Torbay Council Planning Meeting 24 June 2024

Follow along with the details of this meeting: view the agenda and reports pack on our website: https://www.torbay.gov.uk/DemocraticServices/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=760&MId=24851
Sign up to email alerts about all council meetings: http://www.torbay.gov.uk/onetorbay

0:00 Introduction
5:30 Meeting starts
9:30 Eastern Esplanade and Preston Promenade, Paignton (P/2023/0905): Installation of coastal defences and associated works.
1:03:30 Seabury Hotel, 11 Manor Road, Torquay (P/2023/0721): Demolition of existing hotel building and erection of 14 residential apartments, and associated parking and landscaping.
2:18:20 Brunel Manor, Teignmouth Road, Torquay (P/2023/0606): Redevelopment and conversion of land at Brunel Manor including the conversion of Brunel Manor to provide 17 dwellings, the retention of Brunel Court and Brunel Lodge to provide 9 dwellings and the construction of 9 new dwellings, with associated parking, access and landscaping (Please see accompanying application P/2023/0616).
(Combined with) Brunel Manor, Teignmouth Road, Torquay (P/2023/0616): Application for listed building consent for the conversion of Brunel Manor to provide 17 dwellings. Includes the redevelopment and conversion of land at Brunel Manor, the retention of Brunel Court
and Brunel Lodge to provide 9 dwellings and the construction of 9 new dwellings, with associated parking, access and landscaping (Please see accompanying application P/2023/0606).

e e e e e e e that’s not happening now oh would that be it you’ll have to keep timing me that’s right what we got that as well oh there we go right let’s get going well good every good afternoon everyone it’s 5:30 gosh that sounds like it’s Cracker Jack now but it’s not so we’re going to start welcome to today’s planning meeting of 24th of June and I would like to welcome members of the public good afternoon counselors officers to this meeting and I call upon the clerk an who will advise us how the meeting will be run this afternoon thank you chair please note that we are live streaming this meeting via the council’s YouTube channel to encourage more people to engage in our public meetings the proceedings of the meeting will also be recorded please can I remind everyone to use their microphones when speaking and turn them off when finished please can attendees in person refrain from watching the live stream as this will cause interference for our viewers please also ensure that your mobile phones and iPads are turned to silent we are not expecting any fire alarm testing today in the event of an evacuation please leave by the nearest exit and gather in the car park next to the library opposite Tesco should members of the public need to use the toilet facilities please make make yourself known to the security guard who will provide access in accordance with the Constitution members of the public who have registered to speak will be permitted to do so when invited by the chair I have confirmed those entitled to speak please note that registered speakers are not permitted to approach committee members or distribute documentation to the committee during the course of this meeting each application will be dealt within the following order the planning officer will present the submitted application and will outline the proposed recommendation in full any speakers registered to speak on the application will be invited to address the committee and this will be taken in the following order speakers against neighborhood forign Representatives any counselors who are not members of the committee followed by speakers in support of the application all speakers will have a maximum of five minutes each to address the meeting this will be followed by questions from members and responses from the planning officer once questions from the commiss have concluded the chair will open the application for debate at the conclusion of the debate the chair will seek a proposal and seconder for the application The Proposal must be made in full and include all information such as conditions or reasons the chair will then confirm with the planning officer if they wish to enter into a period of summing up members if at any point you leave the meeting for any reason during the consideration of an application you will be unable to vote on that application I will now hand the the chairing of the meeting to the chair councelor Brooke thank you Anne um and can I ask you are there any apologies or updates uh the membership of the committee please thank you chair I can confirm that councilors pentley and verie send their apologies for this meeting thank you um also moving on to the minutes uh can I confirm a correct record of the minutes of the meeting of the committee held on the 29th of April 2024 proposed a second there councelor Strang all those in favor you thank you um moving on to Declarations of interest uh do any members of the planning committee have any pecuniary or non pecary interests on any of the items on today’s agenda please raise your hand councelor Fox apologies up until 2007 I was chair of the trustees of brinel Manor but since then I’ve had no nonp links with with the organization thank you councelor fox um moving on to officers uh do any officers here have any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests on any of the items on today’s agenda that’s no thank you again are there any uh urgent items please no there aren’t thank you so uh we’re going to move straight on then to item five uh this is considered an application for Eastern espad and Preston prominade in painton uh it’s application P 2023 905 um clerk has confirmed those who have register to speak upon entry to the meeting I will therefore ask Emily Elliot uh to introduce the application thank you chair to provide members with an update we have received one additional representation since the publication of the committee report this additional representation raises concerns about an examp planning permission for a replacement geop Park Cafe kiosk granted in December 2021 in terms of other additional information we’ve received since the publication we have had a response from the design West panel which was received on on the 14th of June um the headlines taken from that if you’ve not had the opportunity to read the response yet is that this the scheme is exciting and provides a significant generational opportunity it’s commended for its Community engagement it benefit it would benefit from a greater narrative the response to painting’s character and context was well considered however the response to Preston could go further the panel sees the potential of this proposal with some additional focus on items particular elements to be forward-looking ecologically sound sustainable poal defense scheme with high quality public realm opportunities there has been a few additional responses from wsp on behalf of the local Highway Authority um there was one received on the 13th of June however at the end of last week they did update their response um nothing majorly different apart from the rewarding of one of the five conditions um which related to the stopping up instead of it being a pre-commencement condition um they were saying prior to the first use um but that will come later um where I when I say what other additional conditions I will need to add um and in terms of um addition another additional response we’ve received is from active travel England um they’re recommending deferral as they’re not currently in a position to support the application and request further assessment evidence revisions and or dialogue their recommendation remains that the contraflow cycle Lane should be provided with physical protection from reversing vehicles or the arrangement should be redesigned to improve visibility and reduce the risk of conflict between motiv vehicles and cyclists and the last update in terms of consultation responses was from the geopark management group and they are supportive of The Proposal as just mentioned um there are a few additional conditions that I propose on top of the committee report um these relate to Road Safety order The Pedestrian infrastructure and the stopping up so going into the application um the following two slides sides are of the site location plans the one before you is of the Eastern Esplanade to the painton Sands um as mentioned it comprises of two Parcels of land it’s rather large so I couldn’t fit it all on one screen um but basically the site location Plan before you encompasses the paint and seafront which includes areas of beach existing Coastal defenses promades and access points from melonade Road the site area of this one and the following one which I’ll show you in a second is 3.49 hectar um just to point out a couple of places of interest so we’re definitely sure of which areas we’re talking about um hopefully you can see my laser on the screen um so we’ve got the painting Club over to the left hand side here we have um esade road which is the main road what runs along towards um well up here’s the town painting town center and then this is um Eastern esade road that runs along paint and seafront that I’m sure you’re all very familiar with um we have the vew cinema and the cero louer which was previously the Harvester that I’m circling here um The Adventure Golf is approximately in this location and the geop park and existing kiosk is in this location paint and Pier which is outside the application site is over here and as we make our way over to the right hand side of the painting site we have the Red Cliff Hotel and then the site location plan now shows a partial element of the paint and Sands and then we have break between the two which is taken up mainly by the Red Cliff Hotel um and then the other Redline polygon here is um for the Preston prominade part of the application so we have the boat house approximately here um and then we have the existing area where we have seasonal Beach Huts running along um there’s the existing primary coastal defense that’s already in place um we have and then the cycle way that runs along the back which is outside of the application site and the disused toilet block um near Marine parade here’s an aerial overview of the site um just pop my laser off a second sorry okay so the southern boundary of the application site cover that covers paint and Sands is within the ROM and paintting harbor Conservation Area whereas the northern boundary of the the paint and Sands parel of land is within 15 MERS of the Pam Conservation Area it’s important to note that the application site is adjacent to several grade two listed buildings including the Red Cliff Hotel the painting Club Parkfield and the Harbor Light restaurant the application site includes sections of the Southwest coast path and the national cycle Network and the application site is located within flood zones 2 and three as designated by the environment agency as well as being within a critical drainage areir area the application site and The Wider Greens on both painton and Preston side are designated as local green spaces within the painton neighborhood [Applause] plan it’s important to note that both paint and Preston green are designated as Urban landscape protection areas and Community investment areas the painton Sands parcel is located within the core tourism investment area as designated by both the local plan and the neighborhood plan and part of the painton parcel Falls within the painton Town Center boundary it should be noted that there are a number of non-designated Heritage assets within the application site including the existing pedestrian shelters which are sporadically placed along the seafronts the seaw walls and paint and peer the application site is directly adjacent to the lime Bay and tbay special area of conservation and tbay marine conservation Zone the site is approximately one kilometer away from ROM head site of special scientific interest so here is the proposed layout so it’s an overview and you can see there are eight inset maps on this um so the proposal before you today is for the installation of coastal defenses and Associated Works along both Preston Sands and painton Sands the proposed Works will include 1,163 meters of primary flood defense wall and Associated still flood defense Gates I’m now going to take you through um the those insect maps that you could see just to give you a bit more context so um The Proposal here uh if I put the little laser back on um so painting clubs over here um we have the exit the the cars go along currently the oneway system and they exit onto um esade Road and then we have um the seaw wall which the first Floodgate is across the aess road and then the seaw wall commences along um in terms of the width um at this point it varies but the at the greatest point it’s 15 m in width um and as shown on the flythroughs before the meeting um you could see that that’s a creation of embankment and terracing of planting and seating areas to help disguise the defense and provide an enhanced and accessible public realm there’ll be sloped access which is suitable for all users um up to the relocated and refurbished public shelters and then there will be um you might not be able to see very clear because it’s such a tiny plan but there is a little dotted line just before the red line up here and the dotted line shows the extent of the embankment to come there’s a lot of cycle parking along the prominade and there are informal pedestrian Crossing points throughout the scheme on paint and sand so you can see these from these areas here which are a different color um and texture to the highway there’ll be elements of seating as well not just within the terracing but there will be some cubed seating along there too there will be a new vehicle access from esade road that as discussed at the briefing um the parking and existing arrangement in front of you Cinema will be untouched and then instead of vehicles exiting straight out at the moment on the giveway onto esade Road there will be a giveway point here where Vehicles can either choose if they so wish to go left up towards the one way and then they’d have to continue along to exit via painting club or they choose to go right if they didn’t want to visit the sea front and then exit onto esade Road and that’s also demonstrated in this inset up here to which is of a tracking plan just to demonstrate that point um there will be a contraflow cycle Lane as well which will run along um along in the gray area this is very similar to the existing Arrangement that we already have in place and then in terms of of I’ll try and zoom for a minute see how good that is there we go um so in this area here um once Vehicles go up this oneway system they can choose to go left there will be a number of disabled parking spaces and there will also be a loading Bay um this is to be used for the kiosks that will run onto the next um layout and there will be a turning head feature here so vehicles are able to maneuver around and then exit um along Eastern esade in terms of moving on to the next layout so just to give you a bit of context um so this is the cero lounge that was formerly the Harvester area um Shoreline was back over here um over here we have the geop Park Cafe um this element of The Proposal removes the number of parking spaces as detailed within the committee report this will create a public realm space for pedestrians and cyclists and you see there’s a dedicated cycle Lane that runs along here it’s important to note there are a number of again Crossing points for pedestrians um so as this is a heavily utilized space in terms of the kiosks that are a number to be relocated um some that are already existing on the stilts along the beach as we’re all fully aware that are there seasonally they’ll be placed onto here there will also be um first aid and Beach management Huts located and there will be a new geop Park Cafe um and seating area in this location apologies I forgot to put my laser back on um Miss ell can you just wait a moment your Laser’s not working on sorry it should be now I think I forgot to click the button sorry I’ll just quickly do me quickly go back through I think that’s okay just yeah thank you um and as you can see um along the scheme um there are a number of floodgates again to provide accessibility for all users it’s important to note as well here that on Esplanade Road where we’re going up the one way that we currently go up the one way and we can either split left or right depending on which side we would like to park on um obviously the right hand turn will be removed for this um public realm area so all vehicles will have to go left along um you can see from this white area here is the existing public toilets and then as we go into the parking area again there are informal Crossing points to prioritize pedestrians using the space and then this is the last layer of the painton elements so this is working away again along more informal Crossing points more floodgates um the relocation refurbishment of the public shelters and then the Red Cliff Hotel over here moving on to the Preston layout just to remind ourselves over here is the boat house um and then along here we have the seasonal Beach Huts um and the seaw wall will be cited in between the two rows the landwood and the seawood side Beach huts and then as we move along there will be regrading and reprofiling of the existing access Arrangements um there’ll be areas for paddle board and kayak storage as well as Beach lockers to ensure um valuables are safely stowed away where people use the beach there’ll be um M of seating across the prominade too sar’s Cafe will remain where it is um and ensure this spill out area as well for that use and then the final proposed layout for Preston um moving our way along over here we’ve got the disused public toilets um and we’ve basically got the continuation of the war with a number of break points for um AC Public Public Access um and floodgates to ensure that this will all safely be in place when the bad weather comes just to provide you with some context and levels um as I say we’ve seen the flyovers earlier but before as now we’ve got sections so the left hand side basically gives you the site location plan of where the sections are taken so again painting clubs down here up here’s View cinema and the geop park so starting on Section A which is very close but not quite to the adventure golf in this area here the level changes show that there’s the embankment from the paint in green and the gradient ensures that the grass can be maintained at section A the height increase is approximately a meter going from 4.5 aod to 5.5 aod at section B which is by the adventure golf which we can see here we’ve got the sorry I should have said the existing and the proposed the existing sits below you can see the reprofiling of the ground the height increas is approximately 1 .1 M um approximately 4.43 aod to 5.5 aod and at section c where we are very close to cero Lounge the height increase is approximately 1.17 M from 4.33 aod to 5.5 aod moving