Transcript

Thank you, Fiona. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this planning committee. My name is Councillor Mark Beynon and I'm chairing the meeting this evening. So as we're familiar with a bit of housekeeping to go through first, in the event of an emergency and the sounding of an alarm, the emergency evacuation procedure, unless otherwise instructed, is to leave by the main staircase and congregate by the statue in the marketplace. Anyone requiring assistance should remain in their seats and an officer will assist you from the building. There is free, free public Wi-Fi for anybody wishing to follow the agenda tonight on their device. This meeting is being filmed for live broadcast on the council's website and an archive version will be available after the meeting finishes. The broadcast will be suspended during any adjournments and proceedings, and if council resolves to consider information as exempt business, we're not anticipating that this evening. Members are reminded, as always, that microphones must be switched on and spoken into clearly for the webcast, and I will add, it should be switched off as soon as you finish speaking. I will direct public speakers how to do this should any be present, and we do have a couple of public speakers who are registered to speak. So only those registered to speak can speak at the planning committee and only when called. As always, can you make sure your mobile phones are switched off or in silent mode. I just welcome those in the public gallery who are here today and anyone watching online. To my left, I have members of the planning committee and to my right, I will add, and I will call you out and indicate when you wish to speak. Directly to my right, I have a member of Democratic Services and our planning officer. I think just where this is the first meeting of a kind of new council year. So if we can, just for the members, if we go around introducing ourselves very quickly. I'll go starting to my left. Good evening, my name is Roger Hayes. I'm vice chair of this committee and a councillor for Kingston Town Ward. Good evening, I'm Jackie Davis. I'm a councillor for Burylands Ward. Good evening, Councillor Leslie Heep. I'm a councillor in New Moreton Village Ward. Good evening, Lynne Henderson from Wotsford Park and Old Moreton East Ward. Good evening, Councillor Peter Herlinger from Alexander Ward. Councillor chairs from Chesterton South and Moreton Rashid. Hello, Oliwemi Nobitin. Is it open? Good evening, Fashid Sandra Hashemi, Kingston Gate Ward. And Ian George, Qaube Hill Ward. Thank you, everybody, for that. Members of the public are reminded that the planning application process is constrained by the need to have regard to current planning policy at national, regional and local levels as well as all other material planning considerations including case law precedents. The decision making process is often described as quasi-judicial because local planning authorities have to act reasonably within the bounds of planning law and above considerations and are not free to determine planning applications simply because of the weight of public opinion. For the record, I wish to confirm that no formal site visit was necessary in relation to this application. If any members undertook a personal site visit to view the site, please can you indicate this to the meeting for the purpose of the minutes? Anyone took a personal visit? No, I will just note this is in my ward and I have been to this site a few times in the recent past. Please can I also confirm that all members of the committee have seen and read the late material? Yes, yes, yes. Also, you all sent copies of the representations made in relation to both applications, what's the only application? Yes, okay. You were sent, represent, yeah, is that confirmed? Yep, okay. Apologies for absence and attendance of substitute members, Fiona. Thank you Chair, I have apologies for absence from Councillor James Giles. Thank you Fiona. Minutes, minutes of the meeting of 20, 20th of March 2024, can I sign these as a correct record? Agreed? I'll do that after the meeting, thank you. Does any member wish to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or any other registrable or non-registrable interests relevant to the item on this agenda? No one, okay. So on to the substantive item of the meeting today. This is the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site to provide two new units for use within Class E plus ancillary offices and associated parking, servicing and landscaping to Typhoon Business Centre on Oakcroft Road in Chessington. Barry, can you please present the item to the committee, thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman. So the first application is for the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the redevelopment of the site to provide two new units for uses within Class E, G, Roman numeral 3, B2, B8 plus ancillary offices, associated parking, servicing and landscaping and that's at Typhoon Business Centre, Oakcroft Road, Chessington. On the screen there you see the application site outlined in red with the building located in the middle just off Oakcroft Road and then we see an aerial photograph again. This is the site. I don't think you can quite see my pointer but the existing building is right in the middle of the screen. Then we see some aerial photographs showing the site in a strategic industrial setting surrounded by numerous commercial and warehouse buildings. On the left you see key constraints. On the left you see the yellow covering of the site showing it's a designated strategic industrial location within the local plan and also at a regional level from a London plan point of view. And on the right hand side you can just about see the green areas and this area shows