental benefits are through the provision
of a building with a high percentile of CO2 saved.
It's got a very high urban greening factor,
which it technically doesn't really have to perform
so well in that regard, but it's very good.
I think it was .66 over .4 being required.
And the landscaping improvements, the replanting.
So all of these various elements go to act
in the application's favor in balancing
that less than substantial harm that's been identified and it led to officers arriving at
the conclusion that that the harm can be balanced and be recommended overall as an application.
Thank you. Okay so um can I come back again? Yes. Yeah it was specifically on on the issue of the
energy savings. I noticed on page 36 .5 that it says based on the energy hierarchy that
the Be Lean stage will be achieved, which is great, and that is due to the excellent
insulation, so we're reaching some passive building level. But the Be Clean measures
could not be incorporated because there's no existing or proposed networks within the
vicinity for combined heat and power CHP systems. As I understand it, that's something that
we haven't yet had in any application because that doesn't yet exist in Wandsworth, is that
right or is that?
It does, I believe, my understanding is that there are some parts in the Nine Elms Opportunity
community area that are set up for it.
Certainly what we do is when there's any new buildings
come forward, we have to make sure that they've actually
got the technology within the application
to be able to connect to it as a bare minimum.
But I don't want to say yes or no
whether there are actual functioning areas.
I don't know.
But certainly it's something that's
thought about in the future.
but they're typically for major applications.
Okay.
Mr. Calder.
Yeah, there are examples where on the Ram Brewery
it was looked at.
And so I think there is one for the first stage.
It was meant to be linked up with further stages,
but there's been problems with the adaption
to different ownerships and the movement across
because they tend to work better in a more central location,
such as ones with town or in the Nine Elms area where there's a lot of development going around.
On this sort of location where you're set away from a lot of things it's almost impossible to achieve
because you can't get that balance or enough units to be involved in it because it's quite expensive.
And I think a lot of them have been discounted these days because a lot of them are based on use of gas
which obviously doesn't help at all if you're trying to be more sustainable.
Okay, well I think it's a rather good scheme.
I think most others do as well.
So is this application approved by, what is it, seven votes to zero?
Okay, thank you.
The clerk has told me off and I deserve it for not taking apologies right at the beginning.
So do we have apologies?
Apologies from Councillor Boswell and apologies for lateness from Councillor Caulkley.
Okay, right, so moving on. By the way, I think some people in the public gallery were here
specifically for the application we've just considered. Yes, indeed. That means we've
accepted it and it's going ahead. I hope that's okay with you and that's it as far as an
drivers concerned, so if you want to leave,
I mean you're welcome to stay, but if you want to leave,
and you are indeed leaving, I think some of you
are coming through here, are you?
Thank you.
Your comments are appreciated.
Do come through here because I think some
some of you may have slight mobility problems.
Right, moving on to application number two, the ELMS Tooting Beck Road to Redevelop, no,
extend, improve, shall we say, this unit
with the addition of six flats.
Can we have an introduction?
Certainly, Chair.
Okay, this is an application to essentially win
six new flats out of an area underneath
the existing building, the Elms at 45 Tootingbeck Road.
It's an undercroft, so it's accessed from grade
from Tootingbeck Road, and there are two garages,
so it's not a basement, it's just an undercroft.
It's a space underneath the existing building.
But you can see it was constructed in 1966
from the planning history in page 49.
and the area underneath it historically,
I mean at one point you could get
some rather small cars in there,
but there are piers, structural piers,
all around that lower ground floor area,
and the sides have been traditionally used
or certainly more recently been used for storage,
whilst at best you could have parked just a couple of cars,
certainly not a large four -wheel drive affair, but a more conventional car in the lower area,
but there was no formal setting out of spaces or anything like that.
So it's proposed to convert that space into two one -bedroom flats,
one three -bedroom flat and three two -bedroom flats.
and along with that there would be the excavation,
or it's more of a whittling away of land
around the lower ground floor,
if you understand where I'm going,
because those areas are being exposed
to insert new windows with some roof lights
going into these areas as well
for amenity spaces for these new flats.
So also the front elevation is proposed to be remodeled,
and basically made good with more appropriate materials
to give that front elevation a new lease of life
and make the whole building look a bit more up to date
and visually appealing.
