Agenda and minutes

Your Committee gave consideration to a report of the Chief Planning Officer which advised that, following an independent review of the Development Control Committee undertaken for the Chief Executive and the recent evaluation of planning performance by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, arrangements for Development Control training for Members had been reviewed.

A suggested programme of training was set out and it was further proposed that the Committee recommend to Council that the Committee procedures be amended to ensure that attending an agreed training programme be a requirement of serving on the Development Control Committee. This would come into force once the initial programme had been completed and it was noted that the dates put forward in the officer report would form part of the compulsory requirement.

Members agreed that several different groups of Members would benefit from the courses and requested that the dates be flagged up to Members of the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Sub-Committee. A Member suggested that Group Leaders should also emphasise the importance of attending the courses to their Members.

Resolved to RECOMMEND: (To Council)

That the Committee Procedure Rules for the Development Control Committee be amended to require Members and Reserve Members to have undertaken an appropriate course of training prior to them taking seats on the Committee and voting on planning decisions.

(See also Minute 726).

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             after notifying the Chair at the start of the meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:-

RESOLVED: That, in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 4.1, the following Councillors, who are not Members of the Committee, be allowed to speak on the agenda  items indicated:

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from all Members present.

RESOLVED: To note the following declarations of Interest made by Members present relating to the business to be transacted at this meeting: -

(i)                   Planning Application 2/12  – Land at 11 Brickfields, Harrow, R/O Byron House

Councillor Knowles declared a personal interest in the above application on the basis that some years previously he had put in an offer to buy Byron House, which was adjacent to the application site. He advised that, for reasons of public perception, he would be leaving the room and taking no part in the discussion or decision-making on this item.

Councillor Mrs Kinnear, who was not a Member of the Committee but whom the Committee had given permission to speak on this item, declared a personal interest in this application arising from her position as a LEA appointed governor at Roxeth School and as Chair of the Governing Body’s Finance Sub-Committee. She advised that she would remain and speak on this item.

(ii)                 Planning Application 2/18 and 2/19 – 315 Station Road, Harrow

Councillor Knowles declared a personal interest in the above applications arising from the fact that he was a customer of Natwest Bank. Accordingly he remained and took part in the discussion and decision-making on these items.

(iii)                Main Agenda Item 14 – 102, 104, 106 High Street, Harrow on the Hill

Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath, Janet Cowan, Knowles and Mrs Joyce Nickolay declared a prejudicial interest in the above item arising from the fact that a Member of the Conservative Group owned the freehold to the above property. Accordingly, they left the room and took no part in the discussion or decision-making on this item.

Councillor Mrs Kinnear, who was not a Member of the Committee but whom the Committee had given permission to speak on this item, advised that she believed she did not have a prejudicial interest in the above item as she did not have a close personal relationship with the Councillor in question and she would accordingly remain and speak on this item.

(a)  To consider whether any item included on the agenda should be considered with the press and public excluded because it contains confidential information as defined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985;

(b)  to receive the addendum sheets and to note any applications which are recommended for deferral or have been withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant.

RESOLVED: That (1) in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following item/information be admitted to the agenda by reason of the special circumstances and grounds for urgency stated:

and;

(2)  all items be considered with the press and public present.

That it be agreed that, having been circulated, the Chair be given authority to sign the minutes of the meeting held on 28^th July 2004 as a correct record once they have been printed in the Council Bound Minute Volume.

RESOLVED: That it be agreed that, having been circulated, the Chair be given authority to sign the minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2004 as a correct record once they have been printed in the Council Bound Minute Volume.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 18 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED: To note that there were no public questions to be received at this meeting under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 18 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors.

RESOLVED: To note the receipt of the following petitions, which were dealt with as indicated:

·           Petition Objecting to Planning Application P/1585/04/DFU re: 218 Shaftesbury Avenue

Councillor Mrs Kinnear presented the above petition, which had been signed by 11 local residents. The petition was considered with planning application 2/17 on the agenda.

·           Petition re Planning Application P/2138/04/CFU re: 29 Peterborough Road

Councillor Bluston presented the above petition, which had been signed by 36 local residents. The petition was referred to officers for consideration.

The following Deputation Request has been received. The request meets the requirements of Committee Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4B of the Constitution):

Re: Main Agenda Item 14 - 102, 104, 106 High Street, Harrow on the Hill: From Mrs Benham, a local resident.

RESOLVED: That, in accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4B of the Constitution), the deputation request from Mrs L Benham in relation to Agenda Item 14 be heard.

