ing spaces not being policy compliance and also the building height on this occasion and I haven't always agreed with our statutory consultees but on this occasion I don't feel in a position to second guess our urban design and highways officers regarding those two points so on balance I will likely be supporting the application as I said unless I hear any any strong arguments the other way so that's where my planning balance is lying at the moment councillor Fein please Chairman I have very little to add to what you've just said but I will do so anyway I think we need to bear in mind both the historical and geographical context for this as others have mentioned this has been a nice for 16 years it's worth bearing in mind that the previous application on this site 2019 was for a similar building which had been designed before the next door building which happens to be two stories with Apex now on the question of design I think we have to take very seriously what the parish council say they would prefer a two story building with an Apex roof but as the director pointed out and others have confirmed this is a very mixed geographical context there are a lot of commercial buildings not all them very smart along that site and I think we have to respect Mr Darson's systems that having gone through this process with urban design and taken into account their views the current proposals have been informed from this process that went on until May of last year that he and his company sticks by their original design proposals for this and I think we should respect that just on the minor matter of the car parking I think perhaps unlike Councillor Hawkins I am satisfied but because of the the communities around it and the very good public transport available there it is reasonable to that the car parking needs likely car parking needs are met and there would indeed be some minor improvements as far as arrangements for next door are concerned with the potential for turning and going out on to Cynliad's road Cynliad's road forward so taking into account those factors I am like you Chairman inclined to support the officer recommendation of this Thank you very much Councillor Fein Members I think all of us have chipped into this debate now but I will offer members an opportunity to add anything that hasn't already been mentioned or back up a point that they made earlier Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair for letting me come back Let me just make this clear The design team do a very good job and they know I support them so it's my objection to this is not to do with the work that they do is to do with this side where it is and the fact that we need I know where this is going but we need to make sure that we don't stick a finger at local people by insisting on having landmark buildings where they don't want landmark buildings We are not the ones going to live there we are not the ones I mean yes I go to the post office I go to the shop and the thing is when the shop is busy people park on Cambridge Road sometimes almost all the way up to where this second entrance is going to be so when they have visitors what's going to happen where they are going to park it's a busy road at the best of times so just clarifying that No I think that's all clear Do any members I think we've all given a view one way or the other on this Do any members want to add anything that hasn't already been said? No I don't see that Do any members want to ask any final questions that will help make their mind up or are we in a position now to make a decision on this I think we're there then Members as I think we are going to be split on this we will do an electronic vote so I'm going to ask Democratic Services if they could set this up so the recommendation is on page 162 and that is to grant approval for the scheme that we've been discussing with the various conditions that are outlined in the report so members what we need to do in order to vote is to register we're here if we're in agreement with that and we want to vote for approval we press green to vote against it we press red and to abstain on the decision we press yellow so if all members could vote please how many of us are there 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 so I think that's everyone if them services could display the result in the absence of being able to display on the screen I'll read out we have 8 votes in total 6 votes in favour 2 against so that application is approved so thank you very much everyone for all your input and with that members I think we'll probably have a lunch break there so it is 11 minutes past 1 if we come back at quarter to 2 35 minutes we will then carry on with the rest of the agenda so thank you very much everyone thank you officers and we will break there thank you thank you very much and everyone welcome back to this meeting of South Cambershire District Council's planning committee we're up to agenda item number 9 today's proceedings which starts at page 177 of our PACs members the application is at number 61 Street the End West Wickham the application in front of us is the replacement of an existing single glazed window with a double glazed unit the reason this is in front of us is because it's been called in by the local member council the Jeff Harvey the applicant is Mr Robert Giles and the presenting officer who's joining us physically in the room is Mr Tom Chennery so Tom I will hand over to you to let members know if there are any updates to the report in front of us and then to introduce the report for members please share my presentation so just bear with me a second thank you chair there are no updates on the application the proposal seeks list of building consent for the replacement of the windows and doors at the host site which is a grade 2 list of building known as 61 Street the End West Wickham the officer officers are recommending refusal of the scheme the slide shows the site location plan of the farm obviously there are no adjoining neighbours apart from the building to the north which is also a list of building the next slide shows once again just an aerial imagery of the application site the application site is the site in red so as chairman stated earlier the application has been called in by council Harvey the main considerations that we request the members consider today are the impact of the on the fabric and the significance of the list of building of the proposal and we should also be considering the public benefits of the proposal and the weight that this carries there is some history on the site and there has been some minor alterations to the building and the last dating back to 2015 just run the members through some slides of photos of the site and these are taken pretty recently I think about a week ago and this is just the front elevation these are views from streetly end itself so this would be from a public viewpoint towards the dwelling there are some outbuildings which do block some of the views from this road this is a viewpoint to the west of the site from the public footpath there is some mature vegetation in between but the house is visible from the public footpath and the next slide shows once again that this is from the public footpath itself so it does show that the windows and those are visible from public viewpoints so the applicant within their information within the application provided some details of dating which windows are to be replaced I've refrained from using recent images of this because the applicant's images provide a bit more clarity so obviously the red lines point to the windows that are seeking to be replaced so all of them on the front elevation although it's had chaotic the image also shows that essentially all of the windows and also the back door on the rear elevation would also be replaced the same goes for the side elevation this is not the side that faces the public footpath this is within the farm the farm itself but all the windows are being seen to be replaced and this elevation is the side elevation as shown on the previous images so this is the elevation which is visible from the public footpath and all the windows on this one are seeking to be replaced within the heritage statement they provided a table indicating what is to be replaced describing the current windows and also what they were to be replaced with so the windows would be replaced with pine windows so they would be double glazed and I understand they would have a thickness of 24mm within those windows here are the sectional window details that have been provided to us of the windows this is as much information that has been provided regarding how they would appear so regarding the council's determination there is a hierarchy of policies starting with section 16 of the Listed Building Conservation Areas Act so it starts with that it then filters down to the National Planning Policy Framework in which section 16 is very clear in how the council should determine an application specifically regarding listed buildings paragraph 200 states that any harm to a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification it specifically relates to a Grade 2 Listed Building and then paragraph 202 which is also important for this states where development would lead to less than substantial harm this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including where appropriate security is on the viable use next hierarchy of policies within the local plan which policy HNAH 14 specifically relates to this and then the next one down would be the Listed Buildings SPD which is a payment document there are some details I will refrain from going through each of the documents and what specifically what they say but if members would like to come back to that later point for more detail I'm more than happy to that would be the Historic England guidance so there is guidance regarding specific guidance regarding the modifying of historic windows and energy efficiency when it comes to blazing and also the repair of windows on historic buildings so regarding the application as a summary there were no adjacent neighbours so there were no objections no response from Westwood Comparative Council the conservation officer was then consulted on the scheme they objected due to the appearance not being in character with the Listed Building the replacement windows would fail to make a positive contribution to the Listed Building and as such would be harmful and as a result the proposal would be contrary to local plan policies Historic England guidance and also the MPPF the sustainability officer was also consulted although they were supportive of the principle of development they did note that any double glazing or any effect of change in windows would be a benefit but there was not enough information to fully assess the proposal and in addition to this there was no other detail provided regarding other environmental performance improvements that could be achieved just the double glazed windows on their own I've just highlighted the member comments because there was quite a lot there's a bit of history on the site but I just thought I'd make it clear this is also in point paragraph 8 of the officer's report this is all highlighted within there so just to conclude the proposal is considered to cause harm to the significance and fabric of the building the public benefits in this instance would be the environmental benefits associated with lower energy use the council considers that the proposed benefits are considered to be limited and that limited information has been provided in order for the council to fully assess the difference between the existing windows and the proposed and that is difficult to assess the carbon footprint impact as it is difficult to assess the carbon footprint because obviously with new windows there is the whole life carbon cycle that detail was not provided and no information has also been provided in the other works that could be carried out to the building which would have a greater impact on the efficiency of the building thank you chair thank you very much for that presentation thank you thank you very much for that presentation Tom members we do have two public speakers on this but as usual if anyone has any questions of clarification for the officer on their presentation please do say now councillor Hawkins thank you chair thanks Tom just a simple question really did the applicants refuse to provide the information because you made quite a number of statements about not having enough information were they asked did they refuse why don't we have the information I was not party to when the application was first submitted and the decision being made for refusal so I wasn't I'm not entirely sure of the conversations that were had regarding that all I can comment on is that the information was provided with the application the sustainability officer did highlight that within there I can't comment on whether they refused or not sorry thanks for that clarification it's just when I looked at the list of documentation there's a lot from pre 2020 but I can't get anything going forward I just wondered why correspondence or communication and it is been we've had it a long time anyway from my I was not the original case officer dealing with the application so I can only advise on what I was dealt with from my understanding of the application essentially the council had already come to the decision quite some months ago but we were waiting for comments from the sustainability officer and for the application to be able to go to committee which is why there was quite a long period between those dates we also do have the applicant with us today so perhaps we can ask the applicant directly about that Members any further questions of clarification on the officer's presentation then I can't see any so with that we will then come to the applicant so Mr Rob Giles who's already in position welcome I understand you've got a bit of showing tail for us as well you brought a few props to aid your case as it were I know you've been here for most of the day so 30 thank you for your patience secondly rules are the same as with the other speakers so three minutes to address the committee at the end of which there may be some questions of clarification for yourself so if you wouldn't mind staying seated at the end and then we'll take any