on to the following sections along paint and Sands section D and E are very close to the G Park and at section D there’s an increase of 1.19 M from 4.31 aod to 5.5 aod section e sees approximately 1.16 M from 4.34 aod to 5.5 aod and at section F which is beyond painton pier and Beyond the public toilets is approximately an increase of 0.9 M from 4.6 aod to 5.5 aod and then the final section on paint and SE front is just a little bit further on um it sees a height increase of approximately 0.8 M from 4.56 aod to 5.5 aod then moving on to the sections for Preston um we have three before us we’ve got one close to the boat house which is section H and it sees an increase of approximately 2 m from 3.9 aod to 5.5 aod and at section I a height increase of approximately 1.34 M which is from 4.56 aod to 5.9 aod and at section j a height increase of approximately 1.24 MERS from 4.66 aod to 5.9 aod just to remind ourselves from what we saw earlier of the fly through these images are of the paint and sand so we’ve got the um the the new geop park kiosk here and geop Park that runs behind we have this area where it currently uh is an element of parking to be removed and um an enhanced public realm space with the cycle Lane running through and the relocation of a number of kiosks and this illustration is of Preston um this is from where there’s currently a whole host of different access points down onto the Preston Beach um step down sloped and then in this area we can see the naturally Stone clad wall and then the kayak paddle board Beach lockers and the existing shelter um it should be noted that the beach Huts are obviously there seasonally as we well know um it will be tested whether or not the landwood side Beach Huts can remain in place in the winter months when the seaw Wall comes into play um but this will have to be tested on whether or not there will be any damage to such um just I’m going to flick through these if that’s okay if anyone needs me to go back later I can but I’ve got a number of proposed elevations now we starting at painting Club going along paint and seafront towards the redcliffe hotel so this is the first section of the paint and sea front with the proposed wall shown in Gray the existing um public shelters in the back here we’ve got um a familiar these might be more familiar buildings um there kind of our Shoreline and The View Cinema or the steps AIS at the back is at the moment moving along this is kind of the geop Park area along here going on this is going further so beyond the geop park heading towards paint and Pier um and the public toilets and then the End by I believe that’s the end or there maybe one more we have that one um and then the redcliff hotel is here and then then in terms of the proposed elevations for Preston sea front again you can see the wall in the context of the height of the beach Huts um so they will be visibly screened during the spring and summer months and again some further proposed elevations in terms of the key issues and material considerations for this application the principle of development um this proposal is considered to be a critical piece of infrastructure required to help painton and Preston from high tides and easterly winds given the existing Coast defenses are insufficient which affects the number of properties and that was evidenced today in the extent of the flooding video I showed you earlier the application site is located within local green spaces however it’s considered that the proposed development is an important piece of infrastructure that is needed to support the Regeneration of painting and to protect the existing built environment therefore constituting very special circumstances there are no development plan policies indicating that the proposal is not acceptable in principle moving to the design and visual impact the applicant undertook extensive community and stakeholder engagement and commissioned a seafront master plan in 2022 The Proposal is for 1,163 MERS of primary flood defense approximately 24 floodgates the resurfacing to the lower prominade a new geop Park Cafe Landscaping public realm and Associated works the application site is located within three Urban landscape protection areas it’s considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the Urban landscape protection areas in terms of undermining their value as an open or landscape feature and it’s considered that the proposal would make a positive contribution to the urban environment and enhance the landscape character of the urban landscape protection areas through enhanced public realm and Landscaping a number of planning conditions are proposed within the committee report to ensure that the scheme provides a high quality design now turning to impact on Heritage assets as previously mentioned the southern boundary of the application site covers paint and Sands is within the ROM and paint and harbor conservation area the northern boundary of painton Sands is within 50 MERS of poam Conservation Area and the application site is adjacent to four grade two listed buildings the existing public shelters seaw walls and paint and peer are considered to be non-designated Heritage assets it’s considered that the proposed development would provide a positive public benefit to the Heritage assets east of the Railway line given the reduced flood risk afforded through the implementation of the proposed scheme before you the council’s principal historic environment officer has concluded that the proposed de development would overall have a positive imp impact on the significance of the Heritage assets identified within the application site surrounding area and Beyond further into painton subjects planning conditions to secure suitable materials and a detailed method specification for the repair and repurposing of the existing public shelters in terms of residential amenity subject to the planning conditions detailed within the committee report it’s considered that given the citing scale and design The Proposal would not result in an unacceptable harm to the amenities of Neighbors in terms of their Outlook privacy or access to natural light now moving on to highways access access and Highway Safety the proposed development will alter the existing vehicle access to paint and Sands as previously shown in the proposed layouts the current oneway Eastern esade vehicle access from the two-way Highway will remove the split that currently exists at the head of Payton Pier there will be parking removed to make a pedestrianized space The Proposal includes the provision of a new vehicle access adjacent to View cinema that will include a new turning head to allow the short section of two-way road to be used for loading and disabled parking spaces the proposed development does not propose any change changes to the existing Highway layout or parking Arrangements along Marine Drive and in total there will be 74 parking spaces removed from the scheme to make way for the P enhanced public realm section there will be additional cycle parking provided across both painton and Preston stands and the proposal has incorporated British accessibility standards stepf free access routes where possible the proposed development includes one in 21 slopes to ensure the sea fronts are accessible for all there have been concerns raised over the contraflow cycle however this is an existing Arrangement and the proposal is not considered to worse than such in terms of landscaping subject to the planning conditions set out in the committee report the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of landscaping turning to ecology and biodiversity the application site as previously mentioned is directly adjacent to the line Bay and tbay special area of conservation and tbay marine conservation Zone and is approximately 1 kilometer away from the random head site of special scientific interest the application site is also within the Great great crusted n consultation Zone a habitat regulations assessment and marine conservation Z Zone assessment have been undertaken both of which have been approved by Natural England subject to securing the mitigation meas measures outlined in both documents the application does not require the provision of a stategy 10% biodiversity net gain as the application was validated prior to February 2024 the proposed development does however achieve a net gain and therefore the proposal is considered to provide an acceptable biodiversity net gain subject to the planning conditions out in the committee report The Proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on ecology and biodiversity in terms of flood risk and drainage the application site is within flood zones 2 and three as well as being within a critical drainage area the proposal has a design life of 120 years and will provide a one and2 200e protection to properties in painton and Preston the proposed is considered to pass the sequential test and the exceptions test the environment agency and the council’s drainage service manager raised no objections to the proposed development in terms of low carbon development subject to the planning conditions set out in the committee report the proposals considered to be acceptable and finally in terms of Designing out crime subject to the planning conditions set out in the committee report The Proposal is considered to be acceptable overall the proposed development is considered to represent sustainable development economically through providing flood protection to existing and future businesses and through the construction of such socially through providing step-free access routes and ensuring the sea fronts are accessible for all improving cycling leg stability and safety and enhancing the public realm to encourage opportunities for social interaction and finally environmentally through significantly reducing the risk of coastal flooding to both Payton and Preston overall The Proposal is a crucial piece of infrastructure that will provide essential flood resilience for painton and Preston therefore the officer recommendation is approval subject to the conditions outlined below with a final drafting of conditions delegated to the divisional director of planning housing and climate emergency and the resolution of any new material considerations that may come to light following planning committee to be delegated to the divisional director of planning housing and climate emergency including the addition of any necessary further planning conditions or obligations thank [Music] you deep breath thank you very much Miss Elliot for very detailed overview and summary of such an important scheme for painton and Preston and something that will be if it’s approved uh something around a lot longer than any of us will be around so it’s massively important for the bay um committee um we’ve actually had no registered speakers for this item so I’m just going to open it up now for questions to our planning officer and a little reminder um please uh Focus your questions on only matters not already covered in the presentation thank you Council of Billings thank thank you chair so um first question please Melia um if we turn to condition 12 which relates to the bird nesting season so I just wanted to understand a little bit about the the appropriateness of that condition and whether the the wording is is what we want um are there any alternative solutions that we’re aware of as an authority to the proposed Works to to do the sea defense um my understanding of that that there aren’t and I also believe that there’s a very important public interest in undertaking these works and and so on that basis I I wonder whether the condition that we’ve got is too tightly drafted because I believe we might have an aopi test that might be relevant here in other words imperative reasons of overriding public interest which where there are no alternative Solutions and a very very large public interest in doing this would allow the works to proceed even if in that example birds were found if compensation was done just wondered if I could have some thoughts on that please from yourself and maybe also from um Mr Cal thank you thank you Council billing so the um condition 12 was suggested by Devon County council’s ecologist um I fully understand what you’re suggesting in terms of the tightness of the condition um and it potentially preventing The Works to commence um I’m happy to take take um an alteration to the condition if you see necessary my my suggestion is that as drafted it’s extremely restrictive and my suggestion uh and and I conscious that the the recommendation is for for the final drafting to be sorted out by by officers and delegated authority on that my suggestion is we allow an aopi test to be provided in there in that wording um because I’m not aware of there being any alternative Solutions other than the scheme we have before us maybe that’s something we can cover a little bit more in debate H and and on that basis I think that there would be an overriding public interest in doing these works and that therefore I wouldn’t want them to be stalled because of uh an inability to to proceed and I think if we could do appropriate compensation um should the need aise hopefully we won’t find this problem but I I wouldn’t want us to find we we’re stalled on that approach so maybe that that drafting could be reflected on um perhaps uh thank you chair that was my first question um and then separately turning through to conditions 21 and 22 these cover the proposed soft and hard landscape caping um clearly how it looks is absolutely really important to the delivery of a of a scheme be um uh that that will uh befit the the location are you confident please Melia that those two conditions suitably cover the need to for example have plants that are Hardy over the long term in an exposed coastal location material finishes that will be durable over a long term you confident that the the wording of those two conditions is is sufficient to deliver that please thanks chair thank you Council of Billings um in terms of the soft Landscaping you’ll have seen within the submission that there are a number of drawings however I was slightly concerned for the lack of detail that’s why I suggested the wording I have I think it is very important we have a coastal herbaceous mix there um and we make sure that the species and size Etc are suitable um so I’m happy for the condition I think it does cover that and I’ve also got condition 10 um to ensure that the stuff Landscaping within and around the development um is to be maintained for the lifetime of the development which hopefully then there should be no Decay to the scheme thank you chair thanks thanks mot councelor Fox thank you thank you chairman just two questions uh first one we have an existing flooding problem in the center of paintting as many of us no um and quite severe basement flooding and I I just wondered if this scheme will help in any way at all I realized they’re kind of probably separate causes um but it would just be interesting to see whether there’ll be any additional benefit from this scheme before us now in relation to the existing basement flooding problem we have my second question is really on the security of the funding um how confident are we that we will have the funding for this scheme it it’s an incredible scheme and uh I think we’re all in in support of the principles of it it just seems great but I just wonder how how realistic it is terms of the mega funding that will be needed for it thank you thank you councelor fox um I’d like to invite Dave Stewart to answer the first question in relation to the basement flooding question and then Tim Jones to answer the second question in relation to funding if that’s okay chair thank you councelor fox uh yeah with regard to basement flooding um the basement flooding in the Central Area painton comes from as you said a number of different sources yes when we’ve had Coastal over topping basements can be flooded so the scheme as designed will alleviate I won’t say remove it will alleviate it will reduce that risk of flooding from Coastal over topping we also have groundwater issues in the in that area of painting and surface water uh flooding issues in that area of painting um so groundwater will not be addressed by that it’s very difficult the only way you can address ground flood in the basements is to tank the basement and make certain that you can’t let the water come in through the ground into it uh and basement should be designed in that way anyway and and have that work done the surface water element of it um is as we’re saying rainfall running onto the surface running off and flooding the it so the proposed scheme will not address that however we are currently as the council with the a looking at a surface water flood alleviation scheme for the central area of painton which hopefully will provide uh further protection to those areas in the future thank you councilor Fox I do with a second question um yes in terms of funding we received some fantastic new news in May this year from the Department of leveling up who confirmed uh that we’ been successful securing 7 million pounds funding that in itself presents some challenges they’re the right challenges to have and and one of the reasons we’re optimistic of securing a positive outcome tonight we need to be in a position where we’ve committed all of that7 million pound in its entirety by March 25 so working backwards from that and we we may get further questions that talk about programming and delivery you can appreciate we’re we’re really up against it so good problem to have but the7 million is secured the other element of the funding is from the environment agency or the main funding um we’ve currently got 3.1 million pounds that’s physically in in the bank from the environment agency and there’s 500 71,000 also from future High streets funding so that’s secured funding we prepared an updated business case in December last year um we’ve been through that in detail with the local branch of the environment agency and we’ve got their full support that has gone off to the um effectively the head office if you want to put it that way of the EA um we are currently seeking funding up to a maximum of 9.8 million and we’re optimistic to receive uh a decision on whether we’ve been successful on that in the next few weeks um so in terms of what we’ve got secured um it’s around about1 million um as I say we’ve passed all the local checks um the way things work with the environment agency is that if you have the support of the local office that goes a long way to getting that funding secured So within the next couple of weeks we’re optimistic to have the um the green light for funding on the whole project thank you very much thank you councelor fox councelor Madison thank you um I just seek a little bit more information piece about parking Arrangements I think we’re losing 75 parking spots um and um there’s not much concern at that uh I understand um because of the two existing named parking uh facilities in town nearby the railway station which I think is usually