The Panel is asked to consider the planning applications which are set out in Document “O” relating to items recommended for approval or refusal.

 

The sites concerned are:

 

(a) 26 Carr Lane, Bradford (Approve)                                                 Wyke

(b) 37 Norwood Street, Bradford (Approve)                                    Wibsey

(c) 405 Thornton Road, Thornton, Bradford           Thornton & Allerton

     (Approve)

(d) First Floor, 519 Great Horton Road, Bradford               Great Horton

     (Approve)

(e) Park Grange Medical Centre, 141 Woodhead Road,                   City

Bradford (Approve)

(f)  Saleh Autos, Ivanhoe Road, Bradford (Approve)                          City

(g) 39 Beaconsfield Road, Bradford       Clayton & Fairweather Green

     (Refuse)

(h) Land North East of Junction of Squire Lane &                          Toller

      Duckworth Lane, Bradford (Refuse)                      

 

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

The Strategic Director, Place presented Document “O”.  Plans and photographs were displayed in respect of each application and representations summarised.

 

(a)       26 Carr Lane, Bradford                                                                        Wyke

 

A full planning application for the construction of a granny annex in the rear garden of 26 Carr Lane, Bradford - 17/00440/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application was retrospective for a granny annex in the rear garden, which was largely built and not visible from the front of the site.  Approval had been granted for a structure 3.81 metres high and the building that had been constructed was 3.99 metres, which was a small increase.  The Strategic Director, Place stated that the new proposal would not cause any greater harm than the previous approval and recommended the application for approval.

 

In response to Members’ questions, the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that:

 

·         It was a separate building that was ancillary to the main dwelling with its own entrance.

·         The building was an ancillary structure and could not be occupied as a separate dwelling to the host property.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and raised the following points:

 

·         She was representing the occupiers of 33 and 35 Markfield Crescent.

·         The application was retrospective.

·         The original height had been more acceptable.

·         The building was now at a higher level and had an overbearing effect on neighbours.

·         It was appreciated that planning approval had previously been granted.

·         The architect had not provided details of the height difference.

·         The building had not been built in accordance with the approved plans.

·         The builder should have resolved the issue regarding the height levels.

·         The pitched roof had a significant impact on neighbours.

·         Planning guidelines stated that an outbuilding or garage should not exceed 4 metres in height, however, the building was a granny annex.

·         Other buildings in the area were garages.

·         Other issues in relation to the building had been raised with the Council’s Planning Department.

·         The pitch of the roof should be altered to mitigate its impact.

 

In response to further questions from a Member, the Strategic Director, Place reported that it was not known how often building control had inspected the site and enforcement action had been undertaken due to a planning officer visit.  He stated that the Panel needed to consider whether the building had a greater impact due to the amendments made.  The height difference was not significant, however, it was acknowledged that the approved plans should have been adhered to. 

 

An objector was present at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·         The height of the annex was the main issue.

·         The building was overbearing on her property.

·         The annex should have been 0.7 metres above the height of the garage belonging to 28 Carr Lane, which was lower than her garage.

·         The annex had been built 1.75 metres above the height of the garage at 28 Carr Lane, which was higher than had been expected.

·         They had been unable to make an informed judgement as the plans had been incorrect.

·         The back wall, facia, guttering and roof of the annex were visible.

·         The annex was almost touching her fence.

 

During the discussion a number of Members stated that the approved plans should have been adhered to and commented that the building was overbearing on neighbouring properties.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the following reason:

 

That the annex was considered to be overbearing on neighbouring properties and be detrimental to the visual and neighbouring amenity.  For this reason the proposal fails to comply with policy D1 and UR3 of the Council's adopted Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(b)       37 Norwood Street, Bradford                                                        Wibsey

 

A full planning application for the change of use of a section of the adopted highway to private domestic curtilage and creation of new access to serve the remaining properties at land at 37 Norwood Street, Bankfoot, Bradford - 16/05818/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application had been deferred from the meeting held on 19 October 2016 in order for the applicant to resolve civil issues in relation to access that had arisen with neighbouring residents on Dovesdale Road.  It was noted that an agreement had now been reached and the applicant would create an access, which would resolve the matter.  The application was then recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Panel acknowledged that the applicant had complied with the request to resolve the access issues, however, the Highway Development Control officer added that the highway must not be closed until the legal procedure under Section 247of the Town and Country Planning Act 990 was implemented. 