the HGV bans. At our briefing on Monday there was some discussions about lorry routes to the site. This indicates that there is quite a lot of restrictions in terms of how HGVs can access the surrounding areas. So on screen now you see the existing site layout. The site is approximately .41 of a hectare. It's a large box commercial building separated into numerous existing uses of which include offices and warehousing, separated over two floors, building has a depth of about 45 metres and then you see some elevations of the existing building, height of about 7.76 metres and the width or depth rather of 45 metres. On screen now you see some photographs of the site. I think it's just important to note that this photograph on the right shows a couple of trees. They've long been removed. This photograph was taken in 2019. So these aren't trees that are proposed to be felled as part of this application but those trees are no longer there. This photograph is slightly aged. If I now take you through the proposal in detail, the application is for the demolition existing building and some text has gone through there which it shouldn't, it's not a part four, part five, part six story so excuse that. It's the demolition existing building and the erection of a new building to provide two units for uses within class EG Roman numeral three B2/B8. The building with two units would comprise 1,847 square metres of 816 square metres. That's a set out in the report. There would be 18 car parking spaces, two of which would be accessible, four would be active electrical vehicle charging spaces. That is a reduction across the whole site of 28 spaces. There would be 16 cycle parking spaces and there would be carbon savings of unit one of 48%, unit two of 38%. That would be achieved by using air source heat pumps and PV panels. There would be a preamp, excellent, a biodiversity net gain uplift of 790% and an urban greening factor of 0.19. There's no trees to be removed as part of this application. If I now just maybe flesh out what these uses are. So class EG Roman numeral three includes any industrial processes being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. A B2 use is a general industrial use for uses for industrial processes other than one falling within class EG above previously class B1 excluding incineration purposes, chemical treatment or landfill or hazardous waste. And then B8 is a storage or distribution use which is as you would imagine storage or distribution. So all these uses are uses which would be deemed acceptable in a residential area. Although this is as we've discussed a strategic industrial location. Looking at the proposed site layout the building would be enlarged to cover the majority of the site, unit one on the left as you see it on screen, unit two on the right. This or these units would be serviced from the front unlike the current situation where they would be serviced from the rear. So servicing to these units would be from Oakcroft Road and then we look at the ground floor buildings here, the ground floor entrance doors at the front. And then as you go upstairs there is a mezzanine open plan office space. At the ground floor you see services of showering facilities, kitchen facilities and a lift that takes you up to the first floor. Then we have a plan here showing the ground and first floor laid over each other. And then we see the roof with areas hatched in red the PV panels and then you see the windows as indicated on screen. Here we see some elevations. The buildings are as one would imagine they are commercial functional buildings, they are dressed in metal cladding as one might expect in a industrial location. On screen now we see some details of the swept path analysis of the side access road. You will note that this has been a point of concern in the application raised by a near neighbour. As you see on screen, this shows a swept path for a 10 metre rigid vehicle showing that a 10 metre rigid vehicle can access and egress the site safely. That is the same for a swept path analysis for a 7.5 tonne boxvan can also access and egress the site or the turning head safely. And then on screen now with these were sent in the plans packs, the proposed units can be accessed and egress for servicing purposes from the main road in a safe way. These plans have been looked at by the Highway's authority or friends in the Highway's team and they are content that the proposal would not cause harm to the network, wider network. There are a couple of corrections, clarifications to the report. In the report and this is in the late material, the report refers to one accessible space, there are two. The carbon calculation savings is set out in the report. Unfortunately there was some confusion. The figures are tonnage of carbon not percentage of carbon. So the percentage figures that are in the late material are the actual figures and I will take you through the late material in a second. The late material also covers some questions from the Biodiversity Officer which you see in their comments. They've been responded to by the applicant and the Biodiversity Officer is now content, subject to conditions and then we have in late material a final list of conditions. If I now take you to that late material. So the first part of the late material is correcting the number of accessible spaces from one to two. Then we have the correction of the percentage savings. The above figures should be read as tons of carbon not a percentage saving. Savings presented as a percentage figure are unit one 48% to unit two 38% both above the 35% as required by policy and then we put number four just corrects it in other parts of the report and then we have updates at paragraph five. There is some additions to the legal agreement section on page 833, that's to ensure