at um capacity whenever I see it uh and Victoria car park and I just wonder if you could just um so that was 75 just sort of do we have a sense of the capacity at the at the car park and and uh what it runs that do we have any sense of that um thank you thank you councilor Madison um so in terms of the loss of parking there would be 74 spaces lost within page 32 of the committee report um I’ve copied a table um on the parking modifications to the Eastern esade in painton so in terms of just giving you an update on the parking currently there’s two disabled parking spaces and the proposal um will increase the provision by eight in additional eight to give a total of 10 in terms of standard car parking spaces there are currently 207 spaces and there will then be a reduction of 82 to give 125 um so balancing between the disabled and the standard parking um the total loss would be 74 the local Highway Authority have confirmed that the loss of the parking is considered to be acceptable given that the application site is within close proximity to painton town center and Victoria car park which has approximately 420 car parking spaces and is less than 300 M away from the application site um as you’ve already noted the is the railway station and the bus station nearby um for other sustainable means of Transport um however it’s considered that obviously the loss of parking would significantly enhance the public realm area um and given Summer and the spill out from the geop park um and people wanting to use painton Beach um it’s considered that the loss of the parking um is sufficiently Justified thank you thanks Emily but that wasn’t quite what I was after I was trying to understand what the existing capacity in town is like currently so whenever as I’ve said the Train the train station parking is pretty full almost constantly so what is the situation do you know um in the Victoria uh street parking I don’t have those figures to hand for you um I’m not sure whether my colleagues have done parking study on this or if Tim Jones is able to assist thank you yeah thank you Emily I can probably offer a little bit more information um yeah I mean I’ve personally been involved for around about three years of public consultation on this project and it was really interesting that the one item where the public were completely split almost 50/50 was on parking I think anybody who rode a push bike didn’t want any cars on the seafront and people who’ clearly enjoyed that space um were clearly very reluctant to lose the parking so it was quite a Hot Topic um separately um within the engineering team we’re currently looking at a piece of work looking at painting as a whole obviously there’s a lot of current development proposals going on obviously the Garfield Road car park which has been very dilapidated for many years and um almost completely unused because it’s been unsafe has recently been um sort of part demolished um we’re looking now at a wider strategy looking at what is what is left and what the impact is so that there’ll be probably more of a hybrid solution I think it’s fair to say in the summer months we get Peaks um Air Show other events where we need to provide some temporary provision and then looking at the the the longer term strategy we’re we’re currently you know doing a wider review of those numbers so I I think as Emily has said there was also a lot of concern about the interaction between people bikes and cars on the sea front and that was um reinforced quite strongly actually by active travel um they wanted us to look to segregate bicycles far more formally they wanted us to put them on the seawood side unfortunately there was not enough room to do that so we’ve kept the situation as it is currently with a lot more um sort of definition between cars bikes and people so it’s a valid concern um I think on balance there was a lot more um positivity about the cars generally being removed and hence why we’ve got that Central section that’s now going to be pedestrianized and designated for events so doesn’t fully answer your question but hopefully it goes some way to offering some reassurance that it The Wider picture is being considered thank you it’s reassuring to know that there is strategic thinking going into think about about that for the future so yes thank you any further questions colleagues um sorry sorry just one uh one further one really just to um ask whether um I mean I note that uh the Marine management body has not responded and nor has the geop park coordinator responded according to the report and I was wondering what significance should be attributed to those facts um thank you thank you councelor Madison um just provid you with an update the geop park management board um which I may have mistakenly put as the geop park coordinator has responded and is supportive um hopefully their response was viewable um before the committee meeting for you um they’re just Keen to ensure that there’s enhancements to the public realm um but are very supportive of The Proposal before you um and in terms of the uh Marine management organization we are still yet to receive a response um but given how urgent the application is um has come to committee without response Council Bings thank you um appreciate we’ve probably covered this but for absolute Clarity I wonder whether um officer colleagues could just talk us through the absolute necessity of this scheme and whether there are any alternative options available just uh just just providing some background to the question that I asked earlier that that would be helpful chair yes thank you Council bildings um yeah we actually looked when we actually did the original business case for the scheme uh to the environment agency first time back in 2019 we did try and look at as many options as possible and we basically found no options that would actually work the nearest option uh we looked at a couple of things we looked at obviously the scheme as it is at the moment with the secondary defense along the seawood side with the green we did look at a sec a second option of the secondary defense on the landwood side of the green how however that didn’t stack up because obviously every time you had a flood you’d flood the green and any of the businesses on on the green would be flooded also it was a question of how you drain that water back and bear in mind with the wall there you could have had a meter depth of water sat on the green and that was even more uh a larger depth when you looked at Preston uh so that was actually discounted as an early stage uh the only other option really that anybody could really come up with as a sens option was to looking at raising the height of the existing seaw wall so that was looked at but because of the way wave action works uh it needed to be about 3 m higher so people have said why does it um raising the height of the existing wall need to be far higher than the secondary setback wall and basically what happens is the waves come in they break over the existing wall so you get less it brings the height down less uh less W um Power in to it and therefore the secondary set back wall can be lower so we the other thing with the obviously when we said yeah we could do a 3 met high wall we’d have to virtually rebuild the wall because the foundations wouldn’t be strong enough but also you wouldn’t have any visibility from the green to the Sea uh so it was discounted on those that that ground they were actually the only three sensible options that we could come up with we looked at Rock armoring to break it all leaving it in yes it reduced it somewhat but it didn’t give the one in 200e protection uh and to get granting Aid funding you need we needed to get the one in2 200 year protection to it so various other options were were discounted and that we were virtually left with the scheme as it is thank you okay thank you chair thank you Council tchart thank you chair um just very quickly I’m interested in the in the floodgates because there are quite a lot of gaps along the the seafront in the walls as they are at the moment and then the access roads off Esplanade Road um how how are they going to operate and who is going to be responsible for operating them yeah thank you thank you councelor CH toch child um yeah so the the con I’m speaking on behalf of an architect now so you’ll have to apologize for my crew um but essentially the principle is that where there’s current openings where they strategically positioned in good places those have been retained um where we’ve got elements in the public realm designed that is effectively filtering pedestrians or Cycles in particular routs again we’ve we’ve utilized those positions but in conjunction with that as you rightly identify um in the uh event of a of a storm brewing we need to get our dear friends at swisco um along there to close the gates so the the brief we had from them was that one person ought to be able to close the gates so you don’t need a team of five people to close every gate and clearly there needed to be a sensible time period now fortunately with easterly storms you tend to get in the main a couple of days advaned warning so it it isn’t sort of an emergency situation in its truest form but nonetheless as as you’ll appreciate we’ve got 800 me at painton we got 400 meters at Preston so it’s quite an exercise closing all those gates from end to end um and we got the sort of the added challenge as well that it occurred to us earli on we actually have to lock the gates open silly as that sounds in times where we haven’t got storm conditions otherwise I’m sure some of the locals would decide it would be fun to actually lock the gates shut when we don’t need them shut so there was quite a bit of science went into it but um in summary we’re sort of balancing the the the sort of the change I suppose to the public you know I’ve lived in painting all my life and at the moment you just wander seamlessly from painting at you from the green onto the onto the frontage and that’s going to be quite a culture change for people um but if we if we created too many openings it would just be an impossibility to open and close these things um so that that was the rationale hopefully that answers your your question thank you counselor toad okay colleagues I’ll open up for debate now then Council Billings um thank you chair um I think all the evidence we have before us indicates that without the scheme there’ll be a high likelihood of flooding uh to large sections of painon uh in in the future uh and so on that basis we we we know there’s very clear need for for for a Fred defense scheme like this um thinking through some of the original consultation work that was done with the community there was original suggestions about a a bluff wall and I think that was something that in my view wouldn’t wouldn’t have been something that would have been appropriate in in this location but what we’ve got here is something that I think seeks to enhance the space uh and create a sea defense in a in a way that that doesn’t obviously read that it’s a sea defense it flows into the landscape uh in one area it’s hidden between uh Beach uh Beach Huts in another area it’s hidden uh by a by what I would describe as a haar I gradually Rising slope uh and then a stepped Bank on the other side uh and and so uh I would suggest that what we’ve got is something that seeks to bring forward a necessary flood defense scheme in a way that’s appropriate for the this prime seafront location uh and uh on that basis I’d be quite happy to move approval uh unless other members have have any other points they’d like makeing debate um I I think it appropriate that um uh that we do apply appropriate conditions to ensure that the delivery of the scheme is as high quality as we’ve all seen in the YouTube videos uh and that’s why I’m grateful to um meliot who’s um who’s gone through and looked at the detail of those I am cautious about um the the restrictive nature condition 12 and I would encourage officers to reconsider the wording of that um um afterwards in course in in in accordance with the delegated authority that you’ve got uh and so on that basis I’d be happy to propose approval um in line broadly with the the officer report second thank you very much uh Council Billings councelor Fox yep can we just come in on those conditions just for complete Clarity during the meeting rather than afterwards to delegated powers thank you councilor Billings um in terms of my update at the start of the presentation I also suggested the inclusion of three additional conditions for the road safety audit The Pedestrian infrastructure for pier Road and Eastern Esplanade and then the stopping up condition are you happy as well for those uh yes I am uh for absolute Clarity so the inclusion of the ones in the report and the the ones you identified at the beginning subject perhaps to some uh consideration of whether the opportunity to read condition 12 subsequently please okay and the delegation to word those three conditions appropriately yes correct thank you have we clarified the condition 12 Change yes we’ll seek a voice from Devon County Council as well and um make sure that’s that’s followed up in an appropriate manner okay well if there’s no further debate um and we’re clear on what the proposal is and second is um do you need to say anything else agreement okay thank you very much for your complete agreement this time councilor Fox let’s go to vote then uh all in favor thank you very much everybody that’s been approved well see e e that’s okay councelor Strang thank you um we’ll now move on to item six uh this is a uh to consider an application for seab hotel uh which is um based in in number 11 Manor Road in t Kei and the application number is p223 0721 um the Clark has conf confirm those who have registered to speak upon entry to the meeting and I’m therefore going to ask uh Miss Eliot again to introduce this application thank you thank you chair the application before you is for the SE Hotel 11 Mana Road in toy the hotel has not operated since the covid pandemic and it’s a attached Victorian Villa that has been heavily extended over the years um as you can see from the site location Plan before you today when we went out on site we entered the site here on Mana Road the existing vehicle access point we went in and around the site to where the disused swimming pool is and then following that we took a brief stop um over on the corner of Mana road with Stanley Road as you can see from the site visit today the application site is a two-story property enclosed with prominent stone walls amateur trees and HED RS The Proposal before you is for the demolition of the existing building and out buildings and the construction of 14 two-bedroom apartments Landscaping parking and Associated works just to provide you with some context so here’s Mana Road running along Stanley Road running adjacent to the site here is the application site the site’s within the St Mary Church Conservation Area on the opposite side of the road here is 205 St Mary Church Road which is grade two listed building the application site is designated as flood zone one and is within the critical drainage area moving to the existing site layout to provide you with a bit of context as You’ have seen from the site visit earlier the site is relatively flat um the existing car parking Arrangement is here um and the historic Victorian Villa is approximately in this location here there’s a swimming pool and we stood approximately here earlier there are several small ancillary buildings within the site these run along this edge of the application site um we didn’t go as far as that today but they’re there um and there is evident two story flat roof additions to the building turning to the existing elevations this is the Northwest elevation so this faces Mana Road um from where the vehicle entrance point is and here you can see the historic vict Victorian V core and the twostory and single story flat roof extensions moving to the Northeast elevation which faces Stanley Road and we saw glimpses of this elevation today when we stood on the corner approximately over here on the site earlier moving on to the southeast elevation this is the elevation we saw when we were at the rear of the site and the swimming pool was approximately where the laser is at the moment and then the Southwest elevation um this was The View we had when we were stood within the car parking area the existing floor plans um show the layout to be a 23 bedroom hotel and the car parking Arrangement was for approximately 12 Vehicles which had to suit both staff and guests here’s the existing roof plan um you can see the uh arrangement of flat roof extensions around the building and the hips roofscape at the Victorian Villa core the proposed layout maintains the existing vehicle access from Mana Road The Proposal provides 14 car parking spaces of which two are for disabled users and three would have electric charging facilities as mentioned on site the green areas are the retained trees the pink dotted areas are um for the trees to be removed um the areas here um the little polygons are new trees to be planted the bin storage area is located here and the bin collection point is here they are enhancing the visibility spays at the vehicle entrance and they are stopping up and closing up the existing pedestrian access point just on the corner um near Stanley Road here are the proposed elevations so it’s the Northwest elevation so this is the elevation that faces Stanley Road so earlier when we went out and we stood on the pavement we were s approximately in this location Mana Road runs along here um so as you can see it’s three stories in form um it’s got a range of roof Scapes and it changes in its scale and massing um the proposed building would be finished in white render with intermittent use of gray render and the hip roof would be slate it’s approximately 36 MERS in width when it faces Stanley Road and it has a turret feature which you can see here at the highest point the building measures approximately 10.8 m in height and then turning to the Northwest elevation this is the elevation that faces Mana Road um so the access point would be over here um and the car park to provide you with some context and then we’ve got the Southwest elevator so this is within the parking area when we went to site earlier and we stood and we looked at the building um this is then what you would see and the southeast is where we stood when we were to the rear of the building um today this is just to provide you with some context for the proposed Street Scene elevations so from Mana Road and then from Stanley Road just to be clear this is the proposed development and the neighbor to the right hand side when on the opposite side of Mana Road looking into the site and then this is we were over here earlier on site looking down towards Stanley Road um and the neighboring property which you couldn’t see given the existing vegetation here are the proposed floor plans the ground floor and the first floor the pink areas denote the two bedroom apartments