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(c)       405 Thornton Road, Thornton, Bradford                               Thornton

           

A full planning application for the change of use of the property from class A1 retail to class A5 hot food takeaway at 405 Thornton Road, Thornton, Bradford - 16/09509/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He informed Members that the application proposed a change of use from class A1 retail to A5 hot food takeaway.  The premises was located in Thornton Village and was part of a row of properties in varying uses.  The Council’s Hot Food Takeaways Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) only applied to proposals outside of the designated City, Town, District and Local Centres.  There were other hot food outlets nearby and the site was located within a local centre.  The Strategic Director, Place indicated that there may be some amenity issues but the proposal would need to be balanced against them.  He confirmed that the hours could be controlled by a condition and a flue would be created, but with minimal visual impact.  In relation to highway safety there was no off street parking provision, however the road was wide enough to park on both sides.  Visits to the business would be for a short duration and cause minimal traffic issues, thereby creating no adverse effects on the highway.  Anti-social behaviour could not be attributed to Class A5 use and was a police matter.  The application was then recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

An objector was present at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·         He resided above the barber shop.

·         The street was populated with shops and there were 11 takeaways within the vicinity.

·         He was unable to open his windows.

·         There was an unadopted road to the rear that was used for fly tipping.

·         He was a police officer and takeaways generated anti social behaviour.

·         Thornton Primary School was nearby and residents had to rely on Chapel Street.

·         There were ongoing drug issues in Thornton.

·         A nearby takeaway was to open another business nearby.

·         Thornton was a heritage village.

·         Other areas were inundated with problems where there was a high concentration of takeaways.

 

Another objector was present and added that:

 

·         There were 11 takeaways and one charity shop.

·         Thornton was a small village.

·         150 people had also signed a petition against the proposal.

·         The charity shop was beneficial for older people, it had support from local residents and helped people.

·         If the shop closed people would lose jobs.

·         The charity shop was beneficial for the community.

 

During the discussion Members raised concerns in relation to the primary school in close proximity to the premises, however, it was noted that it was sited in the high street and covered by a Council policy.  Another Member reiterated the concerns raised and in response the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that the Council’s policy stated that outside City Centres hot food takeaways would be resisted if they were within 400 metres of schools and recreations areas.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the following reason:

 

That there would be an over concentration of hot food takeaways in the vicinity and this would be detrimental to the vitality and viability of the Thornton Local Centre and, therefore, contrary to Policy UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and Principle 1 of the Council’s Hot Food Takeaway Supplementary Planning Document.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(d)       First Floor, 519 Great Horton Road,                                   Great Horton

 

This is a full planning application for the change of use of the first floor of a building to a beauty treatment salon and Thai spa at 519 Great Horton Road, Bradford - 16/09474/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that the application requested a change of use of premises on the first floor in a building within a commercial area to a Thai spa.  There was sufficient parking provision to the front of the building and it would be an appropriate use within the District centre.  The Strategic Director, Place confirmed that the proposal would not be harmful to residents and was a suitable use within a sustainable location. He then recommended the application for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Strategic Director, Place explained that:

 

·         The premises was located in a sustainable location and there was sufficient parking provision within the area to cater for small scale use.

·         He was unsure who owned the parking area to the rear of the building and the Council’s Highways Department had not objected to the application.

·         Parking provision had not been proposed as the building was located within the District Centre.

·         Planning permission would be required to alter anything else in the building.

·         Approval had previously been granted for two apartments, which had not provided parking.  There was sufficient on-street parking in the vicinity along with some off-street parking in Harris Court and as the site was located in a District centre parking provision was not required.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and raised the following issues:

 

·         He had not received information in relation to the proposal from the planning officer.

·         The Council did not know what the premises would be used for.

·         A previous application had been refused as there had been inadequate parking.

·         The building was located on a busy road near to the junction of the entrance to a large supermarket.

·         There was a school and church in the area.

·         There would be noise disturbance.

·         The building was located in a conservation area.

·         Great Horton Road was a dangerous road.

·         The application should be deferred in order for a full highways report to be submitted.  

·         A site visit should be undertaken.

 

In response to some of the comments made, the Strategic Director, Place stated that each application was considered on its own merits.  He confirmed that the impact of the proposal on highway safety was investigated and as the scheme would be a modest development it would not have a severe harm on the highway.  There was parking provision in the locality and there were no concerns to cause highway issues or warrant refusal of the application.  The Strategic Director, Place reiterated that cars could park on both sides of the road.

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and explained that:

 

·         Customers would pre-book their appointments.

·         The business would create very little traffic and it would not be greater than the other uses in the area.

·         Five cars could be parked near to the entrance of the building.

·         There would only be four treatment rooms.

·         The premises would be a beauty spa and the noise would be internal.