(See Minute 727 – 102, 104, 106 High Street, Harrow on the Hill).

To receive references from Council and any other Committees or Panels (if any).

RESOLVED: To note that there were no references from Council or other Committees or Panels to be received at this meeting.

To confirm whether representations are to be received, under Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution), from objectors and applicants regarding planning applications on the agenda.

RESOLVED: That, in accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of items 2/09, 2/12, 2/13 and 2/17 on the list of planning applications.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer (circulated separately).

RESOLVED: That authority be given to the Chief Planning Officer to issue the decision notices in respect of the applications considered, as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer which advised Members of the outcome of the investigation on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) into the Council’s performance as a Local Planning Authority, and action proposed arising from this.

It was explained that the investigation had been initiated following the Authority’s designation as a ‘Standards Authority’ for failure to meet ODPM standards for planning performance.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the fact that several pages of the letter from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the accompanying report, which had been attached as an appendix to the above officer report, had been omitted from the agenda and a full copy had been circulated under cover of the addendum.

It was noted that considerable improvements to planning performance had been made since the investigation had been conducted in March 2004.  For example, the team of officers which dealt with delegated applications had recently been restructured, and the Authority had continued to recruit staff, both of which had contributed to reducing case loads to a more manageable level and to speeding up the processing of planning applications. IT improvements were also being progressed. However, it was emphasised that, if the Authority was to maximise the allocation of the Planning Delivery Grant and not be subject to increased Government engagement and intervention it would need to continue to address those issues set out in the Improvement Plan, which was now to be revised to take into account the recommendations of the ODPM report.

During the discussion which followed, Members highlighted in particular a number of the comments contained in the ODPM report, including the difference of opinion regarding the Authority’s performance on appeals and the suggestion that the Political Groups have shared Committee briefings. Some concern was also expressed that the Authority did not complete S106 agreements within target period.

Whilst a number of Members commented that they felt the ODPM report was, overall, fair, several other Members reiterated their commitment to improving the quality of the planning service, but felt that the Government’s ‘carrot and stick’ approach to achieving this was heavy-handed and that there was too great an emphasis on meeting targets.

Members requested that their comments on the report be forwarded to Cabinet.

It was noted that a further report on this matter would be submitted to the Committee in the Autumn cycle.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the report be noted;

(2)  the Council’s commitment to improvement be confirmed;

(3)  the proposed actions be endorsed; and

(4)  Member’s comments on the report set out above be forwarded to Cabinet.

[REASON: To inform Members of the ODPM concerns and action being taken to address them].

Joint report of the Borough Solicitor and of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a joint report of the Borough Solicitor and of the Chief Planning Officer which set out and sought agreement to a new scheme of delegation.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the fact that, further to cross party discussions following the publication of the agenda, further consideration had been given to amending the scheme of delegation and a revised schedule of delegation was set out at appendix 4 to the officer report, circulated under cover of the addendum for the meeting, replacing that circulated at appendix 1 to the officer report on the main agenda.

The Chief Planning Officer outlined the content of the revised scheme and explained the reasoning behind the changes proposed, in particular highlighting the outcome of the evaluation of planning performance recently undertaken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

It was noted that, if the Committee agreed the new scheme, a further report analysing the effectiveness of the scheme be submitted to the Committee in six months’ time. A Member requested that a copy of both the report before the Committee that evening and the update report to be submitted in six months’ time also be submitted to the Best Value Advisory Panel.

During the discussion which followed, several amendments to the revised scheme were proposed. Firstly, it was formally moved and seconded that all references to 400m2 at paragraphs 5(c), 6 and 8 of the revised scheme be replaced by 300m2. Upon being put to a vote this was not carried. Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath, Janet Cowan, Knowles and Mrs Joyce Nickolay wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of the amendment.

It was then moved and seconded that paragraph 8(a), which referred to the exclusion from the scheme of delegation of applications for the change of use to Class A3 uses and which provision had been deleted from the revised scheme before Members, be reinstated. Upon being put to a vote this was also not carried. Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath, Janet Cowan, Knowles and Mrs Joyce Nickolay wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of the amendment.