um and the orangey pale yellow color here is for cycle storage and then we’ve got the propos floor plans for the second floor and the roof um again the pink denotes the uh residential units and the orange pale yellow color denotes the plant area um as you can see from the roofscape here there are a number of Dormers proposed um and the turret feature as well that you can see here’s a site photograph so the view from Mana Road um this photo was taken a little while ago so it looked a little bit different today but it’s still gives you the same context hopefully and then here’s another site photograph um actually this is where we all stood to congregate and look at it from Stanley Road um so hopefully that provides you just with a quick refresh in terms of key issues material considerations turning firstly to the principle of development the site is outside of the core tourism investment area and the loss of tourist accommodation to residential use is considered to be acceptable given the nature of the area The Limited passing trade the fact that the site does not benefit from C viws and the declining Revenue in its former Hotel use the mppf and the development plan support Brownfield development subject to been no significant adverse impacts it’s important to note that the council has got a significant housing shortfall however the presumption in favor of sustainable development does not apply and permission should be refused where either the application of policies within the framework that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development or any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits the committee report outlines the moderate but less than substantial harm to the St Mary Church Conservation Area and the setting of 205 St Mary Church Road which is a grade two listed building turning to the design and visual impact which also includes Heritage impacts the Victoria sorry apologies the Victorian Villa in the application site dates back between the 1980s to the 1860s it features stuer elevations Windows a Welsh slate roof and generous grounds it has had a number of insensitive extensions however the historic Villa core remains as I’ve already previously mentioned the site is within the St Mary Church Conservation area within the close proximity to 205 St Mary Church Road the conservation area character appraisal sets out that the Victorian character of the area is fundamental however it should be noted that the site is not identified as a key building a number of historic have been consulted on the application and have responded to the application which can be found within the committee report the council’s principal historic environment officer has used historic England’s tests and concluded that the building is a non-designated Heritage asset the proposal has a larger footprint and is greater and height which is considered to resolves in an unduly dominant building it’s considered to lead to moderate but less than substantial harm to the St Mary Church Conservation Area and the setting of 205 St Mary Church Road and the loss of the bill building would lead to the total loss of its significance as a non-designated Heritage asset it’s considered that the public benefits namely 14 two-bedroom residential Apartments is not considered to outweigh the identified harm to the Heritage Assets in terms of residential amenity the site is in close proximity to the St Mary Church District Center and Playmore local Center so it’s in a positive sustainable location in terms of access to Services facilities and amenities all the units before you comply with the nationally described space standards and as as seen from the proposed layout it provides a sufficient communal outdoor amenity space and is not considered to result in detriment in apologies in to result in a detrimental impact to neighbors moving on to highways movement and parking it maintains the existing vehicle access from Manor Road it provides 14 parking spaces however it’s important to note that the former use as a 23 bedroom hotel had less parking spaces therefore the proposal before you is considered to have a lesser impact on the high way Network The Proposal is considered to provide an acceptable level of bicycle storage in terms of ecology biodiversity in trees is considered to have an acceptable impact subject to the planning subject to planning conditions should permission be [Applause] granted in terms of flood risk and drainage it’s considered to be acceptable in terms of surface water drainage again subject to appropriate conditions should the application be approved in terms of low carbon development and climate change the applic is supported by a number of apologies supported by an energy statement as it and is proposing to use electricity as the fuel airs Source heat pumps as the heating system and will reduce CO2 emissions it’s considered to Accord with the development plan policies on such in terms of Designing out crime no details have been provided within the application but can be subject to a planning condition should planning permission be granted and in terms of the viability the applicant has submitted a viability appraisal which was independently assessed the assessment concl uded that the previously approved 2021 scheme is unviable and the current scheme would therefore deliver a reasonable profit to the developer in terms of the officer recommendation it’s one of refusals subject to the reason outlined in the committee Report with the final drafting of the reason delicated to the divisional director of planning housing and climate change oops apologies climate emergency and the resolution of any new material considerations that may come to light following planning committee to be delegated to the divisional director of planning housing and climate emergency including the addition of any necessary further reasons thank you thank you uh Miss Elliot for that we uh committee members we don’t have any speakers against this application so I’m going to move straight to those who speak in support uh first I’d like to call Mr Mike calry uh on behalf of tbay neighborhood forum to speak and support Mr cry um you have five minutes uh and the Clark will let you know when you’ve got one minute left thank you thank you good evening this statement has been reviewed and approved by the Steering group of the talki neighborhood Forum The Forum objected to the previous application P2022 Str 908 this building was too large and the style was incompatible with the St Mary Church Conservation Area and neighboring buildings this application was subsequently withdrawn we were pleased when the applicant developed a new smaller and less intrusive scheme and came to present the proposal to the student group of the Forum we agreed that this was a much more acceptable scheme when compared with the original scheme as you will see from this slide when planning consent was sought we prepared a policy checklist which has been sent to you and submitted a consulty response in support as you will see much of the checklist is green showing compliance with the policies however we know that compliance with policies ss10 and th8 was border line in terms of the relationship with the Victorian Villas in that area of St Mary church the samary church Conservation Area appraisal shows that the SE hotel is not listed is not a non-designated Heritage asset nor is it a key building or part of a group of buildings of architectural importance The Forum disagrees with a late designation on page 70 of the papers to make the building a non-designated Heritage asset it has been significantly extended in the past such it has lost much of its original characteristics the next slide shows some neighboring modern in Congress property such as 213 at Mary Church Road which was approved despite numerous objections included from The Forum what you have in front of you today is nothing like that this slide shows approved developments at our close Neighbors in Manor Road not too far removed in design from this proposal on that basis we agreed that the proposal was an acceptable compromise particularly as it is a Brownfield site and will contribute 14 dwellings to the much depleted housing Supply this tilts the planning balance in favor of development The Forum concludes that in this case the harm to the conservation era is minor and is outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development the new building’s design is now of a size scale and architectural style that Accords with other properties in the area if refused for Heritage reasons this case raises concerns about consistency in recent planning decisions for example Singleton Gardens was approved in spite of demolition of a non-designated Heritage assets hotel Virginia was rightly refused because it would have involved demolition of non-designated Heritage asset and merid was retrospectively approved despite unauthorized modifications to a grade to listed building I’d like to emphasize that this is a very different situation from Mouse Cottage Maiden approved at your March meeting meeting where the Forum and local residents strongly objected to the in Congress design because of non-compliance with design policies ss10 th8 and th12 which is specific for Maiden coup indeed it seems as if planning officers are not taking account of the views of the neighborhood Forum which represents the community and are directing you at variance with Community opinion given the amount of effort volunteers are put into developing the neighborhood plan as well as cooperating with the planning function this is both disappointing and disturbing the applicant has also engaged with the St Mary Church Community Partnership who supported the proposal so I hope you’ll recognize the overall Community Support remaining thank you the policy checklist is the result of a thorough objective review of compliance of the application with development policies and takes considerable time to complete the Forum requests that you you as elective representatives of the community will agree with the checklist you have before you and approve this application thank you thank you very much Mr calri and apologies when I said Tob not to key tongue twister um I’d now like to call on Mr Alan Griffith on behalf of the St Mary Church Steering group to speak seing support of the application again Mr Griffith you have five minutes and the Clark will let you know when there’s one minute to go right thank you very much good evening uh chair and counselors um I’m speaking on behalf of the St Mary Church Community Partnership of which I’m a member a steering a member of the Steering group um talking about seab hotel um planning application p223 0721 uh the subar church and District Community Partnership is pleased to support this application the partnership objected to the previous application p222 0908 on the grounds of non-compliance with development plan policies particularly in terms of its overbearing design sign that was incompatible with the conservation area and the underground car park was thought problematical for flooding and fire risk we were pleased to see that that application with was withdrawn the hotel industry is one of T’s Key contributors to its remaining a Seaside town with a thriving economy it provides accommodation to visitors and employment to locals competition has become strong with development of more modern hotels and operations such as Airbnb entering the market many of the older hotels look tired and the owners can’t afford to upgrade needed afford the upgrade needed to compete with new builds the expectations of customers have increased such that older hotels can no longer provide the facilities needed such as onsuite bathrooms for all rooms sadly the SE Hotel falls into this older category an attractive hotel in its day many additions have made it unsightly although near to the prized babam Downs it is outside the core tourism investment area CTI however it is within the St Mary Church Conservation Area so it must fit in with surrounding buildings the developer engaged with the Steering group and the Community Partnership to share their proposals for a revised project this newly proposed apartment block which will replace the hotel is in proportion to the other buildings in the conservation area and in keep with their design it is not another unsightly glazed box like for instance 2113 St Mary Church Road it has good design and this was achieved by the developer liasing with the council’s planning department to see it complies with the requirements of the conservation area we consider that the building is welld designed modest in height and has onsite ground level par marking it complies with torbet local plan policy ss10 and talky neighborhood plan th8 therefore the St Mary Church Community Partnership asks that you reject the case officer’s recommendation and approve this application thank you thank you very much Mr Griffith for your statement there finally I’d like to call on Mr Martin Hill the applicant uh to address the meeting again in [Music] support and uh just a reminder as well Mr Hill you have five minutes and the clock will let you know when one minutes to go uh good afternoon everybody and thank you very much indeed for this opportunity it’s much appreciated um we just wanted to run through um with you I suppose the the background to this and and where we feel we are I’m not a planning specialist so I do apologize if I haven’t got the planning should I say detail um when we decided to withdraw the application that was referred to earlier uh we really wanted to engage with as many people as we possibly could to get something in place that would work as well as we can get it to work in particular um from the point of view of design massing and scale which is why we engaged with the the local groups and also with the the local planning Authority as well to ask the question as to what would be an acceptable form an acceptable design approach something we also had to take into account was that the extant consent that we have that was for 12 apartments and maintaining the core of the old Villa had because of the huge increase in Bild costs and various other issues become financially unviable it it just it just doesn’t work so part of the process that we went through was to get a a viability study done by a third party company and we also went out and got a a Heritage consultant uh to have a look at the uh the whole Heritage issue because we were obviously very conscious of the fact that we didn’t want to um be in contravention of any of those things so first of all when um officers consider that the perceived herit Heritage impact represents a clear reason for refusal which if you like trumps the presumption in favor of sustainable de velopment we we simply don’t agree with that statement um further you know officers consider that the public benefits to housing Supply in the economy would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to designated Heritage assets again we disagree um torbet at the moment can demonstrate 2.17 years of housing Supply which represents a significant demonstrable shortfall um the shortfall has been persistent over many years and the situation appears to be perhaps worsening um the adopted local plan is out of date the emerging local plan is halted and at present there’s no viable plan Le solution to remedy this shortfall and so perhaps significant weight should therefore be attached to the delivery of housing uh this is a Brownfield site in a builtup area in a sustainable location reflecting the objectives of the nppf the adopted local plan the neighborhood plan and the emerging local plan to provide housing on Brownfield sites within settlement boundaries and just just to reemphasize the previous comments the SE hotel is not a listed building neither is it identified as a locally list uh as a as a key building or any there is no designated importance from a Heritage perspective um listed against that building I think the replacement of the building is now of a scale of massing which represents the prevailing context locally too as previously mentioned um and we we did take on board the comments made to us about sale and about massing and about design and and and hence uh we were you very pleased that both the tobay neighborhood forum and the St Mary Church Community Partnership um saw fit to support the application in writing they’ve also mentioned a couple of other examples there’s an application that was uh succeeded in in Key keyfield Road in painton in July 23 but that was something that was quite a different building it’s a um it was a listed building I believe if I could now turn to the aspect of viability because that is is is you know something obviously is a very key consideration for for us as a developer um we carried out we we had a third party firm of Consultants carry out a viability report that viability report basically confirmed that the 12 unit scheme as approved a couple of years ago was no longer viable and that the only SCH one minute remaining uh the only scheme that is viable is for 14 units um we also at the the the uh officers actually requested a validation of that report and in fact we had a third-party firm um William lean who actually looked at our report and confirmed the content of that report to say that a 14 unit scheme was the only one that was viable um as it as it stands financially so just in conclusion The Proposal We Believe represents sustainable development it’s located within a builtup area in close proximity to community facilities it brings back a Brownfield site into appropriate use it’s a commercially viable development if the 14 units is is is approved and the we believe the demolition of the existing building is Justified and proportionate to its relative significance and contribution towards the cont Conservation Area and the traditional sympathetic design approach will ensure that the overall impact on the development and the setting of the listed building is not harm thank you Mr Hill I’m afraid that’s your five I’m not very good at keeping uh so members I’m uh going to invite uh questions now to the planning officer again May remind you questions should cover matters not raised already in the presentation counselor Strang oh sorry youve got that bit um on the significance of the uh existing Villa U I would just like to ask the question is there anything within the existing Villa either externally or internally that makes it significant or would be a massive loss if this scheme were to uh go ahead thank you so so in my um consultation response um to the case officer I used historic Eng established criteria to assess whether it was a a locally non-designated Heritage asset that looks at its type its age its Rarity its architectural and artistic interests group value historic interests and whether it’s a landmark building or not so this describes um each characteristic of that I’ve just mentioned there and whether the building meets that particular criteria um regards specific detailing and what have you um they came to the conclusion