that a traffic management order is arranged by the applicant, that is to remove the five car parking spaces at the front of Oakcroft road to enable servicing in and out of Oakcroft road. A section 278 agreement for those crossovers to be created with section 278 of the highways act that is. A green travel plan to be entered into by the applicant and that would include details of preferred lorry routes and details of how staff and visitors would be encouraged to access the site using sustainable modes of transport. Then we have paragraph six sets out where the council biodiversity officers raised some concerns. You see those concerns in bold and then in italic text you see the response which the upshot of that collection of paragraphs is that the biodiversity officers reviewed the responses and is content with the proposal subject to conditions. Then we have a final list of planning conditions one through to 20, oh sorry 31, there is a site correction of 31. Councillor Herlinger helpfully pointed out before no additional floor space should be formed within as opposed to with the building so there is a an in required to be added next to with. Taking all those matters into account Mr Chairman, the recommendation is to approve subject to the conditions and completion of the legal agreement and to delegate authority to the assistant director of strategic planning and infrastructure to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including any amendments, additions or deletions as the reasonably necessary consultation with you and to negotiate agree and finalise any legal agreement. Who would like to invite the registered objector to come forward to the table? Mr Salim Faisal, if you want to take a seat please. You will have up to five minutes to speak. If you would like we can let you know when you have one minute remaining. Good evening, my name is Salim Faisal and I am the managing director of Click See Limited, the company that owns unit E 15 Oakcroft Road. I am here to speak on behalf of myself and the owners of unit 15 to 15D. As is evident from the plans, our properties neighbour the proposed development. Our lawyers Brett Holt have submitted an objection to the planning application dated 27 November 2023. For completeness, however I would like to summarise them to you this evening. The objection raised relate to the access road for unit 15A to 15E Oakcroft Road. Firstly, the planning application submitted which shows a reduced turning area as a result of buildings and bollards is in breach of the decision issued by John Allen, the head of planning and development detailed in Kingston council letter dated 28 January 2004. The decision requires there to be no obstruction to the parking, turning and manoeuvring area of the adjacent industrial units, namely unit 15 to 15E Oakcroft Road in accordance with policy T1, transport safety of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames unitary development plan. Secondly, the access road for units 15 to 15E marked in red in the planning application is stated in the planning application to be the property of the applicant. This is incorrect. We understand the aforementioned access road belongs to the Crown due to the demise of Tam Chasington Limited, who used to own the access road. Please note that we, the owners of unit 15 to 15E Oakcroft Road, have formally objected to Sackville UK Property Select 3 being the sole freeholder of the access road and have indicated our desire to purchase the access road. Sackville lawyers CMS informed us they would contact us after the relevant consultation period had ended. We have not heard from them to date. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr Fazal. Sofia, if you return to your seat and we may call you back for questions shortly. Thank you for your time so far. If I can ask Mr Pete, if you can come forward, the same rules apply. You will have five minutes to speak. We will let you know if you get to that stage where you have one minute left. Once you start speaking we will start timing. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman and Councillors. My name is Aaron Pete and I'm a director in the Planning Consultancy team at WSP, the agents for the application. Hopefully I won't need the five minutes, but if I can just make a couple of quick points, maybe address some of the comments that have been made by Mr Fazal. I obviously can answer any questions at the end if need be. Firstly, this proposal involves the provision of two modern, high quality buildings that was originally built as industrial units, but over time has been extended and carved up into 11 small office units and one warehouse. Nearly 50% of the units are now vacant, perhaps reinforcing the reality that this is not an office location, with other existing tenants having indicated their desire to not renew in forthcoming lease events. Despite the marketing that has happened over the last year, there has been no real interest from office uses, but lots of interest from other industrial occupiers, unsurprisingly given its strategic industrial location. So the proposal is to reinstate the original industrial uses on site in a unit that has been designed to meet market requirements. We therefore have full confidence that it will let quickly. The committee report indicates a loss of employment floor space as a result of the application. It's worth just pointing out that the proposed building is largely the same footprint as existing and is in fact taller, producing a larger volume of building compared to the existing, with the notional loss of floor space only coming due to internally there being a full floor in the office building. And only a mezzanine in the warehouse. So this loss of floor space is a quirk of the new use and a need for head height in the warehouse