So this proposal is recommended to be approved
with conditions.
Right, I must say it reminds me a little bit of,
I'll get drummed out of my party for this,
but it reminds me a little bit of the hidden homes,
which is the one successful, I thought.
Sorry?
No, one of the very few, I'd say the only one
of the successful housing elements
of the previous administration's housing policy.
I remember, I mean, there are undercroft developments all over the place, certainly in parts of
my ward, and I remember one particular Labour representative opposing them very strongly
on some grounds or other, and I thought then it was a very mistaken view, and I think it's
now a very mistaken view, but they were very good, and this looks similar.
Any comments from others?
Councillor Humphries.
I would agree with you, Jay. Mr. Grainger said that it's ticked the box as far as making it look visually much more up to date and appealing from where it was.
I just had one slight concern, and you referenced it earlier, about the parking. So, as it says in 10 .4, that's all going to go and there's going to be no parking on site.
I just wondered what the arrangements are,
because I think the existing residents of the building,
if they use it, I mean they're just by default
losing their parking space, if that's where they,
and I understand under like the London plan
and all the rest of it, it was a new development,
we wouldn't have any parking at all anyway.
But in the sense of losing existing,
is that just a generic thing, or is it, as you say,
it wasn't marked out for particular bays,
for particular flats or anything like that,
but I just wanted to, I wasn't sure the status
is in the existing residents are sitting tight and staying,
and this is adding on more people around them.
And would there be any impact on those existing residents
who have had a parking space
or have got accustomed to having a parking space
and now won't?
From what I've seen,
I've been past the site a lot of times,
I've never seen those roller shutters ever, ever moved.
And from what I've seen from images
that the office has taken from site visit,
and also the applicants images,
is that a car being parked in that lower,
in that undercroft just hasn't occurred
for years and years and years.
And I think the, and that's coupled with a few things.
There's ownership that people actually don't,
are just not owning cars,
and that there was some,
it was a little bit of a free for all out the front.
So, you know, there was an arrangement out the front,
but I certainly don't think it's akin
to any of our estate improvements
or additional homes in our estates where there's a real specific need for employment purposes
or anything like that. I don't think it's comparable in that regard. In terms of impact,
obviously the overarching London Plan and our policy is about car restraints, so we're
certainly not going to lament the loss of some car parking spaces.
Okay, thank you. That's the biggest impact on the parking, probably with the fact from
Sainsbury's next door where people weren't able to park there and nip in and buy their
pints of milk, etc.
Again, Councillor Gavindya.
Thank you, sorry.
Some of the objectives, particularly those living on Louisville Road, commented on the
balconies being inserted and the rear elevation.
I looked at the drawings and I couldn't see any balconies.
I could almost see effectively French doors
with sort of glass balustrades.
Is that, am I right?
And are they wrong in thinking
that there are new balconies being inserted?
Well, they're right and you're wrong, unfortunately.
So if you look at the building,
it was described as an H -shaped building.
I think it's a very,
it's a rather rotund H shape, shall we say.
So if you look at the rear elevations,
there are two projecting elements either side,
left and right, and there's a small recess.
So the six units in between the recessed elements
would have very small four -square meter projecting balconies
inserted one above each other in the center section.
So that's where they are.
What you were looking at,
you were trying to spot them on the projecting elements,
but they're Juliet's or flush balconies,
as Mr. Calder has a very big thing about Juliet balconies.
So yeah, there are small balconies.
In, oh, Councillor Apps.
Thank you very much.
Given that Councillor White is not here,
I feel I must take on what he would have said,
which is that, so for one time only special,
that all of the properties are private,
there's not even any intermediate rent,
let alone affordable rent.
It's disappointing in a context where the cost of living
is making it very difficult for people to afford
the kind of full private rent or private buy prices.
Was there any discussion about having some available for even intermediate rent within
this development and if not, why?
As I have explained to Councillor White on numerous occasions that this is a six unit
scheme with a trigger for affordable housing being 10 units or more.
So we have no policy scope to require any of these units to be affordable.
Just to add to that, if it had been within a couple of years we might have looked to
because the total would have gone way above the threshold but the original building was
built in I think 1969 or something so there's a bit of a disconnect between those and we
we wouldn't be able to pull them in to be one development.