questions should there be any so please if you want to pick anything up and get it in position before you start please do but three minutes in your own time sorry would you mind pressing the microphone button it's the silver one on the right you're on South Cambridge council declared a climate emergency in 2019 and that it is green to our core as the residents of Street Yen Farmhouse we cannot agree that our proposal would adversely affect the character of our home when the current windows are standard 1980s single pane pine their replacement has no impact on the fabric of the building and the original window openings will not be affected the windows will have a lifespan of around 40 years a transient change for a 400 year old building and it's highly reversible in the future to paraphrase 199 of the NPPF the more important the asset the greater the weight to the asset's conservation compared to other grade 2 listed properties such as Alexandra Palace and the iconic BT tower our house is of less unique significance it does not seem the converse principle of the less important the asset the less weight should be applied to its conservation is being applied no historic feature would be lost the property has been significantly altered over time lost its feature chimney stack and had an entire section demolished the conservation officer is content we fit double glazing yet insists on 16mm heritage glazing as submitted to the planning officer some parts of the window trade highlight heritage windows do not meet the EN1279 standard and as such are illegal to fit I have a 1980s window and one of our current 24mm windows here to present to you the 24mm window does not have the negative features that the conservation officer refers to to pass by the 16 and 24mm windows would look identical in the photo provided to the committee it is difficult to distinguish between the current single glazing and the 2015 double glazed window which you saw in the photos and there is a far greater difference between the current single glazing that we have and the 24mm glazing that we are proposing the statement that 16mm glazing is somehow more appropriate and 24mm glazing is not is prefaced by preferred it is the personal opinion of the conservation officer not based on any historical basis whatsoever we have provided data showing that the 28mm window will be 30% more efficient than the 16mm heritage window extrapolating from this using a straight line comparison a 24mm window will be approximately 20% more efficient we cannot create a direct comparison the data is not available to us but it is obvious that a larger gap gives more energy efficiency energy efficiency With a cost of living crisis a climate emergency and a green to the core council I cannot see how the council would deny us any opportunity to save energy as much as practicable with a transient feature of our home Thank you very much almost to the second so thank you for keeping to time I know you have the windows here I probably would be helpful if you maybe brought them in front so members could see I put them there side by side I wasn't sure whether the members wanted to go up so on the left hand side I have a window removed from my home today from the middle floor and on the right hand side we have the window which was installed in 2015 when we achieved planning permission and it was signed off by the planning authority to have a 24mm glazing window so effectively what we want to do is replace all of our single windows with a copy of the one on the right which is already installed in the home so the main issue seems to be the thickness of the frame so I think it's probably better if people go up and they can actually assess the window We have a glamorous assistant Mr Kelly bringing them in front of the committee so we can have a look as it seems to me this application revolves around the aesthetic change I think it's handy if members do get an indication of what the one on the left which is the current and the one on our right or my right which is the proposed new window I think it's useful if members for those watching online we have a few members just inspecting the windows we haven't gone quiet for those members that do have any questions for the applicant if you can wait until we're back at the mic so everyone can hear what the questions are and then the responses will be helpful I think that was helpful if you can visit there where the site came to us so I appreciate you doing that for us Mr Giles that's helpful so following that members do we have any having had that presentation do members have any questions of clarification for Mr Giles the applicant there Councillor Williams please Thank you very much Mr Giles I think you mentioned in your presentations some data about the energy efficiency can you just confirm but it would be useful to know when that was provided and who was provided to in this long process I submitted it by email over the last year I believe so the data came from George Barnstale who we have had the quote and the technical drawings from they were able to find me with a 28mm comparison but not the direct 24 at the time and I haven't chased it any further Thank you Councillor Sanford Thank you chair a similar question from me can I refer the committee to paragraph 4.4 on page 179 which states the conservation officer states that no details of the exact materials of depth of the window were submitted the applicant of the local council would dispute this would you like to say by all the information required to the conservation officer I thought we did I thought we sent in fairly comprehensive plans it became quite apparent with the previous conservation officer when she came to a site visit that in her opinion it was best that we kept our current rotting windows and fitted secondary glazing something which we did not agree on so I did very much lose faith in the process at that point I think following on from that we hopefully can clarify the council's position on that a bit further so yes that's obviously the conservation officer's comment but the applicants and the application file online do show the information submitted on the 5th of March by the applicant around this the sustainability officers response to that additional information was to highlight obviously there with me a second I'll just open it but I seem to recall that they highlighted the weren't seeking to dispute the the figures but were suggesting that notwithstanding those figures just there with me a oh actually sorry sorry just because I was obviously partied to the sustainability officer's comment I think the details were submitted by the applicant regarding that I think one of the sticking points especially the conservation officer and the sustainability officer had was that the details that were provided were of the wrong window type so it was 28mm so we weren't able to accurately assess what sustainability benefits would be available as a result of that the sustainability officer did comment on it and they did mention that essentially that there would be sustainability benefits as a result of the details that Mr Giles provided however they did comment within their comments that there is up to essentially it's not her position to comment on whether the impacts of the listed building are that's not for them to decide but they also went into quite a significant detail about potential other sustainability or energy improvements that the Dirling could achieve that would not necessarily cause harm for example insulation etc so but obviously we're not considering that we're only considering the windows so I think it's important for members to understand that yes additional information was provided however council is of the opinion that that information was not sufficient enough and as relating to the MPPF that it's a clear justify clear and convincing justification to outweigh the harm but that is for members to decide whether the sustainability of these windows would outweigh the harm essentially but that detail was received and provided and that was consulted upon with both the conservation officer and the sustainability officer thank you councillor Fane has a question for Mr Giles yes Mr Giles I don't know whether you've ever had an EPC done on your house if you have it would have recommended certain measures including double glazing and it would have assessed the potential cost and impact of that but if that's not the case have you gotten the information on the U value of the two windows under consideration because this is the key factor that would determine its benefits in terms of energy efficiency and carbon saving we've not had an EPC done on the property great to Mr properties are exempt so it's not need to be done for any instance of sale or rental purpose although we could yes have one done however that has a very niche field the property was extensively renovated in the 1980s so it has been clad in cement render amongst a number of other features what we have tried to apply is the natural influence whole building plan kind of concepts so at the moment we're just trying to get windows through but we need to get the windows done before we can get the concrete render off and then redo that render in line so there is a whole building plan that's fairly simple for what is a wooden framed building boss and age in terms of the U values that data was submitted specifically with U value and energy numbers but for that 28mm window not the 24mm however taking a straight line comparison between the 16 and the 28 I think it's fairly safe to assume that 24mm does offer that 20% increase in energy efficiency in actual fact it's not going to be a straight line because the benefits of the thickness of glazing dissipate as they get thicker so we should have probably between 20% and 30% increase in efficiency Thank you very much Members any final questions for Mr Giles Councillor Hawkins you're looking quizzical If I may I've just been looking at the I think it was a letter you sent on the 5th of March last year and that was one that had the email from George Bansdale who are the suppliers I just need to clarify this because the email from George Bansley talks about 28mm glazing not the 24mm I presume you asked them to ask for information on the 24mm not 28mm So I believe I had a phone conversation with the lady who provided the data the email which came through was for the 28mm not for the 24mm I did send an email to try and get that changed but I think they thought they had provided the information and I haven't had a response from them and I haven't chased it yet it would have helped and this has been going on for sort of three years and it's taking up to consider about my time and I had to draw a line somewhere I think that has answered the question Members if there's no further questions to Mr Giles it just needs me to say thank you very much for taking the time to come in and speak to us today and for dismantling your home to speak to us today we really appreciate it So with that members we'll move on to our next speaker who is Councillor Harvey and it's worth just reminding everyone that's watching that Councillor Harvey expressed an interest so he isn't taking any part in the debate or vote on this item but he is still addressing us as local member so Councillor Harvey if you'd like to give us your thoughts in three minutes that would be great Yes thank you chair I did have a brief word before this so I was wondering oh yes thank you Lawrence a brief few seconds in lieu of a site visit so this shows the cat slide window above which is the 2015 double glazed unit that we've got in the chamber here compared with the 1980s unit and you can see the 1980s unit is actually on a 1950s extension and tiled extension and notice on the reflection of the original single glazed window that even in 1980 joinery precision was such that you can't actually see any of these effects that talked about on page 181 where we're supposed to be able to see slight angulation in the different panes leading to a sort of additional visual interest because actually they're completely co-planer and if you look at that very carefully of that effect at all in other words if that were a single pane of glass with a fixed glazing bars it would look identical. If you can move to the next picture that just gives a closer side by side comparison again you can see the one on the left effectively it could be a single co-planer piece of glass you wouldn't see any difference and then on the right the 2015 double glazed unit here in the chamber and then the final picture please and this just shows the internal and you can see on the left hand picture what's interesting there is that contrary to what the conservation officer said in her original report the spacer bars internally are not aluminium coloured, they've been coloured to match the frame and I think to the inattendent passerby you'd agree that those two pictures would look very similar. I would also draw your attention to in the pictures photographs that we saw earlier the thinness of the vertical bar in the photographs and I'll now go on to my written presentation perhaps preface that by just saying that a lot of additional information has been brought in in this report that wasn't raised in the original report on the portal and that partly answers Councillor Toomey Hawkins' point National Planning Policy Framework gives the committee discretion to weigh the balance between the harm to a heritage asset and a public benefit and this council has both declared a climate emergency and past emotion that this balance should address climate change in effect the MPPS says the less important the asset the less of the weight should be given to heritage conservation so inevitably in some cases public benefit and climate change mitigation will outweigh conservation in the judgement of this committee though the MPPS obliges us to give great weight to heritage conservation nowhere does it say that we should not also give great weight to climate change mitigation and we should we are in a climate emergency the argument for refusal is based on the assertion that climate change mitigation has no weight or is negligible and on page 186 of the report section 1024 the conservation officers consider that the energy saved would not be discernible at a public benefit level and by this flawed logic we