rather than a reduction in size of the building or site area. Mr Farzil has raised the issue of a detrimental impact on the turning head, and I think the planning officer spent some time there. But it is worth reiterating that we prepared a response to that, and that was provided to the officers prior to the committee with sweat path analysis as well, and it confirms that the turning head, while slightly reduced in size, will not preclude turning for a 7.5 tonne box van and a 10 metre rigid van. Articulated vehicles cannot currently remove manoeuvre within the existing hammer head space safely, as we've shown on the sweat path analysis, and would need to reverse on Oakcroft Road at the moment to access the site, which can still happen with the new proposal. And on that basis we're not reducing the usability of the turning head, and all vehicles that currently safely use it for turning and manoeuvring still can. It's worth noting that the turning head currently sits behind gates and within the yard of the application site within the client's ownership. The existing gates which restrict full access to the turning head are being removed, as well as the service yard to the rear of our site being moved to the front. So there will be other improvements to the usability of the turning head for adjoining occupiers. I've seen in the new conditions that there is also a condition that seeks to require the turning head to be kept free from obstruction, and we're happy to ... 2,000 consent that the objector has previously referred to. So I think that's everything I want to say. There was a ... Well, maybe there was this one point about ownership, maybe not one that I can shed too much light on other than the fact that we fully understand that it is under the ownership of the applicant. Thank you very much. Mr. Peat, if you can take your seat again, and if they have any questions, we might call you again shortly. So do we have any questions for the objector? I have a quick question. If anyone else here comes up with questions, then do let me know. Mr. Farzel, if you can come forward again please. Thank you very much. And again, we have five minutes for questions. It doesn't look like we'll be taking all that time, but just thank you again for coming and putting your points to us. It's about the ... Do you think that the changes that have been proposed are going to make any materially ... Will make the situation materially worse than they are currently? And if so, how please? Yes, definitely. A 40-foot arctic will not be able to enter our location and come out with the front. It needs a full turning circle for it to come in, reverse, and then come out with the front end according to traffic regulations. You cannot reverse an arctic 40-footer from a slip road into a main road. Thank you. And by that you mean articulated already, by arctic presumably? Yes. That's okay. In the moment you're saying you can do that, and you're saying you won't be able to do that when the changes have been made or in the ... Correct. And is that because of the position, because of removing the barrier? What's ... I don't quite understand quite why. No, it's literally the application which shows the ... Sorry, sorry. If you're able to do that, that'll be helpful. We have got a limited time. If you're able to do that, Barry. But we'll have a chance to come into this a bit more detailed, but if Barry can show it at the same time. But sorry, Mr. Fazl. If you carry on, sorry. Yes. Basically, it needs the turning circle as at the moment in the application. An arctic would not be able to go around that area. It's impossible. It needs more room in that turning circle. Those bollards and the building is in the way. Okay, thank you very much. Do you have any other questions, Councillor Healy? Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Could you just explain how an arctic gets around there now then? Because as I understand it, the footprint of the building is not going to be that much different, is it? How does the arctic or a big lorry get round and deliver currently or in the past, recent past? It comes in into the slip road and then turns to the left into Typhoon where the development is happening. It reverses adjacent to my rear end, back end of the warehouse, and then it comes out with this front, with this cabin outside to join the main road. Councillor Satchi-Washiri? Sorry, I still don't understand. Are you saying that currently, when they come in, they actually trespass on the property of the other people in order to be able to turn around and go? Do they actually just use the shared access or do they actually need to go into the area that doesn't belong to the shared road? Sorry, we're having a few technical issues. We can pause the timer quickly. Here we go. Is it off? Yes, sorry, if you want to turn out your reply now, thank you. I'll give you a bit of extra time. Apologies, everyone. Yes, it is not trespassing on any territory. The council knows and in the letter of the letter of 28 January 2004, the council is fully aware of the turning circle. Can I come to you and show it to you? I think that's, sorry, we're coming to the end of the question period. We've heard your objections. Thank you very much. We will have time to, I think, to speak to Barry about this as well to get some further clarification so we're all clear about the objection and what the new proposal is. So, thank you, Mr Fazel. Thank you for your time. You can take your seat again. Thank you very much. Apologies, everyone, for the technical issues. Does anyone have any questions for the, yes, we do have questions for the applicant. If anyone else, anyone else got any questions? We've got one from Councillor Haynes, no, and okay, Councillor Shih Sumi, yes, so, Mr Pickett, if you come forward again we'll