Transcript

at 10 o'clock, we'll get started. Good morning Councillors, officers and members of the public. Welcome to today's meeting of the Strategic Planning Board. I'm Councillor Brian Pudicam. I'll be in the Chair for items 1 to 8 on today's meeting. For item 9, the Vice Chair will be taking the Chair and I'll explain why we'll meet under decorations of interest. In addition to the members of the Committee, also present all the following officers who are here to advise the Committee regarding the items on the agenda. And they are from the left, James Thomas, Senior Planning and Highways Lawyer, Paul Wakefield Principal Planning Officer, David Malcolm, the Head of Planning and on my left, Sam Jones, Democratic Services Officer, and our Clerk. We'll also be joined later on for other items by Gareth Taylor, some Principal Planning Officer, Daniel Evans Principal Planning Officer, Deborah Ackerley Principal Planning Officer, Robert Law, Senior Planning Officer, and Paul Griffiths Major Projects Officer. And welcome also to Councillor Clough, who was joined the Board in place of Councillor Moss. I will now explain how the Committee will operate. The Planning Officer will introduce the item, show slides, photos and plans regarding the site. I will then invite any registered public speakers to address the Committee. If anything with the Public Speaker has said was unclear, I may allow members to ask questions of clarification. And once they have spoken, the Public Officers, the Public Speakers will be asked to return to their seats. The Planning Officer will respond to any issues raised by the Public Speaker, and then members who will be able to ask the Planning Officer questions before moving to debate the item. When the debate moves to a close, I will check whether the officers have any final advice to give, and that the terms of the resolution which will have been moved and seconded are clear to all. A vote will be taken and the result of the vote will be reported to a meeting. This meeting is being audio webcast and the recording will be uploaded onto the Council's website. I have also been made aware that some members of the public are video recording today's meeting. I can see one person with a camera there. If this is a public meeting, so you are welcome to record it, but I would say to everybody else, if you do not wish to be in the video recording, please make your request known to the person with the camera. Today's meeting is part of the democratic process. There are items of business as we know on today's agenda which both members of the Council and members of the public have strong and passionate feelings about. Then it's a great thing and people are encouraged to express these views freely. But in doing so, I would make it clear they must do so in a respectful and courteous way and that is part of the an essential part of democratic engagement. People can and must have their say, but they also have a responsibility to conduct themselves appropriately and I'm sure that we will all make sure that we do that during today's debate. So let's have a good open and respectful debate and contributions. Members of the Council, members of the public are very welcome. Thank you for coming along today. So we'll move on to the agenda with apologies for absence. Thank you, Chair. We have apologies for absence received from Councillor Nick Manion. I mean, if Councillor there's a brief wait here, a substitute and we also have apologies from Councillor Garnett Ronshel. Okay, so take a little bit of interest. I think I'll start. On the first agenda item, we will all have had, I think, communication from Richard Buckston, solicitors and many of us may have also had communication, email communication from Tim Rocker, parliamentary candidate and I would personally declare that Tim Rocker is known to me as a party colleague and also a friend, but I have never discussed this item with him. And also for myself and the public speakers, Jeff Thompson is known to me. And then on a agenda item 220785(n), I think we all had a communication from the objective, Mr. Chapman, and on 240130(c), I have had correspondence to the data's applicants, I'm not sure if it's a real quick answer, but I think they have. So that's on behalf of all of us as well. And then on the final agenda item 231174(m), Dawson Farm at Bosley. This was heard at Northern planning two weeks ago and because of the nature of it has to come here. I was substituting it Northern planning and I spoke and voted on this and I am predisposed rather than predetermined between sure there is no appearance of predetermination from the chair. As I was at Northern planning committee and spoke on it, I would be vacating the chair for the item and as I said before the vice chair will be chairing with that item. So any other declarations of interest? Councillor Edwards. Thank you Chair. Last Friday for the site visit, I had a really bad day. I fell off my motorbike on the way to Northern Bosley site visit which is 23th row 1174(m). And I arrived actually at the site after everybody else had gone. I did speak to the farmer there but I didn't in any way speak about this planning application simply about farming matters and I feel that I am not predetermined in any way. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Braithwise. Yes, thank you Chair. I have an interest of openness with regard to 23-4-1-5-2-1. I had time to do economy and growth committed to needs and I have not agreed to turn in the application. Thank you. Councillor Ken Edwards. Thank you Chair. In relation to application number 23-1-1-7-4-m brought some farm up to the road. I too was at the Northern Planning Committee and spoke because this recommendation will be coming to strategic planning. I spoke actually in favour of public at that stage in general terms but I am certainly not now predetermined in any whatsoever. I am very interested in the debate and I will vote according to the overall information provided. Thank you. Councillor Cloughs. Thank you. As Councillor Braithwise, I was at the economy and growth meeting where the petition in relation to 23-4-1-5-2-1 was presented. Anybody that was on planning committees was required to leave the room so that I do not feel that I am in any way good at that. Councillor SIR. Yes, in terms of the Point of Pool application, we did receive some literature through the post of the trouble Councillors here received. So just to leave, that's all the openness that occurred. Anybody else? Councillor Chenksen. Application 23-1-1-7-4-m, and also the farm. I was at the Northern Planning Committee and I voted for review. I voted for review. I voted for review. So I voted for review for the real waste when the applications came. Just to be considering clear, I would represent thank you. Thank you. Okay, so that's all on decorations of interest. We'll move on to General items three minutes of the previous meeting to agree the minutes of the meeting how 27th of March 24th as a correct record. Any comments on the accuracy? Councillor Gala. Happy to propose. Thank you. So I propose Councillor Gala, seconded Councillor Edwards all those in favour? That's the one. Sorry. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine in favour. Any against? Any abstentions? Two abstentions. Okay, thank you. So item four public speaking time, I will go through this. So a total period of five minutes is allocated for each of the planning applications for the following. Five minutes for ward Councillors who are not members of the Strategic Planning Board and the relevant town parish council. And three minutes allocated for each planning application to the following. Members who are not members of the Strategic Planning Board and are not the board member, objectors, supporters, and applicants. But for a general item five, 20th, the damming backman of Port & Pool, I have agreed to increase speaking time for five minutes for most people on that one. Members who are not members of the Strategic Planning Board, objectors, supporters, and applicants. And also for application 23-1-1-7-4-M Dawson Farm. The vice chair has agreed an extension of five minutes for members who are not members of the Strategic Planning Board and are not the ward member because there will be a representative from the Northern Planning Committee coming to speak at that. And also for any other speakers on that item. So we move on to the main applications then. So agenda item five, application 23-4-1-5-2-M, the damming backman of Point & Pool Reservoir Point and Park London Road North Point and a proposed removal of low points along approximately 480 metres of Point & Pool damming backman, and slightly raising the level of crest to increase the flood resilience of the reservoir. A curve alongside an half foot path will create the crest level and the works will also include the creation of 240 metre wide clearance to further increase flood resilience. And Mr. Port Wakefield is going to introduce the item for us. I hand over the floor. Thank you chair. Good morning everybody. So there was an update report circulated earlier this week. That will date report summarised as two alternative options that were put forward by interested parties. The applicant has responded two over two other proposals. There are referred to as option one C and two C option one C. It's noted that the path in existing cool that is retained. This will still govern the capacity of this millway which is significantly less than required design capacity and so would not be acceptable on those of our safety grounds. An option two C was similar to option two which is considered on page 49 of the original report. It also which is previously discounted for those reasons that are stated in the report. In addition to this they know the potential impact on tree roots from raising the free board within earth or with earth. Sorry. Hello. Has it made for a sort of seepage or erosion path under the raised crest? And overall the it's considered that it wouldn't be the relevant standard set out in a guide to foots of reservoir safety. Yeah, the back of the crest needs to be ladled to within plus or minus six millimetres to ensure that their own flows are uniform in all the way along. This can't be achieved it's low of a loan but does need a crest marker so the current has shown proposals, comfort proposals to provide the confidence to provide confidence to the reservoir panel engineer that it meets the reservoir's safety standards. So as so as this one is discounted as discounted as well. On page 27 of the agenda, six potential veteran trees are referred to. Since the report was published, seven trees have now been verified by the words and trusts on the ancient tree. Eventually has notable trees, not veteran trees, but notable trees. A notable tree taken from the ancient tree and veteran website is said to be usually mature trees which may stand out in a local environment because they are large in comparison with other trees around them. Of these seven trees, two are to be removed which is an oak and a second wall and the other five which are all cracked willow trees are identified as being impacted. Two of them have root protection area encroachment number three, remain three after their crowns lifted to five metres over the working area. Also since the visual report, two letters have been received from the local MP, one requesting that the application is withdrawn from the agenda to allow further consideration of all sorts of options and the other left are asked for an increase in the time allowed for products teaching during the meeting today. The consideration of alternatives has been previously set out but the chair has already agreed, as he said earlier, to extend the public's teaching time given the nature of