Officers advised verbally of a minor amendment to the revised scheme: that all references to ‘The Borough Solicitor’ be replaced with ‘The Borough Solicitor or his duly appointed representative’. This was agreed by general consensus. Upon a further vote on the substantive motion, as amended, it was

RESOLVED: That (1) it be agreed to give delegated authority to the Chief Planning Officer to determine applications as set out in the Revised Scheme of Delegation set out in Appendix 4 to the officer report, circulated under cover of the Addendum, subject to the amendment of the scheme to replace all references to ‘The Borough Solicitor’ with ‘The Borough Solicitor or his duly appointed representative’;

(2) it be noted that no changes have been recommended to the delegations to enforcement; and

(3) it be noted that a further report will be submitted in due course with recommendations for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 725.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

Further to Recommendation I above it was

RESOLVED: That the training programme set out in paragraph 6 of the officer report be agreed.

[REASON: To provide Members of the Development Control Committee with appropriate training to assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities].

Joint Report of the Chief Planning Officer and of the Borough Solicitor.

The Committee received a joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and of the Borough Solicitor regarding an unauthorised telecommunications micro-system, comprising an equipment cabin sited to the rear of 104 High Street, and two wall mounted microcell antennae on the front wall of 102 and the flank wall of 106 High Street, Harrow on the Hill.

The report considered the appropriateness of initiating enforcement action against the above, setting out relevant government advice, and concluded that it was unlikely that such action would be successful as the antennae did not appear to be detrimental to the character or appearance of the Harrow on the Hill Village Conservation Area, or the Locally Listed Building to which they were fixed.

It further recommended that the Committee, having weighed up the representations regarding health and the perception of health effects, having had regard to the survey carried out by a consultant in March 2004 and the Committee’s previous decision in respect of this property, and also having taken into account the policy guidance in PPG8 and PPG15, agree that it would not be appropriate to undertake formal enforcement action on these grounds.

Prior to discussing this report, the Committee received a deputation from a local resident.  The deputee challenged the officer recommendation, arguing that the report did not present a balanced argument. She pointed out that PPG8 stated that health considerations and public concern could constitute material considerations and argued that the Committee could be in no doubt that there was a great deal of public concern regarding the health impact of the telecommunications equipment, particularly given the representations made on this matter by local residents at the meeting of the Committee held in March when the issue of the installation of a mobile phone base station at the above property had been considered.

She noted the statement that the emissions from the equipment complied with ICNIRP guidelines but pointed out that the readings had been taken in March and the microcell had not come into full use until July and the readings might therefore now be higher. She further expressed concern that, as there were a number of masts situated in the area, the cumulative emissions should be investigated.

Lastly, the deputee voiced concern that the local residents and nearby school had not been consulted prior to formulating the recommendation on this matter.  She urged the Committee to reject the officer recommendation.

During the discussion which followed, Members noted that no consultation of the local community on the microcells had taken place as the operator had not submitted a planning application for the equipment, but commented that operators were also required to undertake such consultation by the relevant code of practice issued by the Government and under the provisions of PPG8. They queried whether action could be taken to ensure that operators met their responsibilities under these.

They also noted the deputee’s comments regarding the validity of the readings taken in March and agreed that current readings from the microcell and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 727.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the area comprising ‘Brookshill Gate’, ‘North lodge’, ‘Wykeham’, ‘Roxey’, ‘Oak Cottage’ and ‘Oak Lodge’, Brookshill, Harrow Weald.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 745 Brookshil (No. 7), Harrow Weald, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 30 and TPO 237 Brookshill (No. 2), Harrow Weald on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the area comprising 1?9 Terrilands, 181, 183 and ‘The Old Coach House’ Moss Lane, and 1-11 Wakehams Hill, Pinner.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 746 Terrilands (No. 1), Pinner, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 8 Pinner Court, Moss Lane, Pinner on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the area comprising ’Heathfield’, Peterborough Road and ‘The Gables’, Grove Hill, Harrow on the Hill.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 747 Peterborough Road (No. 3), Harrow on the Hill, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 299, Peterborough Road (No. 1), Harrow on the Hill on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the area comprising 70?94 London Road, 17?32 Kerry Court and 2 Kerry Avenue, Canons.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 748 London Road (No. 4), Canons, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 45 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the area comprising 60?64 London Road, ‘Braemont’ and ‘The White House’, Reenglass Road and 7?9 Berry Hill, Canons.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 749 London Road (No. 5), Canons, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 45 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the area comprising 40?46 and ‘Burlington Park House’, Dennis Lane and Oakmead Court, Valencia Road.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 750 Dennis Lane (No. 7), Canons, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 44 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the area comprising 18?24 Valencia Road and 4 ‘Cahrleston’, Knights Road, Canons.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 751 Valencia Road  (No. 2), Canons, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 44, Stanmore on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the area comprising 12?16 Valencia Road and ‘Kerry House’, Kerry Avenue.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 752 Valencia Road (No. 3), Canons, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 44 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the area comprising Magpie Hall Road, Heathbourne Road and The Common, Stanmore Park.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 753 The Common  (No. 4), Stanmore Park, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 42 and Woodland 2  on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for St George’s Roman Catholic First and Middle Schools, Harrow on the Hill.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 754 Sudbury Hill (No. 5), Harrow on the Hill, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 12, Harrow on the Hill (comprehensive) on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) proposed for the land behind 2-24 Valencia Road, Oakmead Court, Burlington Park House and 44-46 Dennis Lane, Canons.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 782 Valencia Road (No. 4), Canons, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 44 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report)].