have five minutes, hopefully without any technical issues, to ask you some questions. So, I'll start with Councillor Haynes. So, in the interests of balance, can you respond to what we've just heard, please? Yes. So, as we understand it, and we've had the Transport Consultants look at this, that there is no safe ability to turn in with an Arctic into that turning head at the moment without going on to land that isn't the turning head, provided to the planning officers that we don't believe that can be done safely at the moment, and we're not making that situation any worse. The same vehicles can safely manoeuvre on that turning head as they can at the moment, and that's quite clear in our view. If it's happening, it's happening using other land, or it's happening with people with the Arctic reversing down to those units at the moment, which doesn't require the turning head for an Arctic. Can I ask another question following on from that? We'll ask the planning officer in a moment for their response is required. So it might be worth sharing the new plan, because when I said the footprint wouldn't be, what I meant was the size of the building. You can see that the unit does move to the back of the site, so the new service yard sits to the front, so it would be accessed off Oakcroft Road, and any vehicles, any lorries, any vehicles in fact, would be using that front entrance now. They wouldn't need to go to the rear of the site at all, as currently happens. So it's a different arrangement, and one common to most of the other units along that road. So again, just to check my full understanding, from your perspective, the turning head arrangements at the end of the service road do not alter materially from that which exists at the moment, but, regardless of that, the new units that you need to standoff, which then backs onto railings. Now these things are absolutely prone to flight tipping and rubbish being put there and all that sort of stuff. So my question to you is, have you considered those, and what plans are they to keep the back end actually free from debris and rubbish, thank you. Well, there needs to be a standoff just for maintenance purposes, so it can't be flush up against the fencing anyway. So there does need to be that space, unfortunately. And I think it will be secure, it will be gated, there will be the necessary fencing to prevent anyone from getting into that position. Obviously, it backs onto the railway as well. So it's not as if there's any public access into that space. Thank you. Any further questions? Sorry, one other question. In the original plan, the road is known as shared road, and it says a secured shared yard at the end. And then when we come to your plan, that secured shared yard isn't worded like that. Now you mentioned something about, it's not a shared road and you can put your boundary on the wrong side of it. Can you explain a little bit more on the legal side? I think I may have answered that question in another question, which was the unit is now being pushed to the back of the site, so whereas before it had the service yard at the rear, which was the unit service yard, it's now being put to the front. So before it was a service yard for that unit at the end, and now it doesn't perform that function, the unit sits to the rear. Is that the question you're asking? I hope so because that's the time up. Thank you very much for asking a lot of questions, Mr Peat, and if you'd like to take your seats again. So before we ask Barry to come back and summarise and respond to some of the points raised, I'd like to move the recommendation as set out on Gender Report, page A7. Can I get a seconder, please? Thank you, Councillor Hayes. So, Barry. Thank you, Mr Chairman. If I can start with the question about secure shared yard. The shared is, as we're reading it, for the 12 units that are currently in Typhoon Business Park, so it's shared for the current occupants, so it is a shared facility for all the 12 units that currently reside within the existing building, not a wider shared access yard for the number 15A to 15E. It's unit 1 to 12 in Typhoon Business Park. I think that's the question you were hoping to be answered, and I hope I've answered it. With regards to articulated lorries, looking back at the scheme that was approved previously, it was never envisaged that the access road at the side would be used for articulated lorries. It was only ever envisaged being used for the 7.5 box van and the 10-metre rigid vehicle. If articulated lorries are driving down there, they would be having to reverse into the service yard for Typhoon Business Park, which you'd see now on screen. You can't see my cursor, but they have to reverse down and then turn right, reverse right into the yard and then out again. So it's not a safe manoeuvre, and it's not what the highways authority envisaged happening at the time of the application, and it's not what is envisaged would happen now. If there is an ever articulated lorry, it can reverse down the road. It wouldn't have to go in front and reverse out. It would reverse in and then drive out in a forward gear. I think that's everything that I wanted to sweep up on. I'm happy to take as many questions as you have. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much, Barry. Question time, please, if those of you who want to ask questions if they indicate. I see Councillor Sajryaki first and then Councillor Henderson. Thank you. I'm still worried about this shared access road. Mr Facell, he said that it belongs to a different entity legally. They're putting the boundary on this side and then with two cars parked back here and everything. I'm just worried. Are we familiar with the legal situation here and do they have the right to draw the boundaries like this? Thank you, Mr Chairman. The applicants have served notice on a company, Tam Chessington, so whoever owns this yard or the private land has been made aware of the application. Now, of course, planning doesn't override any private property rights. Whoever has private property rights over this site will be able to take action in the courts to prevent anything from happening. From a planning point of view, the process is have the applicants identified land ownership, yes they have. Have they served notice on those people who have land ownership, yes they have. From a planning point of view, everything's above board as far as we're concerned. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Barry. Sorry, one second. Sin, that's not something that we're considering here. We've gone through, in terms of the application, we're satisfied they've gone through the proper procedure. That's potentially a separate matter for being a private landlord and they can take action if they see fit. It's not something that we should be considering in this meeting, is that correct? Correct. The old story that we trot out all the time is, of course, I could apply to knock down your house and build a huge tower. I could get permission for it, whether I could do it, all depends whether you would let me as a landowner. Planning does not override private property rights. They are a separate matter that dealt with by the courts. So as long as, from a planning point of view, ownership has been acknowledged, notice has been served, everything from a planning point of view is covered. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Barry. Sorry, Councillor Anderson. Thanks, Matt. Barry, can I just ask a few questions just to understand. If I look at the original plan, it says secure shared yard. It looks like there's a gate there. Is that right at the end? Actually, there is no turning there at the moment. It says secured shared yard, so it looks like there's a gate and a fence, but it can be open, but actually if it's secure, it probably is shut. The new plan looks like it actually creates a turning point. Is that my understanding of it? No. Thank you, Mr Chairman. There is a gate, but there's a requirement for those gates to be opened from early morning through to late evening. So whilst it is gated, the gate is obliged to be open, I think it's from 7 a.m. right through to the end of the day to enable that turning area to be used. So whilst there is a gate, it is open, when it needs to be. Would we know how wide that gate is? It doesn't look particularly wide to me. It looks like it's fenced off as well. So you've got fences, and then you've got the gate that opens. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I don't have my scale rule, but it's the length of a car parking space, which is about 4.85 metres. That's what I would say it is. Given the size of that gate, I can't see how a large truck could actually reverse through there. That's quite dangerous, actually. And so if I look at the new one, actually, it's all right. If you get a large truck, they're going to reverse down. But then they're just going to have to drive forward like they have to now. That's how I'm reading it. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Anderson. Do we have any further questions? Oh, sorry, yes. Did you have a question, Councillor Davies? OK. Councillor George. Thank you. It's not a major issue, but I see the area as a P-tel of, I think, 1, 1A or something like that, which is quite low. And there's an assumption that people are going to get public transport, which isn't great, or cycle. The cycle stands, it looks like covered, but presumably they're not in lockers or anything secure. They are open to be able to steal, presumably. And they are positioned right close to the road as well. I just think that one of the real key issues of preventing people from cycling to work is having somewhere to leave it all day. And I think it's a shame that there isn't somewhere that actually you can have a proper locker, or at least put the cycle stands away from obvious temptation. But is that right? Is it open, because this was supposed to be a question, and I've gone into a bit of a statement. But, yes, so is it right that it is an open cycle stand? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor George. Thank you, Mr Cooper. OK. Barry, do you? Thank you, Mr Cooper. I'm just looking for the condition. There is a condition somewhere that would require... On the plans it says covered cycle stand. But, yeah, it doesn't mean it's secured. Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK. Barry's entitled to it, yeah. So it is covered, however, if there are concerns, and the Councillor made a good point about encouraging people to cycle, having safe and secure cycle facilities, condition nine could be amended to require details of the cycle storage to be submitted and approved in writing, and that cycle storage to be safe and secure. So condition nine could be tweaked to require details to be submitted if members were minded, and condition nine would knit in with condition, which I've just seen, and now lost, about secure by design, which would also cover some of these issues. So, yes, condition nine could be altered. So a number of these conditions in the EGLE agreement come together. The cycle storage condition, the secure by design condition, the green travel plan will all speak to each other to make sure that the cycling is secure. But certainly condition nine could be amended. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. It's a good point, Councillor George, and I think I imagine most people would be in agreement with Barry's remedy. Do we have any other questions? I was wondering when you would pipe up, Councillor Waring. Well, if it's that predictable that I'm going to ask a question, it might be quite predictable what the question's going to be about. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Barry. Thank you for this. I'm trying to understand PV's solar panels on the roof. Could you bring that up again, please? Because I've got a picture of the roof, but can you just go through that? Talk to me like I'm five again about what is the PV proportion of the total roof and the like, please. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I wouldn't dare to speak to you like you're a five-year-old. It's approximately half the roof would be -- well, less than half. Half of the area of the roof would have PV panels on, but then with the windows it would reduce it slightly. So if we were to split this up into four, two of the four spaces have PV panels and windows. So it is a reasonable proportion of the roof, and the applicants have submitted information to say this is the maximum amount that they can deliver, and that would be down to things like the weight of the building, other plants that might need to be up in that area. But I'm not wanting to guess what you're going to say, of course. We could put an informative on, asking them to see whether they can push those targets even further, and to supply evidence demonstrating as such if members were minded. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Barry. Yes, consider me minded on that, please. I would like to know whether more could go on, and if not, why not. Okay, yeah, thank you, Denzil. You said you were predictable. I thought you were going to ask about affordable housing. There we go. Is that okay? So, Barry, so you're proposing to just suggest that we examine any further efficiencies and the condition. Thank you. So Condition 26 would be amended to -- prior to any above-ground work, to detail energy strategy including details of technologies to be used to achieve a target carbon savings of, then the figures, and for the avoidance of doubt, no gas poised to be used to be submitted. And at the end, so another sentence, Fiona, to say that the applicant should demonstrate that they've maximized the potential for the use of PV panels on the roof. Thank you. Yes, we're in. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Barry. That's very helpful. Could that be extended? I'm not sure of the direction of the building to the sun, but if there's a possibility for PVs on a side, any sides of the building, am I asking for the moon on a stick? Barry. Condition 26 would cover that, so to maximize the potential for solar panels on the building roofing side. So that would cover it. Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Barry. Mr Farzad Farij, have you indicated -- I presume you want to speak? I'm afraid we had to stick to very strict rules, procedures in this meeting. We've had the kind of five minutes for public participation, and that's all that we're allowed, I'm afraid. It's the quasi-judicial process that we must follow to make sure that we're carrying out things according to law. Do we have any further questions? It doesn't look like we do. Do we have any comments? I have two comments. First, on the turning thing, which I hadn't understood at all before looking at Google Maps Earth view. We're looking at a road not turning into the yard. We're actually looking at a little bit of road behind the current Typhoon business centre. That's the first point, seems a little bit different. My second comment is just a feeling of disappointment, really. I thought we were going to replace one rather ugly, tatty old building with something rather stunning and interesting and new, and we just seemed to be replacing it with something rather ugly and not very impressive. I know that's on an industrial estate, but I'm just a bit disappointed it's not a bit more aesthetically pleasing, I think. Thank you, Councillor Davies. I don't know if you want to come back on the turning into the road. I think at the rear, that's not a road that's used day-to-day. That's just kind of the back area. It maybe looks like a road, but it's not accessed by traffic. That's at the front, so the turning areas into it, it looks like it might have been a pallbearer, but I think it's part of the shared service, the secure shared yard. Unless you look at the front. The turning area is at the back, away from the main road. Do we have any other comments? If not, I'll come to you, Councillor George, after that. Councillor SadDecimic? Thank you. Actually, Councillor Davies actually pointed out I am all in favour of putting brand new construction in the place of old ones, and I'm sure that the planning department and Officer Lomax will make sure that the most modern materials are used, and that these are much better insulated buildings. I was underwhelmed by the response to when we had the presentation from the client when we were trying to talk about carbon and the footprints and insulation. I was happier to see that we now have PVs and heat pumps being mentioned. So I really want to encourage us to encourage the new applicants, whoever they would be, to be statically and structurally more advanced in their thinking towards global warming as well as the environment. I'm still worried about this three metre at the back, because I'm fairly sure if I was in one of these units and I wanted something out of my way, I would go around the side of it, carry it to the back, and dump it there. And as the trains tried to go by, that place could turn into something quite unsightly. Following from Councillor George's comments, we have an area at the back here that might be a nice cycle park. I don't know whether cycle parks next to railroads are more dangerous, but it doesn't look like there's a lot of access to this area. So, could it be possible to put some cycle parking at the back here, because