would never act on climate change since individual efforts would always be diluted by the enormous volume of the global atmosphere now I don't know about fiddling Rome burns but this is an example of fiddling the maths while Rome burns on page 182 section 6.16 we are told that we need the figures on the overall efficiency of the building we don't the payback period both in carbon cost and money cost is entirely determined by the interior and external temperatures the heat losses would be the same in whatever house the windows fitted heritage grade implies that it is now a superior product but in engineering terms it's an inferior one and I've read of concerns in the industry that many of these heritage grade units as Mr Giles mentioned would not pass British standards 1279 part 2 for moisture penetration nor part 3 for gas leakage rate and gas concentration tolerances glazing bars compromise the seal design leading to increase moisture presentation and gas loss and make it more likely that these units are in landfill before repaying their embedded carbon cost and embedded carbon cost is something that is important and has been overlooked in the report because it does affect the planning balance and it needs to be justified now what is the difference in appearance that causes the 24mm double glazing unit to be ruinous to the character of this building while a 16mm one is not please judge this in a modern context using the discretion that the law gives us Thank you very much Councillor I think it was very helpful for the committee Members do you have any questions of clarity for the local member Councillor Fane Chairman, Councillor Harvey referred to the motion which was passed at this council can you just remind us what that required the council to do in terms of assessing the benefit that you referred to It required us to give our reasons in terms of climate change mitigation for a refusal and it also required us to make available if necessary a senior sustainability expert Haven't got the motion in front of me I think those are the two substantive items Members any further or final questions for the local member I don't see any so Councillor Harvey thank you very much for that presentation with that members we'll move into the debate so as usual we still have the opportunity to ask questions of clarity of officers and we can start formulating an opinion on this one please Members Councillor Hanley to start us off It's the first time I've ever got in first with a question I have to say I've no reason to doubt that officers have applied the rules that have established that this is in no way a commentary on their decision making at all but we're probably having a discussion today that should have been having 1985 quite honestly this isn't having to caught palace or a chocolate box cottage on the river store we're talking about a family home which has already been changed substantially over the years and surely the rules that apply to this house should be quite different to those that would apply to one of those properties that I've just described it just seems to me as an anomaly here this gentleman and his family want to make their houses as energy efficient as they can make it and basically the appearance is not going to be changed by what they're doing from what's there already so I know rules are rules but I think here we need to show flexibility and I think almost we've got a bit of a test case to be honest because this could well happen again with a similar application coming again if we get better advice and guidance to officers to apply to maybe buildings which are substantially historically you know have to be protected and those which are listed but have been substantially changed as this one has over the years I think we just need to have some common sense on this one to be perfectly honest thank you Just briefly in defence of the officers they do work to policy so they're quite limited in the decisions they make but I appreciate your comment I was making at the beginning I'm not doubting that they've applied the rules as they stand, it's up to us to change the rules and I suspect that we may have to look at this after this case Absolutely I think the point's been taken I think Mr Kelly will have to come back on it Just for absolute clarity the legislation is exactly the same for Hampton Court policies it is for this dwelling but you're quite right that you're required to consider the significance of the heritage asset in the assessment of the harm to it and and have regard to that when considering the public benefit but it's not Councillor Harvey said that there should be a legislative provision in respect of the climate emergency that the fact of the matter is is the way the planning regime is configured is that there is a very clear emphasis that you have a statutory obligation as the planning authority to consider in the very first instance before everything else the presumption in favour of preservation of the assets now that doesn't mean in today's context that you can't reach a decision that's contrary to officers but I think in discussing this matter today it's really important that you understand that you have a legal obligation or anything else to consider the presumption in favour of preservation you then need to consider and you're not bound by your conservation officers advice you do though need to understand the framework of the decision and particularly the role of heritage buildings heritage assets in that so it's not to decry the significance of the climate emergency but the planning legislation doesn't recognise it in the same way at the moment and I just want to make that clear before you make your decision the decision is with you but a number of statements have been made about we need to rebalance this and the legislative provision and Vanessa will correct me would be not at this moment in time you can't do that you're required to approach it through that legal framework you can weight the public balance differently and you can consider the significance of the heritage assets and the significance of the features of the heritage assets but you are always bound to proceed on the premises of a presumption in favour of preservation and then the harm and the public benefit trade officer that Councillor Harvey and the applicant have highlighted and indeed which the officer reports also just to be clear then Mr Kelly if we take a decision to not support the officer recommendation today that might happen I mean you know who's going to appeal again to what we decide today is it something we can do legitimately? Of course you can what you would need to conclude is that in your view the public benefit associated with the improvement in the performance of the building and its carbon footprint is sufficient to outweigh the harm to the heritage significance of the building that you have assessed having regard to all the matters in front of you so I'm certainly not saying that as a committee you cannot draw that conclusion but a number of statements have been made about the policy emphasis and the way the policy lies and I just want to be clear that it's one of the few areas in planning where there is a very clear registry mandate for you in terms of your purpose and that purpose starts with safeguarding heritage assets and you can then form your judgement away away from that or indeed away from the recommendation I think it's useful for the committee members to understand that Vanessa Thank you chair through you just to confirm you can take your alternative view to that that's been recommended there would be the applicant I'm sorry so can you still hear me so if someone didn't like the decision of the committee they would approach you by having a judicial review not an appeal because that would be the applicant and they wouldn't be that presumably the applicant wouldn't appeal an approval should we go down that rates I've got a few other speakers but Jeff can you switch your mic off first thanks Councillor Williams is next on the list Thank you chair and thank you Mr Kelly as well I think that was very helpful I'll be brief having seen the two windows and having seen the photographs I think my view is that the harm to the heritage asset is minor if we were talking about the windows themselves being of some heritage value so if the windows were fitted in 1689 I would require a slightly higher burden to be passed to rip them out but given that they wouldn't they were fitted in the 1980s I think the harm to the building to the heritage asset is minor as a result of that and I think is more than outweid by the public benefit that we've talked about so I can't myself see any reason not to approve this with the caveat of course that I think the officers have done their job correctly and I don't criticise the officers but I come to a different view Thank you very much and as has been mentioned planning is a balance all we as committee members choose to to proportion that balance Councillor Sanford please your next Go on Peter Thank you chair Councillor Dr Williams actually made the same comment that I was going to I cannot see any difference even fairly close up between those two windows and I'm sure anyone passing by the property would not notice a difference so I think we are the heritage asset we're just predicting in a different way to which the officers recommended Thank you very much for that and we have Councillor Fein please Well this is a balance clearly as the director and our legal advisor have explained our first duty here but there is a balance against the public benefits of the proposal it is quite clear to me as was set out by Councillor Harvey that the windows proposed would be likely to be significantly more lower U value and to have greater public benefits probably to last significantly longer like others I find it difficult to see the difference I recognise the expertise of the heritage and conservation officers on that I think SPD chapter 11 relates to existing windows as was pointed out these are replacement windows that we're talking about we're not protecting the original windows I'm sorry that we weren't able to look at the actual U values because that is the key test but I think it would be very hard to say in terms of this council's commitment to both in our business plan being green to the core and in the motion that Councillor Harvey referred to and the procedures that apply to our consideration of such cases that we did not regard the energy conservation as well as other conservation as being a high public priority and one that should weigh heavily in cases such as this and given what I've seen of the windows themselves I found it very hard to say we should not come to a different decision from that recommended by the officers okay thank you for that because of Stay Barty waving at me so reflecting Councillor Williams Councillor Sandford's view actually like the express view that the visual the change to the visual just looking at the samples reflecting on what they might be like if the slightly thicker frame was installed inclusion we can draw is actually there's very little difference visually but you know if the proposal had been for triple raising and a slightly thicker where would we have drawn the line I mean we seem to be drawing a sensible line I think but are we learning properly from this example as to what is an acceptable point so I would support my colleagues and also their views but I just want to be sure that we're not in the sense creating a decision point which is in some way arbitrary I just want to be sure that yes if we did this again we'd reach the same conclusion or in a similar set of circumstances we reached that conclusion so we thought of an aesthetic and we've concluded that it's okay would we be sure to apply those same standards in the future in other words we'll be learning correctly in making this kind of fine judgement I think that's a fair point to make Members we've heard lots of comments positively for the application does anyone of the same view of the officer and think the application should be refused or speaking in support of that recommendation I don't see anyone so I'll Councillor Hawkins Sorry I just wanted to make a point I was putting my hands up before you mentioned the negative bit I just wanted to say on our website on the Greater Cambridge Planning website we do have a page that talks about how to make historic buildings more energy efficient and changing windows or making them more tight fitting is one of those and I support what my other colleagues have said but I just wanted to make that point I do support making this energy efficient changes and of course for me the fact that we already had approved when I was in the 24mm previously approved says to me that there's no reason why we can't approve another set of 24mm windows to be used thank you So what I'm hearing is I think the general consensus I've misread the room is that members are more inclined to approve the application rather than refuse so I will offer officers an opportunity to come back on that before we do make a decision Thank you Chair Obviously we've heard the debate I think if you are minded to approve the application contrary to our recommendation we would recommend that you included a condition capturing the approved plans and details that were submitted that are on the website that show the window dimensions and so on because that seems to have been a central part of your judgment and also that you require the conventional condition in terms of time limits for commencement of the works but it is a matter for you you've weighed up the significance and impact on the heritage matters and but my recommendation would be if you do draw a conclusion to approve the application that you include those two additional conditions alongside your decision So I can summarise one is the usual condition around time limits for undertaking the work and the second condition was around building to the approved plans that we have on file for this particular property is that correct? Members, should we vote in favour of this application does anyone have any issues with including those two conditions as part of the approval? Nope, okay Members, last opportunity for any questions or final comments before we go to a decision? Nope, I don't see any so we have a recommendation on page 187 in front of