that there was external and internal detailing in the Heritage statement outlines some photographs of that um that submitted within the application um it takes into account yes there has been unsympathetic alterations and extensions in the past but looks at what is remaining um so in answer to your question that has been done within that kind of table of of assessment within my consultation response and with the conclusion that it did fit the criteria to be a non-designated Heritage asset [Music] councelor Fox thank you can I just get an understanding on consultation I seem to be getting mixed messages here um I wonder whether um somebody could just explain to me exactly what consultation has taken place uh and with whom um so in terms of consultation in terms of the public or consult so in terms of the public there was a site notice neighbor notification sent to All relevant adjacent neighbors um and in terms of the consules within the committee report all of the conses have been outlined um would you like me to list them councelor fox or I I was I mean thank you for the answer I’m just wondering what kind of consultation there was with the community rather and with the consules I mean I got the impression from the applicants there has been consultation with the community and are we aware of that and what kind of weight would we put on that the application as Emily just explained uh Emily just explained that you know it’s been out to to our normal consultation we take that into consideration we’ve had a number of representations we obviously take and listen to the various consultations we’ve had and we’ve heard tonight uh but it’s all balanced against you know some of the criteria that’s explained by our principal historic environment officer so um we’ve got no details on what steps the applicant and agent took but we can certainly say that our procedure was followed in terms of its engagement Council Billings um thank you chair through you chair I’d like to say thank you to Mr cowry for a very helpful presentation uh and just following up uh in relation to one of the topics that he raised he he was talking to me about how this application sat for the purpose of consistency in relation to some other developments such as Mouse Cottage and in in in C and also hotel Virginia I wonder if um Miss OT Mr Palmer you could just talk me through how you s see this uh how how you see things from your perspective in relation to those um I wonder if you could talk to me about the relative importance of uh the building that we have here in terms of it being a non-designated Heritage asset in relation to how important you see hotel Virginia for example I wonder if you could could talk to me uh uh on that basis and also answer some of the other questions about the appropriateness of a more modern development in maum but not for example here and in relation to the toi neighborhood plan policies thank you I think with respect we’re dealing with a single application here some points of principle here isn’t there about the integrity and professionalism of our heritage officers and our team I think you know we’ve applied everything with the same test the same rigor you know we’ve got uh it’s appropriate to challenge those and listening and taking account of voices and consultation is an integral part of the planning system and you can see by our reports just how far the depths we go into to make sure that applications are called or do not and all those are really valued so the checklist the table that particularly toi NE form are very good at providing information but we have to balance that against our own criteria established through legislation National policy local policy uh and with respect I find it really difficult to hear those other examples that are far and away completely different to the one we’re dealing with here there’s some points in principle but they’re contextually very very different and I know colleagues have reached out and met with talki neighborhood forum and had a discussion about Heritage assets and our plan process and something I really want to make clear that it’s incredibly important that we’ve got a positive trusting relationship with historic England National lity Heritage fund and we’ve got a team of Heritage professionals and we have to make those difficult challenging Cho choices we do we do listen uh but at times the balance is tipped the other way and in this instance the balance is tipped for towards preserving the building with a lot of balanced other arguments and consideration take into place so I’ll let our principle is St government officer answer the next question but I think to make that point that there’s a a huge amount of professional Integrity goes in these points and I do not think that planning committe is the point the place to challenge those thank you um just to add to that to regards the process the process that I go through for assessing those different applications are the same it’s established criteria established guidance established policy the flow from receiving application and what you look at in regards the Heritage impacts exactly the same going through all those different applications um with regards to I think the second part of the question is regards to his actual value as a as a non-designated h asset um with the linkage to hotel Virginia here as well um I would say yes very different context sites and what have you but both similar in the sense that they um both make a a positive contribution on assessment to the conservation area wasn’t marked as a key building this particular one within the conservation area appraisal but when you come to assess an application that’s when you look at building it in more depth and and when you make that assessment and as I responded to a previous question that criteria was followed I came to a conclusion usion that’s a conclusion that’s also been reached by historic England with regards to I’ll bring up their notes and their response um I think Emily touched on it within our presentation regards the Victorian character and specifically Villas within their own grounds um been absolutely fundamental to the character of of the C Mary Church Conservation Area um and in their response um they outlined quite clearly that the the building as is had been detrimentally impacted in regards to previous past alterations um but still made a contribution to the conservation area which was positive and therefore warranted its preservation so in regards to thinking about hotel Virginia and this one very different settings different conservation areas but a similar um kind of argument in regards to what historic kingom have come back with and the value of the building itself and the process exactly the same regards to those and any others um with the and conservation areas as well if I may just develop that line of thinking so I personally don’t see that mouse costage was a useful comparator um but I I would I would like a little bit of of help from officers to for in your words explain why you don’t see it as a helpful comparator with with hotel Virginia I I think that’s a useful a useful thing to compare against when I look at hotel Virginia I can see quite a lot of um uh with the assistance of yourselves to interpret the the front of the building a lot of what was originally built built there in front of me in relation to this building um I find it difficult to see a lot of what was there originally built because it’s obscured by by by other development that’s been very unsympathetic um do do you find that pulls away from the quality of the non-designated Heritage asset in a to to a degree and if so to to what degree please um maybe you could just help me with those two separate points I just trying to conscious that I I’d like to be able to be be really clear on what our public answer is to to to all of these points Please Mr Bal thank you yes of course so the extensions as they are do probably cover more than what they they would do on the hotel Virginia um but the extensions are there’s a structural report that goes with the application itself and that describes extension as actually been very poorly bonded to the original structure and when we look at these types of applications I know we’re not comparing this application with previous applications and what have you but the consented scheme um which was the previous scheme uh before the one that was subsequently withdrawn um followed policy guidance in the sense that our first result we want to get with regards to buildings and and assets to make a positive contribution to conservation a is there attention and when we’re coming to convert them is to remove unsympathetic alteration and extension so so that consented scheme achieved that one of the reasons we probably wait in its favor for approval so we know that regards to those extensions their removal is potentially possible um and I think were they to be removed that would only further reveal the significance of the building and its positive impact on the conservation area so even as it stands as historic England and of I have come to the conclusion is that even with those unsympathetic Al ations it still makes a contribution because the original video is still readable on site albeit you’ve got to look at it you know but is still there you can quite clearly see the original core you can see the the historic extension and you can quite clearly see the um the later 20th century extensions as well you can still read it but we’re also looking at kind of its potential as well to further reveal that significance and the mppf Really backs that up and the paragraph numbers I’ll just find that one um paragraph 212 of the mppf which states that local plan authorities should look for opportunities for new development within conservation as to enhance or better reveal their significance so we would say actually there is a real easy win to enhance the significance of that site which is to remove those extensions but keep the building in sit I think just to develop your question a little bit more the first part of that was I think we’ve mentioned before that we’ve got that sequence that pathway of events to us decision and what that relies on that interchange that sort of exchange of information to get a consensus on what it’s appropriate so that pre-application inquir is incredibly important design review panel the scheme evolves an application comes in there’s a general consensus from stakeholders from uh consules that it’s supportive when that breaks down or that those steps aren’t taken you get to a position where you know in a difficult position to make recommendations for refusal and some of the examples you’ve seen didn’t follow that pathway that were presented earlier and that ended up refusal where you see the sequence followed correctly you often see a more positive outcome and it’s just worth reflecting on all those examples we heard on earlier different people F different Pathways there’s different significance But ultimately we’re looking for a pathway to a positive decision I think that’s the best way to describe your first question thank you that’s helpful I I think the key message there that this committee must give to all applicants is please go through the pre-application process with the local Authority offers you the consistency in terms of approach that you get a consensus and that’s that sense of collaboration we want to Foster with everyone really thanks councelor Fox thank you just another question on housing on this one really we we’re all aware of the the housing crisis in t Bay we’re all aware of the lack of affordable housing in in in the area and I my question really is is the 14 dwellings artificially constrained could it have been a little bit more to have included some to have got over that um that are that sort of uh basis if you like um for us to or threshold to in fact deliver a little bit of affordable housing I I don’t think we’re allowed to to ask the uh developer to come back in again under our sort of the rules that we have but maybe Jim Blackwell could have a go answering that one for me I think the application it is what is and we need to you know you need to determine it based on what’s before you but I mean it’s worth pointing out you know I’ve set out that sequence that pathway to decision was all the information provided did they go through preap did they go for to or Bay design review panel was there an opportunity to scrutinize all the options as part of viability or were there just a certain smaller number so it’s part of that pathway I think we’re expecting that we’ve really communicated through the officer report presentation the site visit and tonight Council Billings um thank you chair um Melia one of the points that came through strongly in your report was concerned about the quality of The Proposal of the replacement dwelling or dwellings not just the loss of the non-designated Heritage asset could you talk me through about some of your cautions about what’s actually proposed in terms of the drawings we’ve got in front of us please or Mr Palmer it’s easier sorry you caught me mid drink there sorry um so regards of the impact of the um of the proposed replacement I think um so scale is a considerable issue and and I hope you would have seen on on your site visit that when you look around the existing Villas um on that on that road that they’re quite kind of a what we call human scale um and kind of TW story quite actually the key to their attractive is and their significance their Simplicity as well and that comes from not only their kind of built form their um their massing which is fairly restrained but also their detailing as well so that can be the windows the joinery details the positioning within the the elevation and how all that combines as a whole to result in a building that is of aesthetic value when you look at the prop proposals in front of you in regards to the proposed design its scale is considerably larger than those vs around I think historic England used the term Eden timee in regards to its scale um and almost it’s like a number of vas perhaps two perhaps three mashed together with an overall massing that makes it in regards to our opinion overly large with in the plot and doesn’t accurately replicate the massing and the scale of the vs that you find around you further from that when you look at the kind of detailing that goes with that as I mentioned before Simplicity of the detailing is very key for those kind of early abilties and their significant the design in front of us is one which I would argue isn’t particularly refined there are various types of window uh used in in in the same elevation which goes against the kind of established architectural principles it’s overly busy there’s there’s banding varying widths varying Heights differing um wall to void ratios again on the same elevation the Simplicity of the design is lost in its fussiness which means it doesn’t accurately replicate the the village that suround it and therefore as a result um not only the loss of the non-designated herish asset but the aesthetic values that would result in the permanent impact that result of the replacement dwelling dwellings would be harmful to the be a permanent harm to the to the conservation area and also the listed building that we’ve identified opposite the road as well thank you chair thanks Mr pal any further questions colleagues I’ve just got a couple myself if I may um we we’ve talked about supply of housing in the bay and need of extra Supply um have we done any work to find out the you know the the range of types of Supply we need so you know when I look at the bay um the smaller type of properties is very much needed for younger people couples or young families and they’re starting off in the bay you know there’s limited Supply on that and therefore the rents have gone up an awful lot which is causing a lot of trouble uh for families um when they talk about 14 apartments two beds is there is is that how much is that a part of our need uh just like some clarification on that to say we have a full understanding of our housing need and the original approval had uh a mix of a range of dwelling sizes one two and three units uh three bed units whereas this is uniformally two bed across the 14 um maybe Elliot has some additional information on that I’m not sure how much more additional information yes we do know what the need is and this is exactly the same across the 14 units yes than you Mr Black well I was just more checking yeah I know about the previous one it was more now we got this one it’s two beds they’re all uniformly two beds and it’s you know that feel of that particular need within our housing Supply rather than a broad one two and three beds that’s all it’s certainly not a mix is it I think that’s what’s trying to establish sorry I was trying to see if I had a if the consult te comments could um elaborate on whether or not they were satisfied with the mix I don’t think I had a response from the policy or affordable housing offices in terms of the mix um it is just two bedrooms um 14 units before you so yeah the mix is very different to that that was previously approved thank you um my second question was um uh is this the only scheme that’s viable um I I remember the applicant mentioning the last one wasn’t this is the only one in their view is um have we thought about alternative um that’s potentially viable which still solves the problem all we got it’s the only scheme in front of us um and I think to Echo Mr Blackwell’s comments earlier that the prea process is where you would look at a variety of schemes then you could assess their viability and and look at preferred options from there but for the purpose of this application is just the one scheme and we’ve got a unviable scheme previously consented and a viable scheme as part of this application thank you my final question was um I read um how historic England if they’d been minded into looked at the previous one they would have been more sympathetic to that than than the current one in front of us um um bearing that in mind the previous one how much of the original which we’re talking about here and its significance was then surrounded effectively by the out build for the what was then 12 apartment or or 12 properties thank you chair just to touch upon your um viability thing just to go back sorry a question um in terms of the viability prayers that the applicant submitted before us there was the approved 12 unit scheme the 2021 one the current scheme before you 14 units but there’s also an alternative scheme that utiliz additional stories that contain 24 units um when it went to the independent assessment the 24 units was uh not explored any further because we weren’t presented with that scheme um so we couldn’t possibly comment on that and then turning to your question on the previously approved scheme and how much of it was um affected I’ll just open up the elevations but basically um three sides of the historic core of of the building um would have been taken back and reinstated as to how it once