·         The use would have a minimal impact on the area.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(e)       Park Grange Medical Centre, 141 Woodhead Road,                     City

Bradford

 

An outline planning application for eight apartments on land at 141 Woodhead Road, Bradford - 17/00307/OUT

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application was for the construction of eight apartments on a small site within a mainly residential area.  The development would be located within a community priority area and was separated from existing playing fields.  Members were informed that the principle of the residential scheme was acceptable and, as the planning application was outline only, all other matters would be considered at the Reserved Matters stage.  The Strategic Director, Place stated that the proposed scheme could be developed without significant affect on the site.  He reported that no parking provision had been proposed, as it was a small scheme in a sustainable location and it was, therefore, not considered necessary.  Members were informed that a Ward Councillor had submitted a late representation that raised concerns in relation to the parking issues on Woodhead Road, the requirement for student accommodation in the area and requested that a condition be placed on the application.  In conclusion the Strategic Director, Place recommended the application for approval and that all other matters be reserved.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that:

 

·         It was likely that the accommodation would be for students and, therefore, parking provision was not required.  If the development would be for general use then there were commercial parking issues in the area, however, there would be sufficient on-street parking provision after commercial hours.

·         The parking requirement for other developments was 1.5 spaces per unit and eight would be required for this proposal.

·         There were provisions in the Planning Act for outline applications and if the proposal was complicated then applying for outline permission would provide the applicant with scope.  The application was indicative for the construction of residential units and consideration was required as to whether the building could be accommodated on the site.

·         The doctor’s practice owned the land and surgery.

·         The car park served the surgery.

·         Members only consideration was whether the land was suitable for construction purposes.

·         The Reserved Matters could be submitted to the Panel for consideration.

·         A footnote could be proposed in relation to the parking issue if Members were minded to approve the application.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and raised the following points:

 

·         There were already highways issues in relation to parking in the area.

·         Parking would be required for the development.

·         Students no longer lived in the area.

·         A condition limiting the lets to students only should be placed on the application.

·         It was believed that the units would be let to non-students.

·         A site visit should be undertaken.

·         People visiting the area used the car park.

 

An objector was present at the meeting and commented that:

 

·         The Residents Association had raised concerns.

·         There were playing fields and green space for the use of residents to the west of the site.

·         It would be an ugly and depressing building.

·         The proposal would have a detrimental effect on residents.

·         The medical centre had been extended.

·         Public land had been acquired for the car park.

·         The car park was empty 95% of the time, as people parked on Woodhead Road.

·         There were new commercial and residential developments in the vicinity.

·         The area was already fenced off and gave the impression of a prison.

·         There was limited space available for residents’ children.

·         Regeneration was required in the area.

·         There was no space for the planning permissions that had already been approved.

·         There were many traffic and highways issues in the vicinity.

·         There was a busy supermarket in the area. 

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and informed Members that an email had been sent in relation to the provision of eight parking spaces along with revised plans.  In response the Strategic Director, Place stated that these had not been received and proposed that the application be deferred in order for the amended plans to be considered.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be deferred to a future meeting in order to allow officers to consider the amended plans submitted.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(f)        Saleh Autos, Ivanhoe Road, Bradford                                               City

 

A full application for the conversion of first floor storage into four self-contained flats at Saleh Autos, Ivanhoe Road, Bradford - 17/00097/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the scheme was for the conversion of the first floor storage area into flats.  An application had been approved in 2012 for the construction of two retail units and upper floors, which had been slightly amended and resulted in one large unit with two entrances.  Car parking provision had been proposed within the application and there was a high demand for spaces in the area.  The traffic in the vicinity was mainly heavy in the evening and there was a Mosque in the area.  Members noted that the two apartments in the upper floor would have three dormer windows and that the development proposed four units, however, two units could be constructed under permitted development.  The existing traffic issue in the area was acknowledged and required resolving, but not via the planning process.  A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) had originally been requested, however, following clarification of the permitted development rights it was not considered appropriate.  The Strategic Director, Place then recommended the application for approval.

 

In response to Members’ questions, the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that:

 

·         The objections had been received from the surrounding area.

·         The work undertaken had previously been approved except for the dormer windows.  The steps were on Council land and the issue needed to be resolved.

·         The scheme required approval for the four flats, the dormers and the steps to the shop.

·         A condition could be placed on the application that prevented the subdivision of the shops, however, approval had been granted for two retail units.

·         The dormers had been previously approved, however, there were now three to the front and rear when originally there had just been one at the back.

·         The proposal had been submitted as the applicant wanted to create four flats, however, two could have been constructed without planning permission.