The owners obviously trying to get as much value
as possible and why not?
I was wondering whether in the pre -application discussions
they ever talked about going up a floor
and having a floor on top?
I can't say yes or no, I wasn't party
to the pre -application discussions.
I was dealing with other matters.
Right.
Okay, any other comments on, I think Councillor Ayres was.
These flats are really rather good, I think.
But dual aspect, which is quite clever
on an inner city site like this.
They've got reasonable circulation of rooms.
You don't have to go through the living room
to get to the bathroom.
I think the bit at the back where there's a cycle storage for those two backflats is
really cunning, so well done.
I like this scheme.
Good, we're not objecting to the cycle storage on this particular occasion.
At the back, there's four bicycles parked on a really cleverly.
Councillor Amps.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I had a question about the amenity space.
It seems like the amenity space is basically
the same for each property more or less.
The one bedrooms have 10 square meters,
as do the two beds, and the three beds
have slightly more, 15 square meters.
Sorry, this is 8 .4.
Is that usual, and although it meets the,
I believe it meets the kind of bare minimum,
is, would it be better if there was a better spread of that? Would that make it a better
scheme?
Are you looking at the table on page 64? No, it's all about meeting these amenities -based
standards, so our policy requirement is explained on the right -hand column, and this proposal
meets all of those. It's nothing really to do about spread, it's just basically meeting
what the policy requirement is and in some cases where the layout has been favourable
and more patio space due to light wells etc. has been able to exceed some of these standards
at 18 square metres. What we don't tend to encourage with developments such as these
is very, very large amenity spaces for quite small flats because they can encourage larger
gatherings of people that sometimes in situations in sensitive parts of the location of the
site and or in elevated places where we certainly don't want that as sound could obviously carry
and be amplified.
So this is perfectly within policy parameters and yeah, it's another reason why it's recommended.
Okay, any other comments on the ELMS? No. Is the planning application approved?
Agreed unanimously. Agreed seven votes to zero.
Sorry about this, folks, but I'm going to adjourn for five minutes, and I'll be back.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. If we can move on to item 3 on the planning applications paper, and that's a proposal
for a pocket park in Swaffield Road. Ms Richards.
Thank you, Chairman. The application is for a pocket park on a site which is currently
a vacant nursery. That was the previous use, children's nursery. It was actually handed
back to the Council in 2020 and subsequent to that in March 2024, the residents submitted
a petition to the councillors requesting that the site be turned into a local pocket
park for leisure and activity for children in the main. This was presented by Councillor
Paul at the time and agreed to. There were 279 signatures on that petition, so there
was a great deal of local support for this. The council went out and did a feasibility
study on the potential for that particular use, which has led to the proposal that has
been presented to members this evening. The details of the application speaks for itself
really in terms of the benefits that this will bring to local residents. There have
been quite a few objections associated with it, largely to do with things to do with safety
of children at play, road safety, any impact on pollution for children being close to the
road and so on. While all of these are relevant concerns, I think also in terms of antisocial
behaviour, there was quite a lot of concerns about that potentially. But as you see within
the report, all of these issues have been addressed quite thoroughly by not only planning
officers but our consortees as well in their responses. In particular, you will note that
the Met Police have commented on it and made recommendations in terms of ensuring that
safety and security is maintained at the site.
The park would be maintained and managed
by our parks department.
In terms of safety, I think there's quite a bit of concern
about children safety close to the road.
The gates have been designed in line
with relevant British standards to ensure that they are soft closing and that they are
inward opening so that this reduces the risk of any children running out onto the road or being
able to leave the park unaccompanied. Generally this is anticipated to be used mainly by local
residents and their children rather than anybody traveling from afar so there have been a few
concerns raised about parking. But it really is meant to be a local facility, more like
a doorstep play facility really, where parents would probably take their children probably
before or after school, before dinner and on the weekends and also for older people
to go and enjoy a bit of peace perhaps when the children aren't there. There are a couple
benches provided for people who aren't going to the park with children who want to sit away from
the play area but then there are benches designed within the planting proposed so that parents can
sit nearer their children to watch them as they play. The play provision themselves, the details
have been submitted and they are quite minimal in terms of impact and scale. There were some
concerns originally and I think in the report we reported that it was going to be dog free
but subsequent to that we have had, and this is reported in the late papers, that it won't
be a ban on all dogs because I think we are a nation of dog lovers but the actual play area
isn't is going to be a dog free zone so dogs aren't allowed to be on the play area but
otherwise they've confirmed that any litter or dog litter can actually be placed in the bins
that are proposed to be there as well so in general all of those concerns it's hoped that
that meets everybody's needs really as far as a park is concerned.