should have looked and then when we were on Mana road today looking forwards into the site there there would have been a glazed extension from the historic core and then there would have been a two-story flat roof um build on it so in effect only one elevation would have been affected thank you councelor tjard uh thank you chair um my question relates some more to uh on the Practical level really I see um the Swiss CO’s waste team manager um was concerned about the um system that was going to be put in poed um um for um waste collection um and he says the specification for the underground recycling waste storage is not compatible with domestic recycling of waste collections in tbet a vehicle with a crane lift is required to empty these containers which swisco do not operate um for recycling waste collections in t Bay and he was asking um or he’d like to see a detailed Waste Management plan to see how actual Waste Management would work in in the development um has that been forthcoming at all thank you councelor tchard um in terms of the waste that was um outlined in the committee report apologies there should have been an update the proposed layout then showed um a collection point and a storage point so it wasn’t the underground storage system that they’ initially proposed um I hadn’t saw another consultation response following that um however it subject to condition if you’re minded to approve um there could be some resolution so the underground storage is off the table now but have got made further questions members are just open up for debate now councilor Madison thank you chair um I was listening very hard to Mr Palmer when you were speaking about um the uh status of the house as a Heritage asset um what I heard um excuse me if it’s a bit pedantic but as you sort of went through the first time you spoke going through the qualities what I heard was that the house the core of the house met the criteria for non for an undesignated Heritage asset that’s what I heard the second time um and subsequently you you talked about um the the house making a posit positive contribution to the to the uh Conservation area which is a slightly different thing um and I personally saw it as quite an ordinary building um and in bad condition um um and but I you you you you were very clear that just its continuing presence could be seen as being a positive contribution to the conservation area and maybe maybe I wondered um H and in fact I’m of the of a mind to think that that the issue then is whether or not there is there are sufficient uh houses already to be making that contribution that you know whether or not that judgment is is something I share I don’t share it is what I’m trying to say a I apologize I’m trying to say that I don’t don’t think that it in and of itself in the state that it’s in and given the ordinariness of it makes that contribution um I would say that um also I do wonder you know there is some I find personally that there is some Harmony and um in in the proposed uh uh in in the in the application in the proposed plans uh which I wonder whether if you if you did stay with the existing building and uh developed it in some in some form to provide greater accommodation uh uh whether or not you’d actually achieve Harmony at all uh or or or similar so I I’m just you know this is very subjective this is a very subjective area that you’re getting to um basically I’m I think it’s really borderline so I think it really comes down to the issue of harm um and then so I went to the issue of uh its location in the in its plot and I seem to remember that the distance from the boundary was sort of varied between 5 m and uh in excess of 5 MERS and excess of 8 MERS and um I don’t find that too bad considering some of the things that have come through the through the um committee previously so I have to say um I uh I am not convinced at the moment that this is um a uh an application that needs to be to be turned down so I just think I’ve said my say now thank you very much thank you councelor medison councelor fox just following on from from katier um I see this area as quite a mixed area we do have the uh the barkshire court opposite which is a a very attractive um disted building although it’s it’s impact from this building is slightly shielded by a lot of trees then if you go next door to um Kenley Court which we looked at that’s a complete contrasting style as is Stanley Court on the other side of Stanley Road so I think we’ve got here quite a quite a variety of of styles within this area what we heard from Mike cowry Alan Griffith and the and and and the applicant Martin Hill was that in in terms of size scale um and and and style um it doesn’t really step out from from broadly what’s around it I I think a well- written report and thank you for it and I I feel slightly guilty at sort of taking a different view but um because you’re professionals and you write these things in in in a way that’s we have to respect and I do I just I just think that I again think that’s borderline and even though we’re not going to get any affordable housing out of this we’re going to get 14 units and I just think that’s really important especially as we’ve got two well develop or or quite like prosperous centers nearby and particularly St Mary Church um and and and not only from a point of view of uh of shops but other facilities from surgeries for example from schools and I I I I think overall um unless I’m persuaded otherwise I will be voting in favor of this development councilor Str I’d like to thank Emily very much for the effort that goes into these reports um I’m probably one of the last ones that would Advocate losing a uh an old building um but in this case I do feel that the the line and the style of the what’s presented to us um is sympathetic um and with the appreciation of what Rob has said about some of the detailing which maybe could be looked at and improved um I’d be mindful perhaps to pass this application Council of Bings I think I can totally appreciate what Mr Palmer um set out that at the previous scheme uh which which effectively took the harmful editions on the original fabric of the original Villa uh back so you can see the original Villa there and then uh provided an additional building connected through one elevation only towards the back of the site so it wasn’t a principal elevation would have been a more preferable scheme um I I can totally appreciate that that would have been a more preferable scheme I think the the the difficulty we’ve got is we’ve got to assess the current scheme uh before us and there are there are elements of this scheme that I find problematic uh there are there are details of some of the elevations that that that that I think um should and could have been find through the pre-application process I think some of the all of the concerns and tensions that that that are coming through and that are making this this that have created a situation where we’ve got an officer report for refusal where we should really be having an officer report for approval in my eyes those could all have been addressed through through the pre-application process and it’s it’s it’s in it’s in many respects reflecting on this debate it’s frustrating that there was clearly very good consultation with the community um it’s clearly the I heard that both the the Community Partnership and the Forum were consulted it it’s disappointing that there wasn’t that similar engagement through a pre-application process with the local Authority and that we’re now having a debate in relation to an application that if it had come to us in maybe a slightly different way we could all have been could have already have approved it by now perhaps um I I I can I I’m I’m somewhat cautious about the message we send out to the community of of of of applicants uh if to to support this when when we could have had something better through a through that pre-application process but equally we’ve got to judge what’s before us and I think the question that members have got to Grapple with is it bad enough to refuse not is it what we want because ultimately that’s the test that we’re asked is it bad enough to refuse um thank you chair c Strang well from from what I’m hearing from members around the table I think it’s we’re possibly to the a point where uh we need to put a motion forward to approve this application moving forward of which I’ll propose that will rely on conditions obviously we have some prepared obviously that is delegated um to officers the chair um how would you like to handle that would you like us to read out what they are are you satisfied that between officers and the chair we could ensure that they’re correct given the scale of development and the standard conditions we usually apply to something of this nature I would think we could leave that to your delegated authority to uh sort those conditions out you happy with that councelor Brook are we happy yep uh have a second there please Council Madison I’ll go to the vote then we’re voting for approval subject to conditions that we’ve delegated to the officers accordingly all those in favor I would suggest actually that we do run through those conditions so they’re completely accurate because I I just sense there’s there’s a sense that we need complete certainty as part of this decision so if would you like to run through them just so we’re completely clear and then we can the actual detail of them at least we’ll understand you understand what you’re approving in terms of conditions I’ve done a list of topics or headings I hope that’s okay um so firstly I’ve got the construction method statement secondly external materials thirdly Window and Door details fourthly boundary treatments fifth commun communal amenity space making sure it’s delivered prior to occupation six no external lighting without um consent to the authority uh seven vegetation clearance eight construction Environmental Management plan nine accordance with the actions set out in the biodiversity metric assessment and Landscape plan 10 accordance with the ecology report 11 is pre uh tree protection measures the aricultural impact assessment aricultural method statement 12 the aricultural site monitoring and Reporting 13 soft Landscaping 14 hard Landscaping 15 surface water drainage 16 removal of permitted development rights from C3 to C4 uh 17 removal of permitted velopment rights means of enclosure 18 designing out crime measures 19 electric vehicle charging points 20 bin storage and collection 21 parking provision 22 bicycle storage 23 compliance with the energy statement and 24 Assurance of bills so when there’s demolition we then don’t end up with a completely vacant site for a very long time Council BS I’d like to suggest chair uh a few other conditions um if if I may uh which I hope officers can reflect on I think perhaps we ought to pause for a moment chair if you don’t mind perhaps um Simon and Jim we need to do some it would be helpful to take their advice on that because effectively the votes taken [Music] place take a five minute CH thank you e e e e e e e e e welcome back everyone um so just a bit of clarification here um we carried on a vote um subject to the conditions that have been prepared uh by uh Miss Elliot earlier Council Billings just wanted to raise what you thought maybe a few other conditions but we need to clarify we can’t go back on a vote already however I’ve asked Council of Billings just to raise his points because my understanding is actually those points are already within the conditions we voted on so I’m just going to ask Council Billings to confirm that and maybe then uh Emily you could come back and reconfirm it’s in the conditions yeah so um chair thank you just for clarity the the topics that I wanted to ensure that we’d got covered uh were about Fen stration uh uh that’s that’s the windows uh about the banding works that’s uh proposed on the outside uh and uh about the type of slates that were going on the roof um and if you can just talk me through how those are covered that would be extremely helpful please if they are thank you Council Billings um so under the second condition I’ve suggested would be external cladding material so that would cover the wall and roof so that would cover your type of slate um the third condition would be the window and door details to ensure that the fenestrations are suitable um in terms of the banding works I would maybe suggest an additional condition to the 24 had already proposed one of detailed design on the elevational treatments to ensure that it did Cover banding reveals Sills all those other important things that we should be taking into account in the conservation area thank you very much for that this Elliot I’ll call that to an end for this application and move on to the next one take five minute recess well uh the officers get ready with sorry with the uh the presentation for the next application e e e well welcome back everybody um we’re going to now move on to items seven and eight uh that are combined uh these are to consider applications for Brunel Manor timoth Road T application numbers p223 0606 and p223 0616 uh we’re going to discuss both applications together but when we get to a recommendation we will deal with each application separately the car has confirmed those have registered to speak upon entry to the meeting I’m there for ask Jim Blackwell to introduce the applications thank you very much chair so apologies firstly for the number of slides but there’s a significant amount to cover I’m sure you appreciate that from the site visit earlier um so again for complete Clarity here with determining you’re determining two applications the plan application the listed building consent application I’ll deal these in this single presentation for Simplicity but we’ll conclude with both those recommendations the application site is located in wam just north of east of toi bual Manor is obviously at the center of it it’s a large Victoria former manor house with various other residential buildings groups of buildings and features all set within landscape grounds it’s first used between 1963 and 2021 by The Woodlands House of Prayer trust as a conference and Christian meet meeting Center you got timoth road to the east which we traveled on and pulled in to the opening to the left um there’s a wooded area large wooded area to south of Brunell Woods it’s steeply sided Banks as you can see by the topography and the gradient going down to the west of formal Gardens and just to the Northwest you have uh seamour drive right to the bottom away from site away from view here is uh Kingsgate CL as well uh within the center of it lies as we saw Bruno Manor we’ve got tennis courts surrounding that site Brunell Court to the north Brunell Lodge to the east you’ll notice that this slide contains lots of red areas and those are all areas for demolition moving on to the designation so this is a grade two range of grade two listed buildings not only the Mana but also so the gate piers at the entrance the um balustrading and steps coming down away from the the manner house Historic Park and garden three group and individual tree preservation orders the Wen Park Conservation Area local Green Space is designated with the T neighborhood plan Urban landscape protection area flood zone one SE Zone 3 and the M John Musgrove Heritage Trail runs along its boundary this is the uh talki neighborhood plan DED ations you can see here the local Green Space which wraps around brunal mana and towards the entrance this is the landscape context so you can see the red line of the site here the Blue Line wrapping around on all three sides uh green is the John moso Heritage Trail and the purple triangles are the listed buildings which you may not be able to make out this on this plan so just looking at the aerial photograph you can really start picking up the the pner development so you’ve got the residential codisac to the West you can see Seymour Drive wrapping round to the north northwest you can see the entrance going past the building called Carousel which is outside the development site past the lodge and this triangle area of of land here just here is the the flag which is the bus stop and you see timoth Road one its way around and you can see the density of that sort of managed Park land uh what you also pick up I guess from the previous slide and this is this is a truly elevated site looking down over toi and wide tall Bay just some photos just to remind you what you saw ear the listed gate Pier is an entrance with a lodge behind the lodge itself with its uh later editions the flat roof to the front Carousel in the distance the neighboring property the drivein the density of trees Carousel to the right hand side the car park entrance to the rear of brunal Mana you just pick out the tennis courts just on the top right this aerial view which I think really makes clear the later editions so you can see firstly here where the sort of dining room is the pool and this lay tradition that one find its way along top topography into the Woodland we walked into Brunell court and round the gardens and just going through very quickly the existing plans so the ground floor we made our way through the lobby looked at some of the rooms in here and saw the retention of a lot of features we also looked through and see the area that was going to be demolished and we walked through to look at a model which was extremely helpful within the rodenhurst room up here the first floor plans you can see as we discussed from the car park just how much these spaces have been of carved up with partitions some going right the way across Windows which is suboptimal uh second floor existing plans same theme really of creation of spaces and and lobbies and you can see the lift in the center here but you can see the space is all carved up some indicative internal internal spaces some of the Grandeur that we saw just as we walked in just even for that few minutes you can that we were in the the building you can see the grande that was uh the room sizes the room spaces on the ground floor and some of those rooms you can see here very tight partitions more existing plans so it’s the uh Lodge existing plans ground floor and first floor you can see areas for demolition this is the core of the original building same with Brunell Court existing plans you can see here mentioned what was going to be demolished with the creation of a car parking Court just in here and just a reminder of the layout in a very simplistic way brunal Mana the extensive demolition taken away Woodland Row the three elements that carve around using the topography nestled into the landscape water row on the tennis courts Brunell court and the lodge making that a little bit clearer with the layout so you can see the routin the bus shelter which be turned from a flag coming into the lodge wrapping round Carousel parking area some integration between the buildings water uh Woodland row and their Gardens set back against this building line the parking within the space behind and then you can see water row at the top Northwest