the scheme that we will get at today. Next, again as the chair did refer to, I think it was received from members, a letter was received from a solicitor acting on behalf of friends of Point of Pool. The letter iterates points previously made, notes of harm that is identified within the officer report and again, of course, the application to move from the agenda. And then finally, in terms of updates, a heritage impact assessment has been submitted by the applicant which concludes that there would be harm to the evidential aesthetic and communal interest of the neighbourhood plan heritage sites of Point of Pool and Point of Park, which is a similar to the conclusion to set out in the officer report. The results in how to significance of the non-designated heritage assessment is considered to be less substantial. So turning into the presentation. So this is the application site. We're going to decide, is it on Friday, where we can pass on a, I don't see a drive, it's just almost opposite the very southern end of the site here, on the other side of London Road, north, cross the road, enter the site, and then we'll walk all the way up and within the application site and then we'll back down the neighbourhood just to view the site for both sides. So as we can see, as we've seen on the side, it is a very linear site, just to point to pool on the right side here to the east, on the London Road, north, to the west. The site that complates Woodland along the back of the pool and I felt bad. There's a car park to the existing car park to the north, which is within the application site. And the site generally is located within the settlement boundary of Pointen. It's allocated as an area of protection over the space and is a local wildlife site. And then, as I've touched on earlier, Pointen, pool and park are identified as neighbourhood plant heritage sites in the Pointen neighbourhood plant. And the boathouse opposite, which is this grey structure here, just there on the opposite side of the pool, is on the local list of historic buildings. So this, just to show the site, a bit of a wider context, you can see this dark area here, in the pool, the application site, running along its western bank. The full length of the bank is approximately 800 metres. The application site starts approximately here and runs northwards from about 500 metres in total. But you can see, so the pool is located to the north of Pointen, settlement pointen, to the east of the side of Pointen Park, which is the sort of open over here, and that's surrounded by residential properties, as you can see. To the west, we've got open fields, and then this tree line shown here is Pointen Brook, and then beyond that, we've got the temple where you've been corroded. So a few photographs of the application site, so again, it's starting at the southern end, where we access the site on Friday, just to give an indication of the general environment, excuse me, general environment within, that would look, you know, on that path, adjacent to the pool. This is a southern section, and again, more of the southern section, we're gradually moving north. And that is, again, sort of, I just hadn't passed midway. We've seen the existing spillway facility, which is this brick structure here, and then so the graph shows up spillway, where the water's going, spills, into, and at the culvert, that goes below the banking below and about south, and towards Pointen Brook, to the west. Then carry on moving north, looking at a northern section of the path, looking south, and east across the pool, and see the park in the distance there, behind the trees. The bones house can just be seen as well, just in the distance as well. And then again, slightly further north, just to the end of the path, it's been slightly to make out the cul park, which is at the very northern end of the application site. Then, onto the roadside, so this is stood on the London Road north, looking towards the application site. So just to give, try and put it in contact, so we've got the whites building on the left here. There is a roadside that's just in front of it, and signifies that the crossing between the head and head. I'm sort of path leaning off the main path if you like, within the woods and south Pointen, in the centre of the top here. So this is the part of the proposed side plan that will come on to surely. It's like a mirror here, it's a path that leads onto the full path, and then joins onto a public side plan that crosses the field. Really, I put that in just to show some context of where one of the proposed spillways will be, where all the trees and vegetation will be removed. So that road sign, and that white building is a good marker. The spillway starts about 9 or 10 metres south of that, and then stretches down to about 40 metres, clearly all the vegetation hedges, trees, etc. In that location there. Then, as we look to the south, we have a Zylusi drive. It is just an end of this Zylusi drive, possibly drive. It is at the end of this whole path, on the right hand side, and this would be the position of the sudden spillway on the left hand side. So we've got one, two, three one posts, approximately between the first and second and third, between the first and second, it would start at the end, approximately. The position of this third one posts is obviously stretched, it would be again cleared of the vegetation. This is the proposed side plan. I think it's entirely just to give you that context, show the position of two spillways in this sort of orangey salmon colour, which is to say. That's the position of the existing spillway here, of the area of white pipe leaving towards point and drop it to the west. Then we can see, so this is angles to drive to the north, and members will probably note that properties two to ten, which is east view here, are referred to into the port as well. So just to show that in a