Crucially there are 11 very well established plain trees on the site.
These are all to be retained which is wonderful because any other potential use of the site
such as structures or buildings potentially would harm those trees
both at root level and in terms of their crown and potential growth.
In addition, these seem to offer good mitigation for any concerns about pollution, but they
also give adequate shade, both in sun and less -clement weather, I should say.
Generally, I think this is one of the most positive applications that I've had the pleasure
to bring to committee and so the recommendation is to approve.
Can I just confirm, you said the Met Police were happy with it?
Yeah, okay.
Sorry, I was just going to say subject to certain conditions.
There is a condition attached for CCTV provision, details to be approved, but there is also
There is also a condition in respect of setting up potentially, well sorry forgive me, not
a condition, it's just been confirmed by the Parks Department that they would be very interested
in setting up a Friends of the Park group with local residents so that they are, because
it so well observed if you like across the street and around that you know that
we would that we would be able to pull together a friendship group or
whatever you call it or local group that would get involved in in in the care of
the park. Okay thank you any comments any views
Councillor Owens, Councillor Govindia.
Thank you, Councillor Owens and Northcote Ward.
I did enjoy reading this, particularly, obviously,
the design, but the different types of plants
that are being proposed in the saving of the plane trees.
I just had a couple of questions,
because I couldn't see in the papers.
You don't have the layout of the play area itself.
And I do recall we had a new play area in my ward
just pre -pandemic,
and there was quite an extensive consultation.
I realize you have had one,
and obviously there was one date last year, I think,
when people could go along and have a look at the plans,
but I'm not entirely sure.
And there is a bit of a difference between a play area
for five -year -olds and a play area for 12 -year -olds,
exactly what it is.
But I appreciate if that is something
that is coming along a bit later.
and just on the dog free area,
would there be some sort of boundary
to stop the dogs going into the play area?
Because I haven't got what the play area,
I've got a little bit of the tower,
which is in the plan there,
but I was just wondering if you could hear a bit more
on that, and I'm sure my colleagues will want to talk
about the boundary wall and antisocial behavior separately.
Thank you.
Thank you.
In terms, in the late items,
a plan for the dog free zones and dogs on leads areas,
so there would be signage or indication.
People would be made aware of the fact
that they're not allowed to take or allow their dogs
to run onto the play area really.
That would be the plan has been provided
just to indicate that the play area is not to be,
dogs aren't allowed there, but elsewhere on the park,
people could bring their dogs
as long as they are on Leeds, I think.
Okay, Councillor...
Okay, Councillor of India.
Thanks, Jim.
I'm sort of looking at the Wands of Society comments
about the boundary wall.
I mean, it's unfortunate that the design,
and those who designed it, haven't done enough work
to celebrate an old structure
and retain as much of it as possible
and try and make it a feature of the new use.
It is very unfortunate.
It's probably the only distinctive bit of wall
on that road and harks back to the previous use
of not only this site but the quite a large site there
which is used for as a workhouse and so on.
It's not a showstopper in terms of planning application
but it's definitely a criticism of those who propose
this application as well as those who design it.
That they have taken no regard, paid no regard
to the historicity of this place and celebrated
something of the features, retained as much of it
as possible and so on.
So that's all I have to say.
Interesting.
Any other comments?
Councilor Apps?
So, Councillor Shaster in Queenstown Ward again. Very pleased to see this application
coming forward. It's been a long time coming. Obviously, it came around after a result partly
of Councillor Paul's petition that was handed in which showed wide public support. I suppose
it shows the problems when you actually get into the particulars. With the planning process,
it's harder to get that level of engagement that you can with a wider petition.
I also was interested in the remarks around the Bassey Society about retaining parts of
the wall.
I thought that if that could be, there could be an advisory or if we could ask them to
look at whether or not that would be possible, but perhaps you can tell us that it's not.