·         Two units could be created above each unit without planning permission that would not require parking provision.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and stated:

 

·         The recommendation was surprising in light of the highways issues.

·         A letter from the agent on 23 March stated that there was no intention to provide parking, but the application had been revised and parking would now be made available.

·         The street was a congested bottleneck.

·         The safety of local children and residents had been ignored.

·         Professional advice from the Council’s Highways Department had been ignored.

·         The application should be deferred until the Council’s Highways Department had undertaken a report, as different proposals had been submitted.

·         One parking space per unit had been proposed which was lower than the Council’s standard.

·         One bin storage area would be provided but three bins were required.

·         The existing building contained breaches.

·         It was an inappropriate development.

·         Issues should have been addressed previously.

·         A Section 106 Agreement should be requested.

·         Why did the applicant not realise that access would be required to the building?

 

Members posed queries in relation to some of the points raised and were informed that:

 

·         The condition in relation to the bin storage area could be reworded to require the details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

·         The consultation had originally raised objections, however, it had been acknowledged that a TRO would not be reasonable and the issue was covered in the officer’s technical report.  Footnotes had been placed on the application in respect of the footpath and the Council were satisfied that the footpath was not obstructed.

·         The Council’s Highways Department had not been supportive of the scheme in the first instance, as it had been thought that a TRO would be required and there was a high demand for parking on Ivanhoe Road, but no off-street parking provided.  Four parking spaces were available but had not been included in the scheme and the proposal to convert storage room to flats created parking requirements.  Steps or a ramp were required to access the building and would be partly on Council land, therefore, the highway would need to be closed before the access could be agreed.  Following clarification that the conversion could be undertaken under permitted development, a request for a TRO was not deemed reasonable.

·         The requirement for a TRO had to meet paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework and it had not been considered as reasonable due to permitted development rights.

·         Residential developments required an average of 1.5 parking spaces and in the City Centre it should not exceed 1 space per unit, therefore, one space per unit was acceptable.

·         A Section 106 Agreement would enter the Council into a legal agreement that could not be covered by planning.

·         The existing units were not within the red line boundary.

·         The existing situation on the street caused the majority of issues and the four units would not cause any harm and could be created without planning permission.

·         The highways issues should be pursued via the Area Committee or other procedures.

·         If a TRO was requested the applicant could implement the scheme without permission.

 

Objectors were present at the meeting and put forward the following points:

 

·         The area was congested.

·         Parking spaces were difficult to find.

·         The proposal would add more cars to the area.

·         Additional shops and flats were not required.

·         A safe and happy environment was required.

·         The application should be refused.

·         There were health and safety issues.

·         There had been numerous accidents at the junction onto Great Horton Road.

·         Access for the Emergency Services would be blocked.

·         The scheme would impact on the local community.

·         The report should be made clear to enable a decision to be made.

·         Many children attended the Mosque and its events.

·         Traffic congestion was from the Mosque.

·         What assessments of the junctions had been undertaken?

·         There were schools and elderly people in the area.

·         The access was difficult for disabled people.

·         The application should be deferred or rejected.

 

In response to a comment made, the Chair advised residents to contact Ward Councillors in relation to issues regarding junctions and footpaths.

 

The Strategic Director, Place reiterated that the four spaces were for the use of the two units and there was no parking provision proposed for the flats.  He added that the applicant would need to contact the Council’s Highways Department if a dropped kerb was required.  Members noted that the four flats fell below the threshold for a transport assessment and would have a miniscule impact on the junction.  Visibility was good at the end of the road and the impact of the development had been taken into consideration.  The Council had requested the amended plans in order for the parking spaces and bin storage to be conditioned.  

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and informed the Panel that:

 

·         The main objections related to traffic issues.

·         The site had previously been a garage that had a more intense use.

·         He had not received any complaints.

·         Parking had been provided on adjacent land.

·         The parking issues were caused by the Mosque.

·         Patients at the doctors’ surgery parked in the turning head.

·         Residents had more than one car per household.

·         A major commercial operation had moved from the area and the issues had been resolved.

 

During the discussion Members acknowledged that the scheme could be carried out under permitted development rights and requested that the applicant considered the issues raised by residents.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(g)       39 Beaconsfield Road, Bradford         Clayton & Fairweather Green

 

A full retrospective planning application for retention of changes to the rear elevation of the building in relation to the dormer windows at 39 Beaconsfield Road, Clayton, Bradford - 17/00324/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that in 2014 permission had been granted for three self contained flats at the property, however, the rear dormer windows had been constructed contrary to the approval.  In 2016 an application to retain the changes had been refused and the proposal for consideration was a resubmission.  Members were informed that the dormers did not comply with the Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document (HSPD) and stated that matching materials were required.  The dormer windows detracted from the appearance of the property and, therefore, it was recommended that the application be refused on the grounds of visual amenity and that it was contrary to the Council’s HSPD.  