side of the site on the tennis courts and we discussed the alignment and the setback of those buildings on site just for complete Clarity on the quantum because we did discuss this on site these are the best way to show you you can see there the con I won’t read it out but you can see the curve conversion within the listed building you can see the conversion of Brunell Court Brunell Lodge and the new build elements so 17 in the listed building and 18 new build just getting to grips here with the scale of Demolition and removal of all these later editions you can see in the in the ground floor and in the first floor really starts to highlight all those partitions we talked about Clarity here on each distinct element so you can see each unit and how it’s been the sensitive approach and that Narrative of bringing these this building back into a full use minim minimizing any change removal of partitions still keeping that Grande of the space still keeping the layout as best as possible and again with the first floor if you remember this before so partitions throughout this from left to right and you can start to see how this will be distinct with the coloration distinct units in each in each part of the uh of the building the listed building second floor exctly the same story and on the third floor it’s just a small space kitchen dining area within the tower which was to the rear of the property proposed elevations we we touched on the sort of lack of change really other than the large scale demolition to the the original building so very little to show you on those elevations this was the internal elevation so we we went into the building here new glaze screens here obviously you have the the later editions are currently covering some of these elements see this is the end of the building we sort of had our back to it as we started to circle around the building fully revealing and finding a new way of of exposing that part of the building an indicative image to try and make sense of that all so removing that dining area bringing back a matching ground floor with the canopy the arcade loss of the swimming pool a huge difference uh that makes that elevation and I’m recognizing that these ballasted and stone ballast ring steps all individually listed as well and you start to see that hint of where Woodland row would go indicative proposed elevations clear elevations here but a more diagrammatical approach to just showing how it will assimilate itself into the landscape for Woodland row proposed elevations a lot of work has gone into breaking these elevations down moving from what was originally a sort of te terrorist approach into individual units using a really interesting in modern architectural style with plenty of sustainability credentials the layout water row broken down again in diagrammatically so you can see Bruno maners here we saw that change of level the setback against the the tennis courts and the boundary and then again indicative uh sorry the proposed elevations below proposed floor plant using that t-shape and the inverted L shape which makes a lot more sense when you see this image so this is the t-shape pushed back against the boundary see more drivers up here and you can see the inverted L shape here keeping that gap between new and old with a walkway between we spoke about all the removal of um lot of modern additions to the lodge and that modern contemporary approach the architecture to the add-on to the lodge using a differentiation materials that was an outcome from um design view panel floor plans proposed elevations of the Court we went into the court and looked at how these changes would take effect removal of um the single story building pitch roof building at the front as you go into the C into the Courtyard Creation of car parking and now sort of sensitive conversion making more sense of these spaces particularly these openings here which are currently fairly simplistic upvc openings without any real coordination to their design the court plans so they’re showing the demolition keeping cars out by making sure the parking is to the outside here with bin stores the parking here for water roow this is the movement plan so this is where we started really on the site here we talked about the permeability of the site the really importance to make that East West Connection so it’s not a completely car um demand for the car is not uh completely secured so making sure there pedestrian movement East West and north south and we looked at various different um routes that are currently existing some to be improved as well to make sure that north south um connections is maintained we talked extensively about the landscape restoration and the strategies that that are in part of this application which are fairly large scale for making sure that what is retained the quality is retained it’s managed for the future and with new planting one of the things we we touched on as part of discussion is flood risk so obviously there’s some topography going on here which you need to manage and just looking at in the report you’ll see it’s dealt with by attenuation tanks so just going through the key material consideration the principle development significant weight is given to the delivery of Brownfield homes the vacant building credit is being applied as the building is vacant and current being reused and fully redeveloped there’s no increasing floor space and no requirement to provide the affordable housing on site there’s other critical elements in terms of principle of the extensive Heritage and Landscape benefits there’s a range of section 106 are covered in the committee report and the committee also confirms that no policies indicating that proposal is not unaccept is not accepted principle from an economic economic impact point of view there’s obviously a clear benefit of the creation of new housing in terms of design and visual impact again reinforce what I said earlier about that pathway to a decision pre applica preapplication inquiry engagement officers back in November 21 through to April 2023 in chus to Historic England design review panel September 2022 public consultation in liasing with key stakeholders March till April 2023 and just running through those five distinct elements um Bruno Mana it’s got those modern poor quality built elements removed really little evidence of the change the external fabric other than the works of rein statement and a sensitive response to how to do the internal layout water rows evolved to sit com in the space on the former tennis courts Woodland row takes its cues from the landscape and sits back into the topography as recognized by design view panel Brun now Lodge see much of all of its building restored and extended and that proposed new buil element is entirely new form but using that same scale is existing brunow Court remains largely unaltered in terms of Heritage assets I’ve touched on what’s listed on site and as part of the report also there’s impact on what can park and Brun now on a great to pres Park and garden that schemes evolved from com those first comments from St England and the elements of demolition are obviously fully supported and as are the way that remaining building will be treated the conversion and restoration Works fully supported and although both historic England and Historic Society raised concerns which is cing office reports officers satisfied that they limited Quantum of development given the size of the site the scale and massing of the new build elements and details are sympathetic to the overall setting of the St buildings have included a number of conditions to ensure that key elements materials are appropriate standard and overall it’s considered an enhancement to the designated Heritage Assets in terms of impact on Landscaping trees these are be um fully um consulted with our uh tree officer uh and they’ve confirmed that the proposal acceptable now on the impact of trees that does require various conditions to be included they have been suggested just to make sure that landscape is managed in the correct way tree protections done in the correct way in terms of residential immunity committee report confirms that it’s got an acceptable impact suitable conditions are suggested control the period of construction matters of waste collection BR resolved through submission of additional information and more conditions particularly around a uh Waste Management strategy and some access improvements have been included access impact on Highway and parking that East West connectivity will been maintained and improved between timoth Road and Seymour Drive access north south been included in the scheme now to connect Northwest of the site with Brun our woods and access those facilities to the South a range of condition be included critically the carriageway bus stop the shelter and improveing the existing footway in the crossing as part of that and also there’s acceptable levels of parking visitor parking electric vehicle charging points and cycle storage uh The Pedestrian movement legibility vehicle access parking proposals are all acceptable and those improvements to the non-car access to the site have evolved over the course of this application I moving through to um ecology issues the ecologist the DCC ecologist has considered the information submitted and have confirmed that the addition of conditions is acceptable in terms of flood risk it’s obviously in a critical drainage area surface water be dealt with through the combined sewer system and two attenuation tanks council’s drainage Engineers considered the proposal this has evolved over time but it’s confirmed that the addition of conditions The Proposal is acceptable in terms of recycling waste sustainability and low carbon principle of retaining converting adapting buildings is fully supported new build elements would be built to extremely high standard and those key interventions have been included within the scheme to ensure positive sustainability credentials finally designing out crime there’s a bit of attenion here with a listed building and trying to ensure that those health and saf sorry those safety and security measures are fixed in an appropriate way given the significance of the manner um but otherwise that’s been controlled by a condition just to move on for complete ity then we’ve got two applications the planning application and the listed building conscent application I’ve dealt with all matters on both reports within this PowerPoint and don’t won’t be doing a secondary one for the listed building consent so it is a recommendation for approval subject to completion of the section 106 agreement conditions outlines below with the final drafting delegated to the director and resolution of any new material considerations that coming to light to be delegated to the director again with the list of building consent the same again conditions outlined below within the report final drafted um conditions delegated to director and resolution of any new material considerations also delegated to the director thank you and just going through development plan policies at the end just for clarity so I’ll leave it on planning application first thank you very much uh Mr Blackwell um as I’ve been a resident for 27 years in Bon and watom used the conference center walked the John Musgrove and also enjoyed watom Park many times with my family um it’s an interesting application here um I’m going to open uh I’m going to um we don’t have any yeah we um we do not have any speaking against the application so I’m going to move straight to those who are going to speak in support may I just mention that uh those who are speaking in support normally it’s five minutes but because it’s a combined application uh applications you you have 10 minutes so first i’ like to call upon Mike cry calry I mean on behalf of talky neighborhood Forum to speak and support good evening this statement has been reviewed and approved by the Steering group of the toi neighborhood Forum The Forum is pleased to agree with the officer’s recommendation for approval the applicant engaged with the Forum and the Maiden residents Association and we were impressed by the desire to maintain and restore much of the historic characteristics of the main building and to remove the in congruous structure of the conference center the consult response and policy checklist indicated compliance with all policies except for H2 affordable housing and ta1 transport and accessibility and ta2 development access as ever for a development of this scale The Forum would prefer to see affordable housing on site however the location some distance from Hub facilities and The Limited capability for walking cycling and public transport on the timoth road mitigate towards covering the requirement via section 106 contribution The Forum notes the exchanges with highways regarding the bus stop and visibility for safe vehicle exits onto tinmouth road with respect to policies ta1 and ta2 we understand the land ownership constraints on enlarging the bus stop area in view of compliance with all other policies and the positive contribution of 35 dwellings to torb’s housing need the Forum supports approval of both this application and the listed building consent thank you thank you very much Mr calry I’ll Now call on Mr Ian juson the agent to address the meeting again in support of the application again reminder 10 minutes and the Clark let you know when you got a minute to go thank you good evening chair members of the committee thank you for allowing me to speak to you today in relation to what I hope you will consider to be a very exciting proposal which will secure the long-term future of brel Manor and new homes for Torbay I’m the planning consultant appointed by the applicant in relation to both these applications since starting my career 28 years ago this is probably the most captivating and thought-provoking project I think I’ve had the privilege to be involved in it is involved meticulous planning and and a careful balance between the technical and the architectural something I think Brunell would have at least nodded his stovepipe hat at the officer’s report before you is very comprehensive and explains why permission should be granted so rather than repeat this I’d like to take this opportunity to tell you about our journey I don’t wish to take up more committee time than is necessary but I want you to understand how much this means to me the applicant and a design team involved the applicant purchased a site in 2021 from the former Christian retreat uh when the former Christian retreat closed its doors for the last time after 58 years of use they take they took their role as future custodians at the property very seriously and immediately sought advice from Devon based Heritage experts AC archaeology and awardwinning designer APG APG architecture to identify the best future use for the site they and their advisers access long-forgotten archives to understand exactly what they were dealing with it was a fascinating and inspiring Journey over countless hours which has led us to this meeting today the site as you’ve heard is within the settlement boundary of tour Bay and comprises previously developed or or branfield land where the principle of development is acceptable the site already accommodates existing residential dwellings within the lodge and Courtyard buildings and also lies adjacent to existing residential development creating some new homes using existing floor space was an OB and logical conclusion which had the additional benefit of generating sufficient values to support the restoration of the important Heritage and Landscape assets the applicant reached out to the council at an early stage to obtain pre-application advice both in relation to the proposed uses and overall approach to development separate advice was also obtained from historic England via their own pre-application process after carefully considering the advice received the applicant commissioned initial sketch proposal showing how the site could be redeveloped why whilst protecting important features The Proposal was then presented to orbay design review panel chaired by Mark Pearson who I’m sure many of you will know the design review involved a site visit and presentation to the panel followed by a question and answer session and the formal response was provided by the panel with recommendations which were taken on board the final respon response said in part we would like to fully commend the client body for what appears to have been an enlightened process thus far we were impressed by the research knowledge and appreciation of the original building that the consultant team had brought to the exercise we are happy to support the idea of creating new opportunities for development in the broad locations with within the site that you have identified we recognize that these will be an important component within the overall investment strategy and that considerable in expenditure is likely to be necessary in the works to the historic fabric of of the original House Mr Blackwell was involved at all stages of the pre-application process and we are grateful for his professional input which has involved numerous site visits and meetings to consider detailed aspects of the scheme sometimes down to the most minute of details advice was also obtained from experts in the field of arboriculture ecology highways Heritage drainage and sustainability to check the designer’s workings the pre-application process as you can hear was rigorous and considered both op officer preapplication device and the applicant’s strong desire to create a development that everyone involved should be proud of before submitting the application formally the applicant consulted widely with the local community and other stakeholders via a letter drop to over 400 households and an interactive consultation website the outcome of this process was recorded in the statement of community involvement which was submitted with the planning application and I would suggest that the very limited number of comments received in relation to this planning application which is just three is a direct result of the care and attention given by the applicant to this aspect of the scheme the site itself has an existing access onto the adopted Highway which resulted in a considerable amount of vehicle movements when it was a the Christian retreat this proposal would result in less traffic movements and an overall betterment to the network at the request of Highways High Council Highway advisers bus stop improvements would be delivered to encourage a use of public transport the existing footpath link from the Tous road to Seymour drive would also be retained and a new self link is also proposed the site as you’ve seen is extensive but due due to landscape setting and Heritage assets the opportunity for new build development is limited the applicant accepted this at an early stage and where POS at an early stage and has therefore designed the scheme so that existing floor space can be used wherever possible after carefully careful