us which is to refuse the application for the various reasons outlined Members, what I've been hearing is that members are are generally supportive of the application so can I ask if anyone wishes to vote to refuse or wishes to abstain on this? No, I see no one indicating so can I take it that with the two conditions that Mr Kelly just outlined we're all in favour of approving this application? Agreed? Yes, okay we'll take that as a unanimous agreement then obviously without the vote of Councillor Harvey who's withdrawn for this item so that application is approved so thank you very much again to officers and Mr Giles for helping us with that decision with the physical demonstration of the windows so thank you very much for taking the time to come into us today Members, I think we've been going for about four hours now can I just get general agreement for everyone that we're okay to continue? Is that agreement? Agreed? Good, thank you very much Okay Members, we're moving on now to agenda item number ten which is an application at number two duck end in Gertan the application in front of us is for the demolition of existing garage and store and the erection of a single store inside and rear extensions and rear dorma and front three dormas this is a retrospective application as this has already been constructed the applicant is a misnavir the reason that this application is before us today is because it's been called in by the previous district councillor by God okay, by previous and current district councillors the reason is before us today the presenting officer who will be presenting the application to us is here who I believe is joining us online John Thank you chair, can you all hear me? We can see it here you fine but before you start we've got a point of correction on something I've said by councillor Hawkins Thank you chair, point of correction it was actually called in by councillor Garvey councillor by God supported that request and it's stated in the report as well Okay, understood Called in by the current local member So John, thank you for joining us So if you could introduce the report and give us any updates to the report that we have in front of us, should there be any? Okay Let me start my presentation So thank you chair and good afternoon councillors The application under consideration is to duck end in Gertan which is a retrospective demolition of an existing garage and store the erection of a single story side and rear extension a rear dormer and three dormers to the front roof elevation and my recommendation is for refusal We validated this on October the 29th 2021 I received it shortly after that and I performed a my first site visit on the 12th of November and from that I could clearly see that the works had been underway for quite some time they have subsequently been completed enforcement were discussing the application prior to my involvement but decided to leave it for me to make my decision I believe it was councillor Garvey who initially requested this be put before committee and councillor by got seconded that So the site location plan is here we can see two duck end right in the middle most important I think to draw your attention to is the property called town end here which has its drive along here and the three properties five and seven duck end which are all listed buildings and are the most directly affected by the proposal This is a block plan from 2020 so it shows what the application looked like prior to works commencing We can see the single story garage which has subsequently been demolished and replaced and the rear garden here which is where the extension has moved into Again we can see number three five and seven here and their gardens which run along this area here These were the pre-works elevations of the bungalow We can see again the garage just here which would be demolished and this is the pre-works ground floor plan again and a roof plan I've also included several photos from April of 2019 just to give you an idea of what the property looked like prior to the works being finished I'll also draw your attention to the elevation here As you might be able to see from the photo that is number three duck end and we can see the ridge line of number two here This is pertinent later when we see the dormer being put in and how it relates to this elevation We can see at number three there as well along the front elevation So this is a block plan of the completed works Here we can see that the front garage has now become part of the front elevation This side extension moves all the way to the rear of the property to the rear boundary and we can see the space created by the single story extension just here as well Again, three, five and seven there This is the completed works elevations We can see the garage at the front elevation All three front dormers here and here The single story extension projecting to the rear and the quite substantive large rear dormer on that rear roof slope That includes two Juliet balconies and three extra windows Again we see the completed floor plans the extra space created here up to the rear boundary and on the roof we can see where the loft space has been created through the rear dormer and the front three dormers here These are photos taken on the 12th of November as I said on my first site visit This again is the side elevation of number three duck end and we can see the half completed rear dormer being put in here as well as the front dormers from the front and I've also included some completed photos from a June site visit so this is the completed works Again, the cladding is now in place You can clearly see the impact to the public realm from this road We can see the full extent of the rear dormer and this is from the rear this is from the front drive of town end, which I mentioned earlier We can see the full extent of the dormer and that rear dormer there on the side elevation of number three, one of the listed buildings So the rear dormer presents the principal reason for refusal It's considered to be excessive in scale and bulk due to extending across almost the entire roofscape The conservation officer has also objected to it on the grounds of that rear dormer being excessive in scale and intruding upon the traditional form of the character of the listed buildings at three, five and seven The third reason for refusal is the impact to neighbouring amenity The rear gardens of three, five and seven are already quite small and enclosed and it's considered that the addition of that rear dormer is creating overlooking impacts creating unacceptable impact to neighbouring amenity Thank you councillors Thank you very much John Members, we have a full raft of public speakers on this I would like to move to them as swiftly as possible but of course members an opportunity to ask the officer any questions of clarification before we do move on to them No, I think that's all clear Okay, with that then we will move on to our public speakers and we're starting with Mrs Juliette Atkinson who I believe is with us in the room Mrs Atkinson, if you'd like to take a seat in front of the mic you've got two big silver buttons the one on the right switches it on and off Can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you perfectly so I appreciate you've sitting here a while so you probably know the procedure by now it's three minutes to address the committee at the end of which there may be some questions of clarity for yourself so if you wouldn't mind staying seated that would be great I am the owner and resident of number five Duck End, which is located on the boundary of two Duck End I am speaking today on behalf of number three, nine, one six, ten Duck End and three Woody Green a statement has been submitted separately by Townan Duck End We are against this planning application believe it should be refused because of the following The development is out of character for the area and is unsympathetic to the sixth listed heritage assets number five, seven, the water pump nine and eight Duck End which are all in closed proximity to Duck End the development fails to sustain or enhance the local area the development materially detracts from listed assets and may affect the economic viability of these resulting in a lack of ongoing conservation the natural light to number three and number five Duck End is reduced by the development specifically the increased ridge height, large full width rear dorma and the outbuilding The outbuilding constructed on the boundary of three and five Duck End is 2.8 meters tall and the light to the ground floor and gardens to these properties have been severely impacted The structures built on the property total more than 47.6% of the site The site plan submitted as part of the planning application is incorrect and does not reflect the actual property boundaries therefore the construct is closer to 57% of the site based on the figures they have provided in their application Loss of privacy to three, five, nine and Town End Duck End The large full width rear dorma has been used into these properties and their gardens The owners have also introduced CCTV at the front and rear of the property and from the type and direction of the cameras they are filming the public highway and private property no notification has been received by any neighbour about this The installation of security lighting has illuminated the whole area around the building side, front and rear polluting the night sky with artificial light Other items stated on the application information by the owner's agent that do not reflect what has actually happened include alterations to car parking, there were three spaces now there is one All of the trees have been removed on the property, the public highway has been altered at the entrance and the roof pitch has been altered as the bridge height has been raised In addition to the three trees removed in the back garden the protected hedge at the front of the property has been damaged there is now no natural vegetation at the rear of the property The lack of vegetation will increase the audio risk area of flooding there is no information in the planning application as to how additional surface water will be disposed of When the construction took place it was observed that the rear provision for surface water disposal was connected to the main drainage system This has now been hanging over all concern for over a year now and we would like to see that the effect of this development on the local area listed buildings and us the residents is taken into consideration when planning is determined Thank you Thank you very much, if you wouldn't there are any questions of clarification on your comments there Members, do you have any questions of clarity for Mrs Atkinson? Councillor Hawkins Thank you very much for that there's a lot of information that you've just given us You mentioned security lighting and recording Can you explain a bit about the lighting so they've got LED lighting, security lighting but it's dust filled all lighting so as soon as it gets dark it's on and it's bright, it's like an illuminated public building you can't distract from it and you can see it from every property that's around a circle of it so yes, the sky's lit what a waste of energy Okay, thanks for that Did you mention protected hedge? There wasn't a TPU on the tree though I don't know how protected hedge works but the hedge that's at the front of the property historically has been protected because it has birds nesting etc and it's been the previous panning application in 2007 that's actually listed in there that that is a requirement that they're not allowed to damage it so I assume unless anything's changed that's the same One last one when the works were going on it wasn't with planning permission presumably There wasn't any planning permission until they were forced to do it by the enforcement officer we caught everybody in the street contacted the planning department to inform them of what's going on and they lied a lot to the people around it you know so we were told they were building something but they were building something else Thank you Thank you for that Councillor Fane Thank you for that I suspect our main focus today may be the extension what has been referred to perhaps wrongly as a dorma but there was also you mentioned the outbuilding 2.8 metres tall the wall of which I think is immediately behind your house and that number three can you just describe what height that was previously and how close that is to your property and that number three So it borders on three and five because it kind of goes like that all the boundaries in Duck End are a little bit weird because it's old so it borders both of those originally I'm only five but two I can't see over the wall but I'd say it's about six feet but the old wall in my back garden about six foot whatever that is in metric so it's nearly so it's completely different Thank you and Councillor Hawkins I'm sorry she's given us the metric Members any final questions for Mrs Atkinson I don't think so Again, thank you very much for taking the time to come in and speak to us We will move on now to our next public speaker who is Mr Gerald Hornsby-Adwy who is speaking on behalf of the applicant Mr Hornsby-Adwy Are you with us? Yes, this is Gerald Hornsby-Adwy Just checking to see if you can hear me We can hear you, we can't see you though I don't know if you have a camera facility Well I was there seemed to be a problem when I turned it on so I think it will stand off from your end Okay, no problem We can see and hear you fine now Fantastic, okay thank you I've got three main points that I want to bring to the committee members and the first point is the planning advice because at the start of the project we consulted with greater Cambridge Council through a planning advice meeting that was actually held on the 25th of November 2020 the reference is 251120 the planning officer was Ms J Rodins and the meeting was held over the telephone due to the pandemic I'm just hoping that you would have a recording of the details of that meeting but what I'm going to bring out at the summary of the advice that was received because we discussed all our proposals at the meeting and basically how we were going to achieve them and the brief summary is that the number one all the proposals that met permitted development rights