bit more detail, again starting at the southern end. So it just shows a bit more detail working on the side from the south, we've got the post spill, the southern spillway in this salmon colour, and the green line is two meter wide, and playing in film grass strip. Then the code line, and then the grey line is the line of a new footpath, and compare that to the position, but with the existing footpath, which is showing that dotted blue line, which is that. So left i'm going to start at the southern end, moving slightly further north, on the right hand plant, and then again as we carry on, north, under the right hand, it shows the location of the northern spillway, on the area of the car park, which would be used for a side compound through the works. Then just to give the entire location, so to the extent of the works of the works that were started from the right, just to the southern street. So we've got the existing the level of the spillway crest, the level of the water is entered, the spillway exists, the spillway is showing that on the right hand side. The green dotted line is the existing line levels, and then this is moved across, we've got this. So you need to glide to the top of the side, those existing line levels, and then the curve between the footpath and the grass surge, which will be in fill with the plate to make room approach for damage to that curve. And then again, just to show a couple of examples of wider sections, which I think are in the key plans, there's quite no profit, but just to sort of dig out a couple, just to show how the height of the gap can vary. So this top image is 50 liters from the side boundary from the bottom section is 330 liters from the southern side boundary. So as you can see, the height of the gap there is quite significantly along its length. Then mitigation, hunting is proposed, and again that's 30 quite well I've been reporting, at Wall Montreal, which to this plan, this image is given, which shows the position of but the length from here, on the right hand side, and then the location of Wall Montreal, shown by this arrow here, and then just to give you some indication of how that looks. So these are the cues from the lifetime ones, they're just the road, and this top one is as well, looking from to the side. And then from the bypass, you can see it's this field area to the rear of the building, because I'm showing the life there, and that's probably the best view that you would get under the mitigation side. And so this is the field photograph, it's a problem taken from around. On Google, I'm just going to take it from one of these places, this location here, hunting in to the side, and then so that corresponds with this field here, which is slightly darker, I don't know if you can quite make your own photograph, but it is slightly darker, which is an existing ecological habitat area. And that was actually proposed in the woodland planting within this area, some short planting in individual trees to the right of it as well. So that's the mitigation site, and for the reasons set out in the report, it's recommended for approval. Okay, thank you. So we're now moving on to the public speakers on this item. So we have both of the board councils who've registered to speak, Council Saunders and Council have been land, so they will have two and a half minutes each. So who's going? No, I'm a different board councillor, I'm point of least. I'm the sole board councillor, point of least. So I have five minutes, I didn't check. Okay, I didn't check with yourself, I think. Not not with you. Yeah, no, okay, yeah, we'll do a check on that. Council have been and represented if you want. I'm sharing an hour five minutes with it. Okay, okay, okay, well, we'll stop with that if you wanted to move to the Councillor Saunders, it's okay. So you've got five minutes, the clock will start when you start speaking and then maybe questions afterwards. Good morning, I'm Trust Saunders, I represent Pontinise, but I'm also a member of Port and Town Council. The need for this project was identified in the Jacobs 2019 flood study, which concluded that works were required to enable the reservoir to cope with extreme flooding. The flood study uses data about the reservoir, inflows, outflows, catchment, dam crest, et cetera, and then feeds a stator into a model, which estimates whether the reservoir will over toll. The quality of the data is therefore going to be vital. However, this flood study contains inaccuracies, assumptions, and missing data. I would have expected that no mere amount of water held in the reservoir and therefore release during a dam break would be key to understanding how much flooding would occur. Surprisingly, the volume of water has not been investigated by Jacobs. They've relied on previous reports and assumed the volume is 130,000 cubic metres, the area of the pool, times an estimated height of two metres. However, measurements taken at 82 points showed that the average depth of the pool is 1.2 metres. Most people could literally walk across the pool, including myself, it was not particularly at all at 1.5 metres. Critically, the environmental agency agreed to undertake a bathymetric survey which will calculate the bonding of the pool. I would therefore urge you to defer this application until this survey has been completed. How much water flows into and out of the pool is keen determining if it will accommodate an extreme flood. One important factor to determining how much water will flow into the reservoir is the catchment. The planning of the system states in this report that the applicant has confirmed that the catchment area in the flood risk assessment is correct and the information comes from the centre for ecology and hydrology. It doesn't, the centre for ecology and hydrology, flood estimation, handbook catch, the state of the catchment is about half the size. If the official catchment