consideration and in response to officer advice and at TB design review panel a total of nine new dwellings are proposed in the less sensitive parts of the site the biggest proportion of the site by far would be retained as Gardens or open space for biodiversity enhancement and for landscape restoration Bell’s vision for the site included a Mana house set in mature landscape setting but regrettably over the years the site has suffered from a lack of investment and maintenance which needs to be put right a key part of this application therefore includes a restoration scheme to the landscape which would secur the long-term future with its most important natural resource in addition the significance of the Mana house has been has been diminished by unsympathetic modern extensions being added to the building including the principal elevation facing the bay it is understandable why these proposals were approved in the past as they were necessary to assist a day today operation of the Christian retreat however in order to bring the house back to its former glory this proposal would remove these unwanted elements so it can be properly appreciated as it should have been all those years ago Brunell Mana has been in private ownership for over 175 years however at request of officers an area of public open space would be provided on the site which would allow greater access for the community and help to encourage active living in a local area the applicant has also agreed to the requested section 106 contributions relating to open space waste Health Care highways and education in order to mitigate any effects on the local infrastructure and services bringing these proposals to you today has been a very very long road so I’m grateful for your time for the time you’ve taken attending the site visit uh for reading the officers report and listening to me today although the applicant has undertaken in-depth historical research and a full survey of the building it continues to be vulnerable to vandalism even despite continuous on-site security and regular visits by the police we now need your help we need your help to take the next step and secure the long-term future of this site I therefore hope you can support these applications your support will enable us to take the proposals forward and start preparing Brunel Mana for the next page in its story for all our future Generations thank you very much thank you very much Mr juson um now going to move over to committee members to invite your questions to the planning officer and a a little reminder about members questions only relevant to the uh not covered in the presentation thank you councelor Billings um thanks chair I’ve got three questions um Mr Blackwell thank you for the extremely comprehensive report in relation to one of the most detailed application submissions I’ve seen uh for uh at any point being on this committee um could you just talk me through you described the existing layout of the development with partitions in front of Windows being suboptimal could you compare and set that out in relation to the detail that we’ve got proposed in this scheme and for example the shadow gaps and the pots please bear with me when I go through my sizable presentation to find the right slide let’s reverse it so here’s the proposed plans ground floor we came in through here and you can see the colored each different color is an individual unit so the retention of these Grand spaces very limited change in terms of um what would have been the original layout as with the first floor just bear in mind this element at first floor while I reverse back to here so apologies with that kind of small but I think that shows the compartmentation of the building and easy to see but you can see here that the building was completely split down into cells for individual units just to make that slightly clearer so you can see here each is an individual room this would be removed and you can see the ground floor is actually isn’t too bad than that you’ve got the dining room this 20th century extension and the open space of rodenhurst room just to then go back again so we’re clear so you can see how it’s being dealt with here does that answer you question um just to make that point Sorry pods I didn’t include that cuz I’m already up to 49 slides but there’s a uh there’s a number of PODS that being included here which are to create the here an up floor and a and a toilet and just to try and get around resolving some of these Grand spaces and making sure they’re usable so there’s been a number of designed decisions about how to do that in a reversible way whilst being set down set back respect ing the character of those large scale rooms so I hope that covers everything does thank you Jim um the building as I’m sure committee members will also appreciate when we went to see it was absolutely magnificent um the the listing however is a grade two it’s not a grade two star or a grade one does that reflect some of the additions that would have been at the bill on would that would have been on the building at the time of its listing in 1988 and through these Works would therefore their the the building have a higher uh Heritage value than than it would have done at the previous time of listing please at the time of listing very much so it have been swayed by you know those those extension it probably wouldn’t have been there that long but in terms of its assessment in terms of our considered officers you know huge her her heritage heritage benefits for removal of those structures H and you know Le it historic England to make that judgment on whether it should be elevated to another level of of um significance but you know just by removal of those you reveal so much more externally let alone [Music] internally and the final question um members on other developments we had um reductions in the time duration uh that um an application an applicant can take before commencing development um we heard from the applicant that they wanted to uh to to start work on this scheme uh could could we could we could we had would there be the opportunity if members were so minded to add a condition to require commencement at an earlier stage or is or is this being a full application is there not the opportunity to do that because where we’ve done it previously with outline applications I’m conscious of the overlap between that and the phasing condition that I’ve added that I’ve suggested so I agree there’s different buil elements here as well as the landscape renovation work so there’s some quite a few pre-commencement conditions that have been agreed plus a phasing plan so I’m quite comfortable that’s covered without an additional sort of constraint or control over timing okay thank you thank you chair councelor Fox again want to congratulate everybody for such as super report um which takes me back to a time when I was involved quite closely with the manor um just want to talk about the affordable housing and I I just wonder whether the view of our affordable housing delivery officer was sought in relation to the um situation um I forgot the name of the uh facility now um where basically Brownfield land cancels out um the need for affordable housing there’s a vacant building vacant building that’s the what was the VAC building consent vacant building consent so notice on on page 127 of the report I won’t be long it’s on page 127 it does say there there’s a St a requirement for affordable housing accept what’s been said about its location and therefore the disadvantages in terms of sustainability for putting affordable housing there and I note on page 129 that’s an offsite contribution amounting to about £ 827,000 so my question really is is that still part of what we are voting on tonight that particular figure there thank you so that off support is in sequence of when those office those um consultation comments were provided started with the affordable housing officer back in September when this application was fairly fresh took a quite a strong view about affordable housing provision we then took advice and legal advice and those iterations you can see in the officer report get to a point where they can building credit making building credit is applied because of the significance the Brownfield land and housing delivery and making sure that when you look at what was there originally ien got that slide before when you look about what was there originally in terms of the amount that’s going to be demolished when you look at the quantum development it’s almost exactly the same in terms of floor space so there’s no requirement for affordable housing that also weighed against the huge amount of weight of Brownfield um um supply of Housing and also all the Heritage benefits the landscape benefits the open space benefits When you put all that the connectivity benefits When You wail those together that does equate to no affordable housing in this instance but it’s something that there was a if you look at the report in sequence it’s quite clearly been through quite a rigorous process to make sure that’s correct so just when we look at page 129 this off-site contribution is that does that no longer apply now now those those stakehold those consultation comments are in order so that was I was important to put those in to make sure that you see the sequence of an engagement that we have with both from a legal point of view and a policy point of view that we’ve got to a point where we accepted that vacant building credit is the right thing to do balance with all those benefits and the Brownfield land councelor Madison thank thank you chair um I just wanted to say it’s such an outstanding site and um therefore really uh deserving that it should have a an outstanding um development and it’s actually really nice to see some flare and uh ambition uh in in what’s uh on display here and also some respect for the size and Grandeur of the existing rooms there has some resistance to the urge to chop it all up and get maximum yield out of of it so yeah congratulations but I what I wanted to ask the simple question was whether there had been any advance on the arrangements uh for the car access to the buildings in water row and the the the the bin issue uh I noticed uh well I may have read the wrong part of the report um but there seemed to be an issue with with the car access there and how that might be resolved it there was a previous issue but again they’re in order so it was resolved through a uh condition sort of reversing a bit from a condition for a waste management strategy the uh sweat path analysis for all range of vehicles the understanding how it be um the waste will be positioned and collected so all those issues when you look at report sorry in order were resolved any other questions colleagues I’ve got one question um absolutely wonderful to see the landscape restoration that’s uh been proposed um I’m trying to think though longer term uh the actual management of all the open area spaces that the public can currently go into and would still carry on going into um I was aware for example the Christian trust one of the issues and why might went down into uh not a state of disrespect disrepair but um certainly under been investment in that all those part walkways um they they ran out money so it’s a massive area um I just want to get clarification what’s the plans for that actual long-term management how how that be working please so that’s dealt with by condition uh and also as part of that restoration plan it’s accordance with that restoration plan and that does set out some long term so not taking away the fact that there there’s a the density that you saw in the aerial photograph the way it’s been unmanaged I guess that unmanaged evolution of the of the landscape the management of it getting back to those trees and Landscape features that sort of deserve to be retained uh actually it’s on that slide there and then fully committing to that it it can only be done in a in a long longterm way it it you might see quite a quick shortterm change but actually it relies on condition the landscape restoration and then taking some key decisions on some of those more poor conditioned trees and opening up a lot of those spaces and there’s also the section 106 so the section 106 um payment contribution to um to open space as well and management of that and that’s in partnership with swissco and to Tob Co and Co TR trust thank you Council buildings sorry Mr Blackwell um one further question um the phasing plan that you’ve got are you confident that there’s I mean as much as this looks a really really exciting scheme uh a and are you confident that there’s no opportunity for there to be uh a situation where for example the new build housing was developed and then we never got the Fantastic Works to restore the existing Mana house through that phasing plan uh your condition number one one is you confident that fully deals with that concern um uh to to ensure that for example there’s there’s a requirement for other works to be delivered before um the most profitable elements are sold and etc etc please I think there’s some flexibility in in how it’s delivered but the phasing plan say numerically but it’s number one for a reason I think that’s we’re really clear that there’s there’s various distinct elements here and various ways to bring things forward from the landscape renov renovation the demolition side of things some of the new builds there’s some quick winds and some longer term things in there so that is number one for a reason I think that’s one of the most important things to make sure that phasing is agreed by the local Authority and just on that I’m assuming that needs to be a negotiation with the applicant has that negotiation happened or is that likely to or is that something Still Remains to happen assuming this committee were to Grant consent please the first step was this making this recommendation for both applications and then the next step will be to start looking at discharging conditions should you approve Council toch child thank you chair um just looking at the um provision of primary care nearby and the fact that the three GP practices um are up to capacity um therefore a contribution will be required um and the contribution appears to be 2,734 which doesn’t seem much to me I’m not quite sure how that’s calculated um to to sort of cover um three three GP practices which is interesting thank you I’m conscious of time and digging that back up but that is their calculation and that is what they would expect so that’s been included in that uh in the obligations I mean I could let you know precisely but it might take a bit of time okay colleagues if you got no more questions to the planning officer are open up now for debate councilor Strang I think from walking around today we’ve seen this is an absolutely fantastic site it’s an the main building is absolutely stunning I think the scheme that’s been put in front of us is incredibly sympathetic um with all those modern additions removed and the buildings restored back to how they were intended to be by Brunell um and with the uh the addition of the conditions that Mr Blackwell’s got in there I’m very minded to uh support this scheme should that motion be put towards us Council Bings um thank you chair uh Mr Jon said earlier this was an exciting proposal I I I agree I think it’s an outstanding application absolutely outstanding application the the level of detail that we’ve had submitted to us is absolutely superb it is one of the very few applications where I’ve first turned to the design and aess statement to assist me through a very large number of drawings in order to make make sense of what I’ve got in front of me uh and the design and access statement again was absolutely outstanding um I think this flows from the Exemplar levels of Engagement that the that the agent and and the applicant has engaged with uh not only with the Community Partnership not only with the um uh neighborhood Forum but also with officers and and and and members I I would really and for those watching the YouTube I would really compare and contrast our difficulty and tensions in relation to a previous application that didn’t go through the pre-application process and our massive congratulations for the uh amazing result of this one that has um the through this we are um we’re removing quite a lot of uh built fabric which detracts from the quality of the existing building from Key viewing points if one was to stand on the lawn one currently sees uh the UN Congress development of the conference center on the right hand side if one was to uh enter the site uh from the main Gatehouse one would see the in Congress uh flat roofed extensions both on the front and the right hand side um all of that will be removed uh where the new built form will be is in more sensitive locations taking those two examples viewed from the lawn the new built form will be slightly further off to the right and it will read as separate and not part of the main house uh taking the other example of the the the the the lodge house or the gate house uh the new built form will be towards the back as viewed from the Main Gate entrance uh all of the ways that that this could have been refined to produce a better scheme uh it’s in there taking the examples of the pods these are sensitively let inserts into into existing room spaces which if reading the the detail of the design and access statement relates to even the way that they’ve been designed flow around the the skirting with a shadow Gap has been sensitively looked at I think it’s an extremely good proposal I congratulate the the applicant and his agents for it and our officers uh and those community members that have engaged with it I’d be delighted to put it for approval uh in accordance with the conditions in the officer report uh subject to the delegated authority to amend those conditions as appropriate to uh the director of planning thank you councilor Fox for seconding if there are no further debate I just ask Mr Blackwell to sum up please so just for complete Clarity this is for the planning application which is p2230 606 and I did want to just come back on your point that with the NHS it says for to mitigate the impact to increase the physical capacity of existing surgeries I don’t know what that I don’t know I presume that’s the phys the physical changes capacity that may be more staff or extensions to those but I wanted to clear that because it’s so a key point so voting first on the planning application yes please voting first on the planning application colleagues the listed comes next those in favor thank you um then I’d like to take up a vote on the proposal and support otherwise of the listed building application need a proposer please rang to propose seconded C Council Madison who in favor so that’s approved thank you well thank you very much everybody for attending this uh planning committee meeting thank you residents who’s been on there thank you very much for other gentlemen uh speaking I now call this meeting to adjourn and uh safe journey home e e e