However, I think there's a lot to welcome here.
first of all the biodiversity, looking at century plants as well, to make it a very
kind of inclusive part and also really pleased to see that we've got porous paving stones which
makes such a big difference in terms of at a time when we're at risk of droughts and floods of
course. And also just to add, I was really pleased to see the close inspection around
when community concerns came to light around crime and disorder, to see that's really been
looked at and planned into the design to try and avoid that. But I think it's important
that CCTV is employed as and when needed as well and where it's needed and that we keep
that under review. Thank you very much.
Okay. Were you going to say something? Go on.
I was going to respond a little bit because both councillors have raised the issue of
the wall. I visited the site fairly recently with the planning officer just to inspect
this aspect because we also care about heritage and features that are historic around these
old sites. And that was a lot to do with seeing whether or not because it's a partial, the
wall is to be lowered in order to make it more visible actually and more secure if you
like for people to be able to look into the play park for security reasons. We looked
at the wall and I know our officers in conservation would have looked at this as well,
but the wall is in pretty bad condition with a lot of on the corner where the feature is that
the ones with society refer to. There is some decorative brickwork at the base
that we picked up on but it would be very difficult to retain all of those as it stands now.
there may well be an opportunity for us to retain a lot of that wall as part of the development
because I think there's a lot of, there's a sort of a pattern on the base of it, but it's a balance
between, you know, retaining historic elements if those are in fact historic and actually making
this a safe and functional park for the proposed use. On the flooding aspect, I think currently
the site is largely hard standing or covered with buildings. So what is proposed will ensure
that there would be better drainage associated with that and also we are in a flood zone
too but actually our records indicate that the site itself isn't subject to flooding.
but in any event this is going to improve matters as far as that's concerned and I think that was it.
Okay, Councillor Gavinda, Councillor Humphries.
Chairman, it might assist the committee to know that for the last 30 years I walked past this wall
perhaps ten times a week if not more. At no point have I seen that wall move or pose a risk or danger
to anyone, although there is a much later wall
belonging to the housing department,
which is covered in Harris fencing at the moment
and has been for several months.
Despite the presence of very mature 11 trees,
this wall is solid as it's solid can be.
It could be much, the base is wide and the panels,
maybe you need to cut into the panels
in order to allow for surveillance of the play space.
but the idea that this wall poses a risk or a danger
or is unstable, my God, for 30 years it hasn't been
and I cannot believe that it is at risk.
There may be features in it that need repair,
but to just dismiss it as something that,
because it needs to be lowered, we can forget about it,
is just short -sighted.
Council Sánchez.
Sorry.
No, no, Council Sánchez.
Thank you, Chair.
I echo those concerns about the war, I have to say.
I think, as you say, I appreciate it's always a balancing act
between trying to get the amenity we want now
and the historical side of stuff,
but I would urge officers, and I'm sure they will anyway,
but to try to make sure that every possible bit
can be retained, because I think it would be a shame.
It's meant to be a space for young people,
and if young people don't understand about the heritage
of where they grow up and where they're living,
it's, we should be able to work together as best they can.
So I understand there needs to be modifications made to it,
but as much as possible it could be retained.
I think everybody would appreciate that.
That wasn't actually what I was going to ask about.
We all welcome, obviously, I shouldn't need to say,
we all welcome new green spaces and play spaces
and things like that.
We never have enough of them.
And it's very welcome to see that.
I do slightly worry in this application
that with the attempt to try to get so much in for every
we've got the dog bit and we've got the children's bit and we've got the thing about ASB and all those issues.
A lot of the rationale behind how those things can be made to work is predicated on
the aspiration and the hopes that various other people are going to contribute.
So I would like to know it's going to be for definite that we'll have the CCTV
rather than it's going to be something that we will try to do or maybe do once in a while or whatever.
I think if that isn't there from the beginning,
it won't take long for people to know that it's a place where things could go on that we wouldn't like to see.
So I wouldn't want this great thing to be spoiled.
And in a couple of years time I was thinking,
oh goodness, it's a right old mess and it's being misused and all the rest of it.
I think we need to make sure we can do everything we possibly can
rather than just hope that we're going to get a friends group
and hope that the dog walkers won't go in there.