could be completed first that was the first advice that we were looking to get a certain amount of information sorry development some was under permitted development advice was once that permitted development can be built then the second advice was any other proposal that did not meet permitted development obviously had to be applied for through a household planning application it was also discussed at the meeting that when the permitted development construction was roughly about 80 to 90% then the application should go in so by the time it's kind of looked at preferably the permitted development construction would have been completed then my second point is the construction stage based on that advice construction began in August round about August 2020 unfortunately some works that were not under permitted development were actually undertaken so but under section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act you are allowed to put in a retrospective application so a retrospective application was submitted on the 29th of 21 and was actually validated on the same day but it's also necessary to point out that we are looking at two aspects of this application there's an application that is permitted development then there's the works that are not permitted development so in our view the application that the committee should be looking at today is the works that are not permitted development so it's important that we are able to draw a line and I am prepared that if there's any work that the council can prove or prove show that it's outside permitted development then yes that will have to be dealt with and your enforcement roots but as far as this planning committee is concerned and the application our position on it is that it's the work that is not under permitted development that the committee should be looking at our initial application had these works as the roof extension over the garage and associated rear Doma and the three new front Domas obviously if there's anything else that can be pointed out that is not permitted development we don't have any problem with that being dealt with by the committee then the final point I want to make is that post application the application was originally to be determined on the 24th of December 2021 it's now being over seven months so we've been going back and forth with the planning officer who I must say from his presentation I've dealt with him and I believe he's a fantastic officer I've dealt with a lot of planning officers and he's fantastic but what I want to say about this is that during the communication we had I'm just going to read out an email received from him on in May of 2022 now the email stated we are satisfied that the operations to the roof are at least partially covered under payment development under development under development right sorry I am progressing towards approving the application though a counselor has called the application in so from my point of view after five months of dealing with the Mr McIntyre did not sadly write that email without having looked at all the requirements of the application so we are now astounded that the planning department has done a full 180 degree 10 and now will not support the scheme so we can only conclude that there has been some sort of pressure behind the seams which would have led to the sudden change turned around by the department so I can only hope that the kind of bitter role and the stuff that we've had to deal with on site we've had abuse we've had all sorts of threats even being told that they have people in the council and they'll make sure that this application is refused I can only hope that there is nothing to do with the applicant's ethnicity or that applicant being perceived as an outsider or a foreigner but I'll have to leave the committee and the council to make a decision according to how this issue should go thank you okay thank you for those comments there I'm sure there will be some questions yourself so if you wouldn't mind staying on the line we have one question straight away from councillor Hawkins please thank you chair thank you for your presentation on behalf of the council I take objection to the last part of your statement to do ethnicity it's all about policy and I will ask you one question why did you carry out work that was not in the permitted development why why did you carry out works that were not permitted well as I stated it did happen I'm not going to deny it right so you're at fault from the get go well there is a requirement there is a planning policy that allows you to put in a retrospective application obviously if work is done outside the planning process it is at the onus risk so we are not we are not denying that it was done you have taken the risk and also I haven't finished also what I said was I hope that is not the case I didn't say that there is any you shouldn't even have brought it up you should not have brought that up please take it back let me explain why it was done no take it back please well I am not taking it back because I said I hope that is not the case we have had abuse on site my client has been abused racially my client has received that sort of abuse on site did you report it well I am not a client I can check with a client if it was reported we deal with policy we deal with policy I am fully aware of that and as a minority ethnic myself I am telling you that now I am not disputing what she said but I am looking at what has gone in the past and I have made that statement that I hope that is not the case if you are telling me it is not the case then that is it ok well I think you have answered the question there members do you have any questions around the applicants presentation or any questions for them regarding the application I don't see any so Mr Horn to be a die thank you very much for taking the time to speak to us this afternoon we are going to move on now to our next public speaker who is chair of the parish council councillor Douglas Delacy it would be worth putting out a blanket interest for all members who have sat on south councillor council with councillor Delacy in the past who only this may I suppose from sitting on this council but councillor Delacy good to see you again and you will I am assuming you have the permission of your parish council to represent their views here this afternoon I do chairman good thank you very much I know you are very familiar with the criteria regarding public speaking so three minutes to give us your thoughts and then at the end there may be some questions for yourself so if you could remain seated thank you very much chair and through you may I hate to admit it members but Gertan is not a beautiful village it isn't chocolate boxy we have one indifferent Victorian villa which is likely to be demolished on appeal I fear and some awful 60s housing but we do have duck end and woody green together with five listed buildings and a listed pump it's a delightful and unique corner of Gertan until now number two now dominates the street as you have heard with raw and brutal modernism the parish council was unanimous as I'm sure you would have been to condemn the plans on the grounds of their effect on this architectural dual in Gertan's crown so I ask you committee to reject this application and given the potential blasting damage please instruct enforcement that this building must be restored to its original level to restore our wonderful architectural gem thank you thank you councillor very brief I appreciate that members do you have any questions of clarity for the chair of the parish council there obviously we do have fuller comments in the report from the parish but we have the opportunity whilst councillor Delacy is in front of us councillor Fein thank you councillor Delacy just at one point the parish council asked for this to be restored to its original condition did the parish council accept a significant proportion of the work undertaken would be covered by permitted development the parish council made no comment on that and trying to cast my mind back to the discussion I don't think any member brought it up clearly permitted development is permitted unless you can find grounds to stop it the main concern clearly is with the roofline and with the development which is not permitted okay thank you very much for that sorry councillor Ellington please I just wondered if any member of the parish council had identified that the building was growing faster than they had anticipated and contacted southcams to make inquiries as to why this was happening thank you councillor Ellington I'm not sure I can answer that question we were certainly aware that it was happening and there was no planning application in the pipeline I am reasonably sure that we did comment on that I don't know whether Mr Kelly can confirm or deny that anything came through from the parish council I'm afraid I can't comment I think in the office's introduction he did mention that the planning enforcement team were looking at it but then I think the outcome was they were going to let this retrospective planning application run its course and then any enforcement that may or may not need to happen would follow I think that's a fair assessment Stephen we were made aware of that the first advice works proceeding and we first attended the site on the 15th of October to any Wallace our enforcement officer it's not our practice to divulge the source of a complaint because those matters are kept confidential but our first contact with the applicants through Mr Wallace was on the 15th of October can I follow up on that and just ask whether consideration was given putting the stop notice on this development given that there was no application so the advice from the officer from the enforcement officer to the applicants on that date was that work should stop but the applicants had indicated that they decided to continue at their own risk and they understood the consequences if the planning application is not submitted obviously there is discretion for the local planning authority to serve a stop notice associated with that is an enforcement notice I think the expectation was that the applicant would submit an application to allow the authority to determine whether there was harm and that is what has happened I think in this case that's probably the right course because at that moment in time there was no public consultation through nearly visiting the site and because we had advised that obviously worse were continuing at their own risk and the applicant seemed to be familiar with that level of risk we clearly took a view that we were unimpeded in terms of any subsequent decision that committee or indeed officers might make and the applicant was fully aware of the consequences of potential consequences of the action and so we invited I think an application was submitted I think the agent said at the end of the year thank you very much councillor Delacy I think that's all the questions for you so thank you once again for taking the time to come in and speak to us and with that we will move on to our final two speakers who are the two local members we have councillor Corrine Garvey councillor Garvey if you'd like to come forward sit at the microphone where Douglas just was Corrine no you're used to being further forward than that so whilst Jonathan gets you set up I'll just remind you it's three minutes or as close to as possible to give your comments to the committee and if you can stay seated at the end in case there's any questions of clarity on anything you might present to us so please whenever you're ready yes I'm the district councillor for Gettin Village and people are drawn to live in Gettin because of its village atmosphere and friendly community the delightfully named dark end has listed buildings and has been preserved as a piece of old Gettin it's both charming and an essential part of the village you will have heard the details of the objections to this development so I'll not repeat them I became involved early on because of the alarm for the residents about this un-controlled development of the bungalow we were dismayed that it was developed without planning permission and work continued even after the planning department had become involved in summary this building was originally in bungalow and is now with a storm of windows like a two story house and it's out of keeping with the whole area we would like to see this building redeveloped so that it properly fits into the historical perspective of this area of Gettin thank you Thank you very much councillor Garvey Members do we have any questions of clarity for the local member I don't see any so councillor Garvey thank you very much second local member is councillor Stobart who's on the committee today albeit you aren't taking any part in this particular item discussion or vote so councillor Stobart if you want to give your views as local member you can stay where you are that's fine Thank you chair so I'm going to start by endorsing the views of councillor Delacy and councillor Garvey I fully agree with the position and the assessment I go a little bit deeper I think being new as a councillor to Gettin my trip down to Duck End was a big surprise because this is a little corner of Gettin and I think every village even though it has to be modern and connected and dynamic has a little corner that creates a sense of place and that's particularly valuable and is to do with the continuity of the community and sense of place so it was sad to see this kind of imposition actually quite a delicately balanced area of Gettin and you do notice and the first thing that hits you as you look around is that big rear dorma for want of a better term so my view would be that that is the case I think the office, the planning officer has outlined that or highlighted that that's my opinion I think that is the nub and I think to recover the sense of character in the conservation area is really what we should be concerned about Great, thank you very much councillor at Stobards Any questions of clarity for the second local member? No, I think that's all clear so thank you very much for your views there Members, those are all the public speakers so we're going to move into the debate so as usual we can ask the officers any further questions of clarity that's going to help us make our minds up to make a decision on this please so Members, who would like to start us off? Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair I just want to sort of thank the case officer for the extensive report which actually is quite clear and also for the additional information which we had which is that enforcement did visit the site the applicants were told to stop doing the work and they decided to carry on anyway at their own risk If we look at page 195 paragraph 915 this is particularly to do with the rare doma which is obviously the part of it that according to information we have here is the bit that is causing a lot of difficulty parmita development allows roof space of up to 50 qubit meters and what is built there now is more than that 67.8 qubit meters and that's just that doma the roof space above the garage will add to that we don't know what that is it's not being told but we can see that there's a lot there and obviously extending beyond garage and that bit falls within parmita development rights but I am disappointed that so much was done taking a risk in developing that building in that delicate historic location without the proper permission to do it it's obviously not the right thing for that site and in my view I'm afraid there's no way I can support what's already been what's been put up there now it does need to confirm and at this point in time it doesn't so I'm voting to refuse thank you thank you there I believe Mr Kelly wants to come back on a point I think he missed out at the beginning yes thank you chair I wasn't sure whether the applicants representative was going to mention it in correspondence with the applicants over the last few days we have had a request for the planning committee to defer consideration of the item on the basis that the applicants wish to discuss the matter further with the planning authority our advice on that is that given the works are complete and effectively need a determination and our conclusions are that the works are unacceptable and require substantial modifications isn't a question of minor works that that's not something that I would recommend to you there's a process that follows in the event that the commission is not granted using the relevant legislation but we did undertake to share their request with you and and agreed to put that to the committee but my advice to you is that deferring consideration of a completed development leads to a substantially would lead to resolution of maybe on matters of detail but actually in this case the form of development as I said is complete and in officers view based on reasons for views requires more than incidental modification to render it acceptable but it's a matter for you and we will take your instruction I think it's short so councillor do you want to speak about the potential deferral or that's been no was yours councillor councillor Hawkinson please I'll come back to you Bill thank you I quite agree in that the works has been done it's been built it's already causing the harm effectively and any deferral the process carries on longer I'm not sure what else can be said or can be discussed we need to I think we need to determine this today thank you absolutely that I share that view I think as Mr Kelly has pointed out it doesn't serve any purpose in my view to defer members in all interest of fairness though I will ask does anyone have an opposite view to that does anyone think we should be considering a deferral or are members generally happy we've received with the decision today okay I'll take that as no to the deferral so we will carry on councillor Handley sorry I cut you off there it's quite alright chair we're looking at this it's either acceptable or it's not we're not saying these bits are that bit is, that isn't yes or no isn't it I'm absolutely clear in my mind which way I'm going to go and that is that this is not acceptable I fully support the officer's recommendation I'd go further and say retrospective planning applications are something that causes everybody every ward member problems I think it's something we ought to be discussing quite separate to this okay thank you for that councillor Ellingson please I entirely I entirely support Bill Handley's point of view I would certainly not accept this application but I do wonder how this council is going to encourage the applicant to remove those bits of the house that are unacceptable because that is another game altogether indeed and clearly we're not here to discuss that we're just here to decide whether this application is acceptable or not but I do take your point on that members does anyone else wish to put forward a view to the debate councillor Fein please Chairman I recognise this is complicated because some parts of the development were covered by permitted development I think it's very important there should be a clear distinction in some cases door more windows would be covered this is not actually technically a door more window it's a box extension I think we need to be very careful to recognise that applicants have a perfect right to submit retrospective applications if they want to we should judge the merits of the application on the basis that it is retrospective and clearly we as a council need to be very careful in insisting on the demolition of buildings that have cost the applicant a lot of money already but as councillor Hanley said earlier on she's either right or wrong effectively I should say that in visiting the property I did meet briefly with Mr Atkinson who showed me the back yard I made it quite clear to Mr Atkinson that I couldn't take a view on this until I'd heard the full case I think the report at page 197 paragraph 9.3 when viewed from the public realm on dark end the impact of the roof extension on the setting of the listed building is considered harmful I think it would be very difficult to visit the the back very small gardens of these listed buildings without accepting that both the box extension and indeed the raised wall directly on their boundary to 2.85 metres doesn't have a significant impact on the listed buildings and on those grounds I would share councillor Hanley's view and I suspect others I find it very difficult to say that we should not refuse this application Thank you very much Members we've heard a few comments now supporting the officer's recommendation of refusal Would anyone like to give an alternative view does anyone think the application should be approved Would anyone else like to add anything to the debate before we come to a decision on this any further points that haven't already been made councillor Hawkins I think this really is a is an example and a lesson I guess for us and for Africans really we need to do things in the right way we're looking at policies what's been built is bigger than what will allow it's causing harm in a historic area and frankly the reasons given in 9.67 and 8 cannot be it's absolutely right and the amenity of neighbours is being seriously affected so on those three grounds I think we can very correctly refuse application Okay well members clearly we have a recommendation in front of us from the officers that's on page 201 and the recommendation we have is to refuse the application for the three reasons as laid out Members I haven't heard anyone speak to the contrary of that Do any members wish to either vote to approve this or wish to abstain on this decision I see no hands so can we take it by affirmation that the officer's recommendation of refusal for those three reasons as laid out on the agenda to be the committee's view Agreed, just for completeness does anyone not agree councillor Hanley Just being built in braces here this is going to be considerably difficult thinking of officers to work on Do you think it might not be an idea to have a vote on it Just a question rather than going for my affirmation I'm willing to be shot down I was trying to save Jonathan a job but unlucky Jonathan you're going to have to do an electronic vote on this so members we have okay I need to word this carefully so the officers recommendation members is to refuse the application so what we need to do we need to vote whether we accept to that recommendation or not so confusingly we need to vote green if we agree with the recommendation of refusal red if we're against the recommendation of refusal and think it should be approved or yellow to abstain so is that clear okay please everyone vote and of course councillor Stobart isn't taking part in this vote okay yes please Jonathan if you could okay so for those that can't see in the room that is eight votes in total all in favour of refusal so that application is unanimously refused okay so again thank you to all our contributors to the officers and obviously those in the room who have contributed to this thank you very much for your time and your patience members we have it's half past three we have one more application on the table do we wish to have a break okay I'm seeing a yes so we'll take a very quick ten minute break it's half past three if we come back at 20 to four on the clock in the room we'll start again and hopefully complete the agenda thank you very much thank you very much and welcome back everyone to this meeting of South Cambridge your district council's planning committee we're on the last planning application of the day agenda item 11 the application in front of us begins on page 203 of our agendas and the application is at 34 Heraldwood Close in Pington the proposal is for a single story rear inside extension porch to the front loft extension and roof extension to the rear we're associated internal works the applicant is Mr Daniel Ashman and the reason we have this before us today is because the applicant is related to a member of the district council so it has to come to us as a matter of process the presenting officer as we can see on the screen is Jane Rodin's hi Jane so thank you chair can I just confirm that you can see my screen oh ok go with me second and yes we can see the screen now so yeah please whenever you are ready perfect so thank you chair this application is for a single story rear side extension and porch to the front there is also a loft extension with a roof extension to the rear and other internal layout changes at 34 Herald Close in Impington this is a location plan the site is located in Impington and the exit off Herald Close the proposal contains a semi-detached dwelling there's two stories it's attached to number 36 Herald Close which is to the east of the site to the west of the site is number 32 and to the south of the site are the rear gardens of 22 and 24 Bishopsway here you can see the block plan with the proposals and the extent of the porch to the front to the rear side extension to the back and the dormal window to the roof now here at the existing elevations and the proposed elevations and then the existing and proposed floor plans and then here are some photos of the site to the front of the site this is to the rear this is looking along the street scene towards number 32 and this is the back looking towards number 32 so the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions which are in part and infirmative which in part 11 of the report in front of you thank you chair thank you very much, very concise Members, do you have any questions of clarification? I'll actually say that we've got no public speakers so we can launch straight into the debate if we need to have any any members wish to make any points on this or ask officers any questions No? Oh, Councillor Fane Yes, if I might just ask I was perhaps a bit slow to when you put up the location plan to see whether other houses in the street had had similar extensions and I also just wanted to ask you briefly about the proposed cladding which perhaps should be clear to me from the report the current cladding is very distinctive and I just wondered what the proposal is So through yourself chair is a location plan number 32 that I put up on the pictures is this one here has a similar dormal window to that one proposed I think Jane, 10.8 in our reports indicates that the material of the extension should be the same as the existing building is that right? Yes it will be for the real extension and then the dormal window is a metal cladding instead of the wood as proposed for the rest of it Okay, thank you Councillor Members Councillor Hawkins Sorry, thank you chair It's just paragraph 10.13 which talks about a marginal impact when the 45 degrees is taking from the property Can you clarify what that is please? Yes I can Let me just pop up this proposed site plan It's best to show from that Is that shared again? Yes it is Okay, so the 45 degree is taking from the rear of the neighbouring property are going horizontally towards the corner of the proposal and it would be very marginally cut off from the rear windows along the back of the neighbouring property so that's a rule of thumb firm to seeing if there'd be any impact on light as you can see from the location plan the neighbouring property is set to the southeast so because of the very marginally corner of the extension that would be cut off but due to the location it's considered by the minimal impact Okay, thank you very much Members, any any final points or questions? No, I can't see any Members, does anyone inclined to vote against this application or abstain? No Can I take about affirmation that we approve it as on page 209? Agreed Okay so that is unanimously agreed and approved Thank you very much Members, that comes to the end of the planning applications we've been asked to make decisions on We're now on to agenda item 12 which is an update on enforcement cases and I believe we have an enforcement officer with us Who is it? John Shuttlewood John? Yes, can you see my screen chair? John, yes you can see and hear you fine Thank you for being with us Thank you very much Thank you for inviting me I'd love you to come and speak to the enforcement and eulogise about it whenever possible so I really appreciate your time I'll try and keep it to as close to three minutes as possible So anyone who doesn't know me my name is John Shuttlewood I am the remaining principal planning enforcement officer here across the shared surface I'm normally working the city but since Will Holloway has left I'm stepping in and picking up his caseload as best as I can in the two days by working enforcement So I'll