had been used, then the risk to life would be around half of that stated. Historic flow and level state were not used in the flood study to calibrate the flood modelling, which is a potentially significant design weakness. The flood study at style states that there's great uncertainty in flow estimates for catchments such as points in pool. The geology of the direct catchment area has not been investigated, but we do know that it includes old coal mines which presents a scenario where underground flows may prove larger than expected. We have been calling to the catchments be gauged, it will take the guesswork out of the catchment and will give verification data for the model, so please defer the application. Many of the alternative proposals have been dismissed because they did not provide minimum freeboard height. No detail topographical survey has been undertaken. A variety of figures have been used in different reports. However, the Environment Agency reservoir data gives a freeboard height of 0.6 metres at bottom ball. According to the reservoir act, this is the minimum acceptable height. If these figures arise, no work on the freeboard may need to be done, therefore protecting the trees. The level of the Embankment Clay Corps, as I know, is recommended that this should be established along with geotechnical properties of the Embankment, again no investigations have been done. The Environment Agency guidance identifies Embankment Foundation as one of the three key elements in assessing the likelihood of damp failure. You're being asked to assess if this work is needed without this key piece of information. Although you're being told that flooding is expected to occur during front events, one of 50 year events, there's no evidence showing that Pointing Corps is ever flooded in its 270-plus year existence, even during no local flooding certain events such as 2016 and 2019. Residents appointed believe this council isn't listening. Please demonstrate that you are. To further decision so that the missing data can be interrogated and the alternative measures be considered on key means. Any questions to council saw rules? Okay, Councilor Galba. I'm going to get off that, I think. You presented this with significant amount of criticism of the data. Can I ask that the source that you are using to chat into what we've been doing today? We have farmed experts from front of Pointing Corps. We've interrogated the data. They are far more expert than me and one of them is speaking later on today and I think for that it probably needs to address that question. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you, Councilor Solas. So then we move on to Parrish Councilor, Councillor Lawrence Clark. We're going to move to the seat. Thank you. As I've known, don't you know you have five minutes, the time will start when you start speaking and then there may be questions at the end. All right, I'm going to press on the point of risk, which I was paying for. Following the challenge by my friends at Pointing Corps, Jacob has recognised the risk of being plotted in their unacceptable zone incorrectly. This is on the FN risk management charts. It was subsequently changed to tolerable in their updated spillaway upgrade, Initial Option Report 2023. However, this document's vote-created pre-planning was not registered as part of the planning application, instead the summary option report was submitted. Please let me be clear, the initial justification for the work was due to the level of risk, which is now being acknowledged as incorrect. This change from unacceptable to tolerable in the layman's term, this means a much more measured approach is now required with Justicard. This may just be ongoing woodland maintenance, so let's say that again. It is a more measured approach, it may just be ongoing woodland maintenance. The planning application and case officer's report only refers to the environment agency, both resurrected maps, but their primary use is the screening purposes to delineate the absolute maximum potential flood extent in a worst-case scenario. The map it makes no attempt to assess the likelihood or risk of that consequence occurring. The applicant claims that quotes the consequence of failure of the Pointing Pool in a flood is likely to lead to flooding affecting 300,500 people is likely to lead to loss of around two lives, and call some time million at property damage, note the word up likely. However, the environment agency maps come with a disclaimer on each map, that they give an indication only of the areas that may be flooded if the dam completely failed and only an indication. The online guidance for users makes clear the maps are produced by computer software. Don't buy an actual survey of the pool by a qualified engineer, nobody's come and looked at it. It's just done by the computer, and that's all the reservoirs. All reference to Jacob's own flood modelling was moved from the application when the risk categorisation was corrected. Their modelling initially identified to 82 people would be affected, a likely loss of life between 0.09 and 0.69 lives, referred to party damage at 1.4 million, and this risk and consequence of damn failure is overstated due to data inaccuracy. In the report, which was commissioned by the town council, Professor David Ball, an expert in risk, stated that quotes, It is notable that the Jacob's report contains no analysis of uncertainty, this is a serious deficiency. End quote. Environmental, the impact of these works is catastrophic as acknowledged by the case officer in the report. Normally, that sort of recommendation would get a recommendation of refusal. The proposed work involves certain damage to the environment, heritage and public immunity versus an uncertain reduction in an uncertain risk. There's been no environmental assessment completed, so the true impact is, environmental impact