 

A representative of the applicant was present at the meeting and made the following points:

 

·         The dormer windows complied with the width requirement, but not the materials.

·         It was a modest amendment and the extra space was significant.

·         It was not a listed building or in a conservation area.

·         The property was not on the main road.

·         There were nine existing dormers along the terrace of varying styles and clad in different materials.

·         The materials of the three dormers matched.

·         No objections had been received from residents.

·         There was no guidance in relation to the clearance of dormers.

·         There was a golf course nearby and the public view was limited.

·         There was a perceived harm.

·         The additional space created for two of the flats was significant.

·         The application should be approved.

 

During the discussion Members noted that all three of the dormer windows were not compliant and the applicant had not amended the specifications.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused as per the reason set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(h)       Land North East of Junction of Squire Lane &                            Toller       Duckworth Lane, Bradford

 

A full application for the construction of a private hire telephone booking office at Land North East of the junction between Squire Lane and Duckworth Lane, and the use of land at Bullroyd Lane for the parking of seven private hire cars - 17/00376/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He informed Members that the application was for a private hire telephone booking office, with satellite parking at Bullroyd Lane, on a heavily congested road.  The scheme proposed a single storey structure in the middle of the site and seven parking spaces at the Al Hakim Institute on Bullroyd Lane.  It was noted that previous applications on the site with satellite parking had been refused and there was very little difference between this proposal and the other submissions. 

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and made the following points:

 

·         The application was identical to previous submissions that had been dismissed at appeal.

·         Supporters were not from the area.

·         Highway safety was the main issue.

·         The road was a main route for emergency services.

·         The roads were very busy and congested.

·         Residents parking permits had been issued in the surrounding streets.

·         There were parking problems around Squire Lane.

·         A campaign was in operation to stop parking on Squire Lane.

·         The satellite parking at a separate site was irrelevant.

·         Where would the taxis stop and collect passengers from if they had been to the hospital.

·         The site was opposite the entrance to Bradford Royal Infirmary (BRI), a box junction and traffic lights.

·         The Council’s Highways report should be taken into consideration.

 

A representative of the Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was present at the meeting and confirmed to Members that BRI had a green travel plan and an arrangement with a taxi company, therefore, there was no need for a satellite station.  He reported that they already had issues with emergency vehicle access and the site was situated close to a box junction.  In response to a Members’ query, the representative of the Trust explained that the telephone numbers of the taxi company were displayed within the hospital and there was no reason for patients and visitors to go outside to obtain this service.

 

The applicant’s representative was present at the meeting and commented that:

 

·         The applicant had submitted a letter in relation to the meeting he had with the Council’s Highways Department last year.

·         The height of the site provided better coverage.

·         Highway Safety was the reason for refusal but the customer would specify a pick up point so there was no reason for people to attend the building.

·         Taxi vehicles went on to BRI land to drop and collect passengers.

·         The site would not be a taxi rank.

·         Parking provision for seven vehicles would be provided on Bullroyd Lane.

·         Satellite parking could be governed by conditions or a Section 106 Agreement.

·         An office had been granted in Idle.

·         The police consultation response indicated that the 24 hour operation would be positive for the area.

·         It would be better to use the land.

·         The scheme would create employment opportunities.

·         The use of ‘likely’ within the reason for refusal was speculative.

 

In response to the comment made about the meeting with the Council’s Highways Department, the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that a meeting had taken place with the applicant.  He explained that any advice would be given with the caveat that the application would be subject to scrutiny and further consultation and apologised if the advice had appeared to be more optimistic.  It was noted that the applicant had been contacted recently and informed that the Council’s Highways Department would not be supporting the proposal.

 

A Member questioned whether customers would be passing trade or via telephone and why the location had been chosen.  In response the applicant’s representative stated that the main business would be generated by telephone calls and the site had been chosen due to the good radio reception received, which was an improvement on the main office in Shipley.

 

The Strategic Director, Place informed Members that the Planning Inspector had stated on a previous scheme that the possibility of passing trade could not be discounted, that it was reasonable that customers would be attracted to the site and any interruption to the free flow of traffic would be harmful to highway safety.  He then stated that the situation had not changed and the application should be refused. 

        

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused as per the reason set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place