run through the summary of the reports very quickly on page 211 First of August there's 138 open investigations in South Cairns compared with 172 the previous year In the month of July a team opened six or eight cases but managed to close 42 and then we go on to a list of the people operating in the team Unfortunately it's sad to report that our planning compliance officer within South Cairns Charlie Jones has left last week he was a contractor so we've got the option to either replace someone again for three to six months contract and whilst also looking to get that build hopefully by a permanent member of staff if possible Ideally I think the team would like to go towards a permanent member of staff for the benefits of mid and long term continuity within the team So it's remaining that there are still three senior area officers covering South Cairns in the city along with myself Just looking at the figures for months in June and July I think those numbers have dropped in terms of cases close and opens simply due to the bit of changing processes we've been undertaking since Will was left and also some of our team members have been on leave and will be on leave as well until the end of September Okay We are introducing new ways of working with regards to elect breaches of planning control being reported online as well as the introduction of a real time updated enforcement register being made available What I would like to do is just indulge me with a second if I share my screen if I can and bring you up what is the new you have to tell me chair if this is appearing on your on the screens in Campbell Yep we can see it Fantastic, so this is the brand new planning compliance website I'll be employing all members with committee members and parish councillors and also residents as well to have a take a look at this there's a lot of good information here about planning compliance, what enforcement breaches are what we do at a team what isn't a breach of planning enforcement there's also a handy little video that is worth playing as well on that as well and there's lots of links there to basically we signpost and try and direct people to try and work out for themselves whether it might be a breach of planning control for the team to look at or to actually save their time it might be something to do with another service that the council offers such as noise control or it might be doing something to do with building trail or highways or it might be a civil matter so we're basically trying to give people pointers to basically try and work out what the actual problem is and to report it to the CREP people at the bottom of the page there is also a link to our new online enquiry form so at the moment we receive complaints through a variety of means be it email through our email address or through telephone calls to the contact centre or directly to ourselves in the future we are trying to get as many of all enquiries to be submitted through the enquiry form simply so it basically helps us deal with the matters quickly and more efficiently I'll just do stops sharing the screen so hopefully I'll come back to the hall of Campbell so we've just regard to updates on significant cases now unlike will I don't believe that it's proper and correct to give specific details into ongoing prosecution cases however I am happy to talk to members directly regarding any particular concerns they have however I am quite happy to tell you that we have got an experienced enforcement officer in the guide of Neil Langley with Smithy Fenn following on from the report conducted by Ivy Legal I can tell you that Neil has already got boots on the ground out on Smithy Senn Fenn site is already in contact with some of the occupiers on there trying to clear up initially some of the untidy land and some of the people who might not be living on site we basically want to give you an update as well for recruitment just to let you know that an advert has gone out for a principal enforcement lead officer that is now being advertised there's a deadline of 30 of August we are hopeful that we will get applicants coming through for that post even though there is a national shortage of permanent experienced important officers around England, Wales and Scotland however we are hopeful to get people taking an interest in what we do at South Cams and the city and just to also touch on very quickly the appendix to public enforcement notices served for July we had a temporary stop notice and a breach of condition notice served in Cossinham according to our case notes it says that the notices have been complied with so I'll leave it there I'm happy to take any questions that members or yourself may have chair thank you very much John, historically what we have done is we have taken this opportunity to ask the enforcement officer some detail of any currently ongoing or if there is any updates to any currently ongoing cases are you happy to take those types of questions if you feel able to answer well I'm happy to basically listen to the questions and make a note of them and come back at later date if I may with responses is that would that be acceptable Danyn? If that's what you're offering that's what we have to take I'm afraid but I think we do have a few questions following that so Councillor Handley John, thank you for your update and I really do wish you all the best at getting your staffing numbers your posts filled because compliance and enforcement is really important to residents they feel protected if action is carried out where it's due and in a timely way so good luck I hope you find some good candidates can I just ask you a question about the website that you've just demonstrated how new is that is it a pretty new site? Councillor Handley thank you very much for your question and your best wishes I'll totally agree with you we experience also that residents think it's really important that there's effective enforcement in the district council for the moment anyway simply the website details they went live a week ago so this is hot of the press you're probably seeing it for anyone else we probably need to do a bit of communication around it to get it out into the years I would suggest have you spoken to Tom Horn because I think it's the sort of thing we should shout about and you know I understand it's only a week old so that there's probably on your tick list of things to do but I would certainly support it and also if you could put something out on social media I think members will raise a profile of those social media posts thank you thank you very much thank you John Councillor Hawkins has a question for you as well hello John nice to see you it's been a while I don't know what's going on with my answer ok it's back just on the Smithy thing I noticed that there was a meeting held on the 25th of February to agree the approach on how we're going to issue all those notices what has been the progress then and when do we expect to be able to do that John shall I answer that oh ok and before you do that the second thing is just to answer Councillor Handley yes we've already got stuff out on social media about the new compliance webpage and the video so if you go on the southcans facebook and twitter accounts you'll see it so just and John might update me if he's got anything more because I haven't spoken to Neil Langley but we'll holl away our previous enforcement officer was dealing with with Smithy Fenn as I said in the report we've subsequently Neil has Neil Langley who's joined the shared planning service as a contract officer and nevertheless has got quite a substantial amount of experience nationally with working with Gypsy Traveler Romani community in terms of development and as John highlighted he has been on site to meet with Rapsons of the community that the actual number of occupiers of Smithy Fenn at the moment is actually quite limited and so we are Neil's first task was both liaising with Ivy Legal who's giving a specialist legal advice on it but secondly to go on site and reassess the situation based upon the current circumstances and to then set out to me effectively but to the council the way forward from the conversations that he's had there are a number of lawful occupations on Smithy Fenn absolutely with law abiding members of the community Neil was going on site to assess that himself and come back to me so I do expect a further because the report in some respects on page 213 has been taken over by Neil's visit I suspect will bring a further report back to you next month in progress John I don't know that Neil's got anything further that he's added to you but I certainly have been away for a couple of days he has been on site I believe now That's correct I think that's about as up to date appraisee of the situation we can give at the moment thank you very much Thank you both for that Members any final questions for John on any enforcement issues I think that's it John thank you very much for joining us I appreciate your items tends to be at the back of the agenda so thank you very much for hanging on we appreciate it and look forward to seeing you at future meetings Thank you, thank you chair Take care Members item 13 So we have an update on an appeal at the land to the north and south of Bartlow Road, Linton This was an application that was decided at committee so I think we're going to get an update from Mr Kelly No sorry Mr Sexton Sorry my people are sitting very quietly at the end there I forgot you were here Over to Michael is going to give us a verbal update on this appeal Thank you chair Yes I was a case officer for this application in September 2021 and refused and has been taken to appeal so because it's a committee decision it's very much just for your information about how that is progressing It was down as a written reps procedure following a request from Lins and Parrish Council the planning inspector who changed the procedures were hearing but as set out in the report the council doesn't have an expert witness on this matter so the council a council officer would attend the hearing to assist in the process but will not be in a position to offer any evidence in defence of the appeal If it helps your members I have a meeting scheduled with Lins and Parrish Council later in August just to talk to them about the process moving forwards but it's just for your information that this appeal is ongoing and it has been changed to a hearing which we would attend but we won't be presenting evidence That's it, thank you chair OK, thank you for that members any questions on this it's just a verbal update for information but if any members have any questions Councillor Williams Thank you, just a quick one for information It says that council approached drainage consultants How many did we approach just out of interest So I thought that would get asked I've checked and there are six emails that went out to drainage consultants I received five responses saying that they weren't able to assist for various reasons We obviously didn't think it was appropriate to disclose those details in public domain but we did reach out to several consultants on which we have approached previously for appeals and into applications It's just a question for me then as a matter of process presumably as the committee refused that application on the predominantly the Parrish Council's information would just be left to the Parrish Council then to essentially defend that decision, is that correct? We obviously put forward a written statement as part of the written reps appeal that was very much sort of factually based on the reason the original condition was there and why the committee chose to refuse the application Yes, the Inter-Parrish Council I'm assuming because they requested the hearing we'll be attending that and offering evidence on their part as I've got a meeting with the Parrish at the end of August so I will continue to engage and support the Parrish as far as I can in that regard Steven I think it's important to acknowledge why the council is still liable for its decision and so when it goes to matters of costs which may well form part of the discussion of the hearing is this council's decision not the Parrish Council's decision that will go to the heart of whether the council's acted reasonably and so there's an element of reflection that's required in fact the JDDC committee we've tried to also give some advice to because regardless of what third parties promote and they may well convince you of the reasons for refusal in circumstances where a planning appeal follows you are the planning authority and so the judgement on whether the decision and the appeal is reasonable falls to the inspector to consider the planning authority's position now in exceptional circumstances third parties can be the subject of cost applications but it's pretty unusual for that for that to happen but the importance I suppose going forwards is for us to think through how we can work more effectively together in such circumstances to make sure that we do not create a risk of cost particularly around technical matters whereas as Michael said we've approached a number of technical specialists and they've declined to represent the council on the application or on the decision that you made just on that point then obviously when we are making decisions one element that we are told we shouldn't take into account is potentially losing an appeal and i.e costs against the council so take on board what you're saying but as a committee we're told to make planning decisions as opposed to decisions that we think may or could cause the council to incur costs as an appeal so I think yeah it's pretty right but the guidance and the practice guidance around costs does require particular caution when it comes to matters of technical judgement because in such circumstances where you're essentially setting aside the technical advice that you have received from in this case it was angry in water and forming your own view you're obliged to provide technical advice or a technical reason for setting aside the advice of a technical specialist in your planning judgement and that's why we've tried to go to consultants specialist drainage consultants but you are obliged to provide that reasoning on the technical reasons why you have set aside especially from statutory consultees the technical advice, the consultee and