To be honest, I know in my patch, and Miss Richards is right,
we've got, you know, Nation of Dog Lovers and all that,
but a lot of the more recent dog owners unfortunately
aren't as civic minded as they should be.
It reminded me of when we had that walk along
the new linear park at Nine Elves
and there's all this lovely new planting,
which some of it has been ruined
and the landscape architects were promoting the fact
that the dogs were running a riot there
and it was being abused by some dog owners,
not all dog owners.
So again, the wish and the hope that dog owners
will respect it and not take the dogs
where they shouldn't go and all the rest of it,
there isn't a wall and all the rest of it.
I just wonder if we're not being a bit optimistic
and we want to do everything we possibly can
to make sure those things do happen
rather than it just being a wish
and then it isn't really possible
and feasible to do it in real life.
I must say your experience and perhaps Council Givens'
is rather remarkably different from mine.
I can remember walking down streets in,
well, particularly low -lying gardens.
I used to live in Albert Palace Mansions,
when you were pretty lucky to get home at all
without putting your foot in a dog.
I would have thought overwhelmingly
people are much more responsible about dogs
than they ever have been.
I mean, they're not perfect, some people still are not,
but it used to be a completely different order.
And if we took that argument,
we'd never have pocket parks anywhere.
And what's so wrong with the pocket parks
that exist in the diner of they could all be,
they could have, sorry, you guys have your say.
I don't have my say very often.
I'm saying it now.
You can be against everything easy enough.
But Mr. Rich is going back to the wall.
There is going to be, I was quite interested in,
on site of the wall, it's in a sense,
It's in a design sense, it's in two halves, isn't it?
There's the lower half, there's a kind of line
rounded in from what I've seen.
Are we taking, are you thinking that the top half
would go and be replaced by railings
and the bottom half would be as far as possible kept?
Is that the kind of general impression?
Yes, because I think as, well as I saw on site anyway,
there are very distinct elements to the existing wall.
And so you could actually integrate the new design
with elements of the existing wall, certainly.
You know, it's weathered, for sure.
And there are certain elements of it
that do look in poor condition.
I didn't suggest that it was at risk
or that it was beyond a lifespan that could be retained for future use. I could suggest
that we put an informative onto the recommendation to ensure that further discussions are undertaken
with officers.
I think there's a grunt alongside me there. Does that mean Mr Calder, you thought an informative
might do help?
Well, not only that, but we could get Councillor Gavincia to survey her, because he seems to
be an expert in such matters. But yeah, I think an informative just advising that to
any chance of further retention of that.
Mr Calder probably knows that I'm not a surveyor by profession. I'm happy to give him the advice,
but what I don't want him to do is certainly say,
we can't take that advice
because he's not a qualified surveyor.
So be careful about what you think I can do.
But what I can say, and going back to Miss Richards,
the top bit of the wall is a more recent addition
to the Victorian bit.
And so you can get rid of the top bit
because I don't think it's distinctive enough.
And you could probably, you might need to lower
even the Victorian bit, but you can do it sensitively
so that as much of the panel,
and perhaps take a bit of the panel out
and then create a new smaller panel.
It's just thoughtfulness.
I think the informative makes that quite clear
and I'm sure Mr. Richards will take those comments.
Right, subject to that, is everyone happy with this?
Count Sanfries again, you coming back on?
No, okay.
Is that agreed then?
Unanimously, thank you, thank you.
Moving on to Skeena Hill. Again, Mr Richards.
Thank you, Chairman. This application was deferred from the last committee.
This was due to an error on our system which didn't notify residents who had objected and
had an interest in the application of the fact that it was coming to the Planning Applications
Committee and it was the right decision to defer it to enable those residents to make
any further comments if they wish to.
Also, at the time, there was, as part of the objections in any event, there was a lot of
confusion between what had previously been refused by officers and what had then subsequently
been dismissed at appeal, and what then had been approved and what was now being proposed.
Members will note that an addendum report has been prepared which hopefully clarifies
these in illustrative form, which is easier than actually trying to describe it in words,
which I think seem to confuse people more with all the various measurements and so on.