that then gives more traffic to the area, and would discourage people putting unwanted materials at the back? So I don't know how we can encourage planners to be more forward thinking and actually aesthetically more pleasing designs, as well as environmentally more astute. Thank you. Thank you. And representatives of the applicant here would have heard your comments. Thank you. Councillor George, do you still have comments to make? Thank you. Yes, just briefly. Just to pick up from the officer's comment on my cycle parking suggestion, I'm all in favour of that and I would like that added, if possible. I think it may be that they can have some CCTV, obviously, looking out with a few signs. Maybe that would help as well. So that's my main point. My other point is, to follow up on Councillor Davis's comments, yes it is a big building on an estate, but a little more effort to make it look a little bit nicer, a little bit different, would have been welcomed, quite frankly. They rarely get knocked down, and when they do, it's a great opportunity to make things look a little bit nicer, which I think is missed. But there you go. Thank you, Councillor George. Do we have any other comments? Were you thinking, debating? OK, yes, you've got to go first, Councillor Davis. Sorry, I'm a cyclist. I have to come back on where cycle parking is best cited, and it's got to be near the front door. Because you're going home for work at the end of the day, the last thing you want to do is to traipse 100 yards round the back to something that might be a bit dark and scary. So yes, have something secure, get a lockable shed or something, but keep it near the front. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I think we need to agree with what most colleagues have said, but we have to delineate our role this evening as the planning committee, not as the site management committee. And I hope that they do manage the site well, but it is not within our grasp to either require them to or and certainly not specifically how to require them to. So let's not confuse the role there. I totally agree with what Councillor Davis has just said about cycle parking, that it should be at the front. But as Councillor George has pointed out, it should also be secure so that not only can people use it conveniently, but they can use it in the knowledge that their bike will be safe and secure and there in the evening when they want to go home as well as in the morning when they park it there. The final point I think that I want to make is about this private service road. I think it's a complete red herring. I don't think that the issues that we've heard come in response to the sweat path analysis we've seen, which isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of technical detail. And I think if we're told that the likely uses of that turning point can make use of it, then we should take that by people who know what they're talking about, we should take that as fact and not opinion. And other things that might take place down that three-metre strip at the back between the proposed buildings and the railway line, the railway embankment. Again, as I say, it's a matter of site management, not a matter of planning. As we've heard both from the officer's report and from the applicant's representative, that the servicing is now proposed to take place substantially from the front of the building. So again, what happens down that shared service road I think is largely irrelevant. So I think as long as we are making those suggested changes for secure parking to Condition 9 and to maximise the renewable energy provision through PV cells and other means for that matter in Condition 26, I'm happy to support this application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much Councillor Hayes. Anyone else for any comments? I won't say very much. Yes, I think Councillor Hughes kind of said not much of what I would have said. Yes, thank you for the people coming today and making representations, but after, I think I'm satisfied that we've had satisfactory responses to the objections raised around the turning area. I don't think it's going to affect what it should be used for in the first place, so I don't think that's going to be impacted. And in terms of the legal ownership, I'm quite satisfied with the responses we've had. Just another thing about the green parking strategy, this is in my ward and I know there's people who live to the north I think of Oak Road who aren't particularly happy with some of the laws that go past, or larger vehicles I should say go past, and so just making sure or encouraging people to, drivers to come the other direction is good. It makes logical sense anyway for most journeys. But yes, making sure that is stressed in any green plan, and so just to be clear, then we've got two conditions, I think we are generally happy with those, but two conditions to be strengthened, shall we say. I think you've taken notes of them, Fiona, but that's condition nine, around the cycle storage, just to make sure we're looking to get secure, safe cycle parking at the front of the sites. And condition 26, I think Barry's given you words around that as well, Fiona, around maximising potential for PC panels all over the building, Councillor Waring. And so those are the two slight changes we're going to be making, and we'll add that to the recommendation that we will vote on now if everyone's happy to move it forward. So can we have a show of hands for all those in favour, please? And that is unanimous. So thank you very much, everyone. Thank you to the people coming in to the meeting today and made representations, and anyone watching online. No urgent items authorised by me, so we can conclude the meeting at 8.31. Thank you, everyone, for your time. [Applause] [End of session]