Report of the Borough Solicitor.

The Committee received a report of the Borough Solicitor outlining action taken by the Chief Planning Officer following consultation with the Chair and Nominated Members of the Development Control Committee, since the meeting of the Committee held on 28 July 2004, under the Urgent Non?Executive Action Procedure.

RESOLVED:  To note the following action, taken under the Urgent Non-Executive Action Procedure:

Subject: Legal Agreement re: North London Collegiate School

Action Proposed: That the amended plan supplied at Appendix C to the Urgent Non?Executive Decision be authorised for inclusion within the above legal agreement.

Reason for Urgency: The applicant had been successful in raising funds for this project and wished to commence development as soon as possible, but could not do so without Planning Permission and a S106 agreement. The next meeting of the Development Control Committee at which the inclusion of the amended plan in the S106 Agreement could be authorised was not until 7 September 2004.

Decision:  Officer Recommendation agreed.

Joint Report of the Borough Solicitor and the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee gave consideration to a report of the Chief Planning Officer which proposed changes to the Community Use Agreement which was part of the Section 106 agreement in respect of the above site.

A further proposed change was also set out on the addendum and the Committee were notified verbally of a further amendment to correct a typographical error in the Agreement: it was advised that paragraph 5.2 of the officer report and the first row of the schedule of proposed amendments to the agreement, set out at appendix II to the officer report, should read ‘and 80%…’ not ‘or 80%…’.

It was

RESOLVED:  That it be agreed to vary the terms of the Community Use Agreement attached to the Section 106 Agreement as set out in the schedule at appendix II to the officer report,  subject to the amendment set out above.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

FOR INFORMATION  

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer which listed those appeals being dealt with and those awaiting decision.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

FOR INFORMATION

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer which listed those enforcement notices awaiting compliance.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

(if any).

The following telecommunications applications were reported on the agenda:

  (i)               Location: 90 Osmond Close, South Harrow

Proposal: Provision of 3 antennas and equipment housing with associated works on roof, P/2188/04/CDT.

RESOLVED: That (1) prior approval of siting and appearance BE REQUIRED; and

(2) approval of details of siting/appearance be REFUSED for the following reason and subject to Standard Informative 41 – UDP Policies and Proposals (SD1, D4, D24):

The proposed development would give rise to a proliferation of telecommunications equipment on the roof of 90 Osmond Close, to the detriment of the visual amenity of neighbouring residents and the locality.

 (ii)               Location:Outside Leefe Robinson VC Public House, 76 Uxbridge Road, Harrow Weald

Proposal: Provision Of 12m High Column Antenna With 3 Equipment Cabinets, P/2224/04/CDT.

RESOLVED: That (1) prior approval of siting and appearance BE REQUIRED; and

(2) approval of details of siting/appearance be REFUSED for the following reason and subject to Standard Informative 41 – UDP Policies and Proposals (SD1, D4, D24):

The proposed development, by reason of its proximity to existing similar telecommunications equipment and street furniture, would give rise to a proliferation of such apparatus to the detriment of the visual amenity and appearance of the street scene and the area in general.

(if any).

RESOLVED: To note that there were no Demolitions Applications which required consideration.

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 14 (Part 4B of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED: At (1) 10.00 pm to continue until 10.30 pm;

(2) 10.30 pm to continue until  11.00  pm;

(3) 11.00 pm to continue until 11.30 pm;

(4) 11.30 pm to continue until 11.40 pm;

(5) 11.40 pm to continue until 11.45 pm;

(6) 11.45 pm to continue until 11.50 pm; and

(7) 11.50 pm to continue until 11.55 pm.