So if you turn to page 104, you will see figure one and two, which show the, and this is in
the main addendum report, not the late items. So you can see that the figure one and figure
two are of the scheme that was refused. You will note that this proposal included a rather
large hipped extension to story, which was considered too large from officer's point
of view and bulky in this context, and particularly in terms of its impact that it would have
had on the neighbouring property at number 38. Also, you would note that the back extension
and the terrace also extended to a deeper depth than what is currently proposed. On
page 105, you will see that Figure 3 and Figure 4 show you what the side extension has already
been approved, that was a separate application and that has been approved and is also extant,
which means that the applicants could actually implement this and build this in any event.
When you look at Figure 4, which shows you the extent of the side extension and the terrace,
these are now the same as the ones proposed under the current application. In any event,
whichever way you look at that, those elements that are still at that garden level and opposed
to number 38, these could still be implemented because these have been approved.
Okay.
And then, sorry, I just want to clarify on page 106, this is actually an illustration
for you of what is currently proposed. So again you will note that figure five shows the
that the first level extension and how that would appear relative to the main house
and also from the street and again you will note the side elevation shows that the extension has
significantly reduced in scale because it now sits below the eaves of the main house
and also has been set back from the front to take into account the impact that that would have as
you view it from the street and the overall impact that it would have on the conservation area.
It's hoped that the addendum report has clarified matters sufficiently for members to take a view
on the application.
Thank you.
Sorry, I thought you had finished.
Any comments or is it agreed?
Councilor Devindia.
Thank you.
Thanks, Chair.
I've had a correspondence about this with Ms. Richards,
so I'm happy with some of the things she said.
The one remaining question from me is about really
the expanse of the brickwork between the application site
and number 38 on the new side extension.
And the concern from the neighbor is that
at the last application which was dismissed
and refused by us and also the refusal upheld on appeal
said that the kind of blank, the brickwork expanse
was oppressive in a lot.
And I think it's been reduced but not substantially.
That's the judgment of the neighbor.
but just as we want to have you on how the expanse
of the brickwork in the flank wall between 38 and 40
now will be.
Well.
I think the most significant element between the two schemes
really is that the entire hip roof element
has been completely removed.
The first floor extension has also been reduced in overall depths, as you would view it against the main wall,
so the bulk of that projecting, if you like, nearer to the boundary with number 38 has reduced as well,
with a pitched roof that sits below the eaves. So that is significant as far as officers are concerned.
In addition, as set out in the addendum,
as well as in the late items,
the depth of the rear extension itself is now 5 .4 meters.
So there has been a reduction there of half a meter.
So overall, you have to take all of them
in the appeal decision.
the inspector was taking into account the entirety of what was going to be added onto the side of the
building, including the roof and the expanse on the side. And so in its totality, the inspector
agreed with officers' view and assessment that yes, it was going to be too overwhelming and
unneighbourly for the residents of number 38, we consider the amendments to be sufficient
in terms of overcoming that objection. And in addition, it has been reduced in length
as well from the back. So again, as the late item sets out, the objector has again raised
the issue of impact on sunlight and daylight on the garden.
I think it's quite clear if you were to look at the plan,
which is on page, this is in the original,
when you see the location plan,
on page 110, and those of you who are familiar
with Skeena Hill, the Skeena Hill on the north side,
so all the gardens are north facing.
The layout of the plots, they sit in pairs.
Each house is set in pairs.
And because of the curve in the road,
each one has a slight step in them.
So the objectors property sits approximately four meters
in front of the application site,
which means in turn at the rear,
yeah, the rear of number 40 then extends further
rearward than the back of number 38. So it's inevitable almost that anything that would
be built at the rear of number 40 would in some way have a more visible impact for them.
Having said that, the orientation of the buildings is such that there is limited material impact
in terms of daylight, sunlight because the sun would have set almost as it comes round
to the garden area so overall officers consider this to be acceptable now.
Obviously Councillor Govindia has had constituents or concerned people saying the opposite whether
he agrees with them or not is another matter. Is the application agreed?
Agreed. Agreed. Can I just say that I had a letter
this very late this afternoon, far too late
for it to be taken into account about the people at 38
having talked to the neighbors and think they
may have come to a compromise of some kind or other.
I hadn't ignored that, it's just that we have to
make a judgment on the application in front of us.
If those negotiations between neighbors work successfully,
to everyone's satisfaction and I'll be delighted,
but we'll have to decide on the application in front of us.