that's whether it's a highway authority matter or it's a a technical compliance matter when it comes to matter and so my advice to you always should be one of caution in such circumstances and quite possibly where in future an opon reflection of some of these matters where there is a concern about the technical soundness of the advice that causes you to set aside what you're being told it might be sensible to think about deferring items rather than refusing them in the first draft to allow us to provide either further specialist technical advice or give some considered technical advice to you on matters of judgement and the courts give a very broad range around some of the considerations around amenity in terms of design and so on then clearly there are no technical specifications that underpin that there's various SPD guidance and so on but the requirement is clear on a planning authority that where it rejects an application on the basis of a technical matter then it is required to provide the technical reasons for doing so and in circumstances where some of those technical consultees are your consultees then clearly you're entitled to set their advice aside but in an appeal circumstance you are required to demonstrate the technical basis for doing so thank you I think that's helpful I've got Richard and then I'll take Councillor Hawkins and then Councillor Hanley OK thank you very much chair just a few points following on from that I made the point when we used to have the group that was meeting in response to the report we had I forget who did the report one point I made in that about how we can improve the process in committee is for reports to make very clear where we have discretion and where we don't now I think we've made some progress on that because reports do flag up material considerations but there is a risk I think of frustration all round if something comes to committee and if it comes to committee it appears to the public and I think reasonably appears to the committee members that we have a choice to make but if it's a very technical matter and we don't really have a choice to make then I would query actually whether it should be here at all but certainly if it is here it should be made very clear if there is any scope at all for the committee to disagree because we can't commission technical advice we get these reports two weeks before or ten days before the committee meets there's no way we can produce technical advice or technical reports so it can look to the public and maybe committee members as well sometimes that we're really just being required to rubber stamp something we really don't have a choice and I think we really need to avoid situations where we are appearing to have a choice or appearing to present to the world that there's a choice to be made here when in actual fact there's no choice at all I don't think that really gets anybody anywhere I think that's will certainly take away and always try to reflect upon how we can assist the committee more obviously in some respect building on the point that council Williams has raised it's for that reason that most planning conditions dealing with technical matters don't in fact come in front of the planning committee because you're not as you rightly highlight in the nature of a planning committee your job is to kind of provide the public insight in terms of the balance and the various weightings you're not expected by the courts to be technical experts on any on a particular subject you're there to provide that oversight and balance and obviously in this case I think the conditions were called into committee at the request of the parish council and part of the difficulty that I can understand the committee faces is that these very technical assessments are not something that most members of the planning committee will be intimately familiar with and you're not really expected to read all of the background information provided what we can do is we have spoken to legal colleagues but some of our advisors the chambers that advise us on planning inquiries and so on to get you some some further information on just the way that the courts deal with these types of matters to assist you but at all times I would always try and encourage you if you have questions in advance of a meeting and there are technical matters to contact the officers as soon as the agenda comes out or as soon as possible if you can read it over the weekend because we can try and get you the technical advice that you might wish to have in those circumstances but it is for that very reason that most conditions related to noise assessments and so on generally are probably best dealt with by reference to the technical advisors that you hold as a council whether that's an environmental health or amongst your partners or whether you're placing yourself as a committee in a situation where you don't always benefit from that as for the major strategic sides we have obviously sought to bring the lead local flood authority and highway people along to those meetings to give you that kind of technical advice but obviously it isn't appropriate in all cases Councillor Hawkins Thank you for that my question actually relates to the point that Mr Kelly made about asking for deferral I have noticed a number of times we have these applications come in and it's kind of like on the borderline of the end of the extension of time and we either decide or we don't how do we deal with that I think if there's clarity about reason I would say we need to advise you in certain circumstances but the cost of cost is not a material planning consideration and indeed the threat of fighting in a period is not a planning consideration but the council is obliged through planning guidance to behave reasonably and I think if there are technical matters that are a cause for concern given the potential scenario of not being able to support the committee decision on the basis of a decision that's made I think it's probably important for us to try and advise you on that before we enter that avenue because of the public funds that then get expended in a rather fruitless activity now obviously that's not to say that in this case there's no merits to the argument it's just that we're not able to provide technical arguments to underpin your reasons so the parish council may well satisfy the inspector so I'm not commenting on this appeal but it is important to have regard to the requirements for reasonable behaviour which requires technical reasons to determine technical matters if you're not you're entitled to rely upon the advice that you get but if you depart from that advice you're also required or obliged to provide a clear set of reasoning generally if it's a technical matter citing technical reasons for doing so and in fact that's a matter that the Joint Development Control Committee also receives some advice on recently from the barrister and I think I'm happy to share the advice that the barrister gave about the obligations on committees to behave reasonably if it's helpful I'll distill that out and circulate it Thank you and councillor Handley Thanks chair I just wonder what when you receive an appeal against a planning decision and you get some which are against decisions taking delegated powers versus some by the planning committee do you do we automatically defend them or do you say to all of them or do you say some of less are less defensible on others but my main part of my question is that you also have appeals against enforcement action where the decisions are taken by officers and not by any member do you always defend an appeal against enforcement action So we are you're the council and we're your officers so our job is to defend everything to every decision that you that you take that's the starting point In a case where we as officers effectively have reached a different conclusion our approach is to try and find others who can defend you on that because under the professional code of conduct Royal Town Planning Institute we are not and many other professions essentially you're obliged to be true to yourself in some respects in terms of your professional opinion so you're not allowed to effectively become a hired gun and just go well actually I said this at this stage now I've decided I'm passionately passionately in support of your reasons refusal because in examination the first question that the appellant is going to ask is can you just tell the inspector you'll go through all of those your professional qualifications and experience and so on and they'll ask the witness to then explain what their professional view of the merits are to the inspector and so you don't want us to do that because we have to say well we thought it was acceptable so in those circumstances what Michael did in this case having recommended the application and the members overturned it is he then went to planning consultants and drainage consultants to seek somebody to defend the appeal and we always do that we don't take these matters personally we will always try and defend the decision of the counciller in the best way possible but in circumstances where that's not possible in this case Michael put a statement into the appeal that explained the decision but we will now be called upon to participate in that appeal process and give our professional view and that's problematical when our professional view is that the application should be supported and on enforcement matters absolutely we will always defend the enforcement appeal Thank you and councillor Harvey Thank you chair One of the things that's corrosive of advice from statutory consultees and particularly Angliaw of Water and Cambridge Water is their legal obligation always to say they have capacity to supply so when they ask that question and they say yes we have capacity how are we supposed to take that response given that they can't say otherwise Well I think what you'll tend to find is that as a planning authority you're obliged to have regards to that advice if you can bring forward technical reasons why their advice is wrong this appeal related to the connection point to a manhole Angliaw of Water's advice was they had no objection to the connection so it wasn't about the number of dwellings connecting or anything like that it's about the location of a manhole that the failed drainage system connects to and in those circumstances we haven't been able to find a technical advisor who's prepared to essentially stand again at Angliaw of Water's position that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist it just means that on that particular point they haven't come forward to us to be prepared to do that in other circumstances just because the statutory undertaker advises of a position again you're not obliged to take it and it's quite right and indeed the parish council and local residents and communities often have very valid reasons associated with concerns I'm conscious of a huge amount of time spent by the council in Linton on other matters in which the planning authority continued to persist in exploring matters of drainage and long after Angliaw of Water concluded that their initial response was acceptable but I think it's important to have some understanding of the technical elements of it in order to be able to particularly make a final decision to refuse something which is why my advice in certain circumstances if you're not satisfied but you're uneasy with the advice that you're getting might be to defer the item and seek to try and find further sources of advice Yes, could I just come back and I think that's very sensible advice My point really was this sort of wider legal background and legal obligation does have the long term effect of undermining trust in those two particular parties I think we all had our issues of Angliaw Water's comments sometimes so I think we'll leave that point there but I think we've had a good discussion around technical conditions coming to committee and appeals resulting thereof so I think we can probably move on from that particular item now Final item on the agenda item 14 Age 223 We have an update on appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action I don't know if any officers are going to introduce this or are we just taking questions Can I ask a question I'll be honest with you chair I'm not familiar with every single one of these appeals if you've got a question but I'm happy to take anything away Members any particular questions around any specific appeals against planning decisions or enforcement action I'm a bit of a bit of an interest in the wines lane one this is one of the reasons for my question about do we automatically defend appeals on enforcement action OK I think that's been answered Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair there was one I had a notice thing you know it says turned away what does it mean on appeal to be turned away Page 226 I can do that one I was going to draw that one to members' attention because Councillor Williams raised it at the last committee meeting Phil McIntosh I think at the last meeting mentioned that he had written to PINs questioning the validity of the appeal the appeal was lodged after the time period that the applicant was allowed to appeal for non-determination so PINs incorrectly registered it as appeal they then noted the letter that Phil had sent and therefore turned the appeal away so the application is now back with the local planning authority to determine Thank you any further questions on appeals I can't see any If I may just to say it's good to see that we're keeping in line with performance in terms of what appeals that are allowed and appeals that are refused Yes indeed I don't think we're near any measures quite yet but if there's no further questions on that item I believe that brings us to the end of the agenda our next meeting is at some point next month which I don't have the date in front of me it's normally in the agenda but I'll quickly look it up now so our next meeting is the 14th of September so yeah members you can't make that date please do you try and get a sub as early as possible so just leave me to say thank you very much to officers for your support thank you very much to all of our public speakers who contributed to the debate and thank you very much members for your time today and we'll close the meeting there thank you