Okay, thank you.
Moving on to number six, eight, Victoria Mews.
Any comments at all or just everyone happy
with the Council of India?
Just a little confused about
the construction management plan.
I think in the body of the report,
it suggested there wasn't a need
and then there is a condition that there will be one.
That's all I'm sort of concerned.
Just want to make sure that they will be one,
given that this is a cul -de -sac
where I would have thought that removal of spoil
and delivery materials and all that
will be quite a touchy subject for the neighbourhood
and a plan would be a very helpful thing
for everyone concerned.
Do we have any comment on?
The condition actually relates to a construction and environment management plan which is associated
with ecology and lighting and so on.
Our transport officers did not require a construction management plan on this just because the site
itself, when you look at the plot, there is sufficient space on the site itself to take
any spoil and so on and park any construction vehicles and what not. So it wasn't considered
necessary in this case. Also it is a private muse and so it's not public traffic that actually
would be interrupted in this. So this is a particular site that can actually deal with
that.
Councillor Gaviria.
I appreciate that Victoria Mews is a private road and there won't be public traffic on
it, but the issue really is it's still a narrow road with a limited number of uses, but if
there was an approved egress and exit arrangement for the construction vehicles, it would be
useful for the neighbourhood to neighbourly, and they would know what's happening, and
So long as it's happening in accordance with that,
at least there is a solution.
Otherwise you could have rouse about
the lorry blocking my drive and all of that.
I mean, I just wonder whether there's any way
in which we can be slightly more indulgent perhaps
to the rest of the rest of the interviews.
I think we are talking about indulgence
in very, very small areas.
We're not exactly in the neighborhood relations business.
So sometimes we very nearly are.
Any comment?
I think the difficulty would be in terms of because it is a private road,
I'm not sure whether or not we would have powers to actually enforce any of that in terms of comings and goings,
apart from at the entrance point where the public highway is.
I am basing that on my understanding that construction management plans are associated
more with the public highway which we are able to control.
Mr Newbold is quaking at the thought of having to enforce this.
We understand, but yes, I understood.
So can I suggest, maybe we'll look at doing an informative,
asking them to look at access non -egress
into the main road, not in Victoria.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, thanks.
Well, subject to that informative, everyone happy?
Agreed, agreed, agreed unanimously.
Thank you, move on to Mr. Raybould.
And I'm inclined to think of the first one
as being in my ward though isn't any longer.
About the flu in the wrong place, obvious,
well sorry I mustn't prejudge,
but everyone agrees with the recommendation.
For a flu, I thought it was the one thing
that was bound to be utilitarian,
if not anything else.
Okay, subject to that literary objection
which I'm sure Mr. Abele will take note of in future reference, move on to Noroi Road.
Any comment about Noroi Road? Sorry? You can comment? Go on, Mr. Abele.
I can do a brief overview if you want. I'll keep it super quick.
No, I think… Is that late item?
Yes, no. Sorry, I'm being mystical to suggesting that
We need to mention the late item.
There is a late item indeed.
The neighbour next door did make a comment that there was an error in the report as far
as the report referred to two -storey extensions at the rear of other properties in the street
and they are not in fact extensions, they are original parts of the building but does
not have any bearing on the officer recommendation.
Everyone agreed with the recommendations?
Agreed.
Move on to treat preservation order.
That's the next in papers, is it?
Actually, the next in the sequence it is.
Can I say to the Democratic Services, I don't know whether you're responsible for this,
but the planners said that they weren't.
The photographs as they come out on the version that the members get are completely, well,
Putting it as obscure would be a very polite way
of describing it.
That's right, so can we ask the Democratic Service
if they're going to do this in future,
would they make sure they do a better job?
Do you know what I'm talking about?
We'll show it to you if you want.
I'll show it to you afterwards.
The photographs are just terrible.
But subject, assuming the photographs show trees,
which is perhaps a questionable remark.
Are those tree preservation orders accepted?
Agreed, thank you for that.
And then we move on to the decisions paper.
Noted.
Closure of investigation files noted.
Closed appeals.
Actually I was gonna ask something,
but I'll leave, I'll ask that afterwards.
Closed appeals, anything noted?
Thank you and good night.
Thank you.