hasn't been assessed. What's about all the endangered and protected species that live in the pool and around its banks? The 68 protected species, including otters, 110 species of birds, around 400 others species. Bontipool is protected as a habitat of principally importance. The officer's report is just on the map, acknowledges the replacement planting of all that tree farm is over one and a half miles away from the application site, and it's in Stockport Boa. It's not publicly accessible. It'll do little to mitigate for the immunity and historic value of the trees in point. Cost-wise, no account's been taken for capital asset value for immunity trees, which can be valued at more than 3 million. The project budget has already increased from 540,000 to 1.38 million. Expendice has already reached over 528,000 pound to have anticipated total scheme cost of over 1.4 million. If you know capital schemes, Ireland certainly expects to go considerably higher. In addition, please be mindful if you do perceive that Cheshireese is also taking on a 29-year management plan to which no budget has been allocated. Now, this is as we hear repeatedly, a cash-struct council on the brink of bankruptcy surely should be wanted to minimize any big extent spend on projects that are clearly not highly necessary. Everyone around can see this 5,800 layman resident signed the petition between 1,700 letters, so lots of people can see it. I can see it, so can you. Thank you. Any questions to Councilor Clark? No? Okay, thank you, Councilor Clark. Thank you. So, we now move on to the adjacent members parties for the confusion before. So, we have Council being learned and Councilor Sewart, so you route two and a half minutes each. I don't know who's going to go first. Okay, Council being learned two and a half minutes. So, I mean, we'll start when you start speaking and then maybe questions afterwards. Thank you, Chair. Members of the committee, I come as a member of Pointing Town Council to address the issue of trees on the environment. The planning application of flood risk assessment refers to the reservoirs like 1975. This act, including causes modified by the Flood Water Management Act of 2010, makes no mention of graphs or trees or indeed any other physical condition of a dam. It puts the owners to safety on a qualified engineer, a qualified civil engineer. This is the Inspector Engineer. To identify any aspects that could put the dam or reservoir risk, the Inspector Engineer must be an issue report in which matters in the interest of safety are stated, which the undertaker that was responsible for the safety of the reservoir is then legally inspired to carry out. The publication by the Institute of Civil Engineering is being referred to as flood and reservoir safety fourth edition. Please note, this is not a legal document. It simply gives guidance to reservoir engineers. Trees on the downstream face of a dam can cause changes in the flow pattern if the dam opens up. Causing disturbance and erosion, but that is simply a reminder to reservoir engineers to consider the potential effects. It certainly does not say that trees must be removed or that the only growth accepted is gross. The Friends of Point and Pull engineer during these 30 years as a supervisor engineer was appointed to a number of examples similar to this application, all of which were subject to subsequent inspecting engineer's reports at least once every 10 years. In our particular case, inspectors differed in inspection to inspection and a number of engineers have obviously seen these trees, but not one of them felt they posed a significant risk to the dam's safety. For example, with reference to the 2016 inspection engineer's report, I quote, A further potential problem is the pressure of many mature trees that exist on the dam. Given that it is a small dam and that the trees have existed for many years, it is acceptable, provided that the trees are managed in a proper manner. In the 2005 report, I quote, The extensive tree roots are protected in the bank, and the only point of erosion is where the trees are absent. These comments are there a very relevant issue. Jesteries tree management is long overdue, especially on Point and Pull. I urge the committee to vote for deferment of this application and select extensive work he's done to properly research all of the issues you've all tuned today. Great to leave. Can't be comfortable. Thank you for asking me to thank Jesteries for coming in. How's the close? Thank you. I was just trying to get my head around. Previous reports that you referred to, I think he said 2005 and 2015, are you saying there that they looked at the trees and they deemed them not of considered risk to the project? Correct. They advanced for it as a potential problem. The core is a further potential problem is the pressure of many mature trees that exist on the dam. Given that it is a small dam and the trees are existed for many years, it is acceptable. So it's not a material issue. That was the 2016 one. In the 2005 one, there was extensive tree roots are protected in the bank and the only point of erosion is where the trees are absent. It's taken the trees away is obviously different. Okay. Councillor Kenner Woods. Thank you, Chair. Are we saying that the actual protective works to improve the dam's utility if you like to withstand an over-spillage? Do not need the trees removed. Is that what we're saying? Yes. Does that seem to be the implication? There is a lot. You could put, if I made, putting the arrangements that we've heard the officers present from the report and trees themselves could actually stay because the threat of them sort of blocking water flow and transferring in perhaps more dangerous areas. That is not needed in the, because the trees themselves are not a threat at the time of an over-spillage. Is that what the implications of what we're saying? Because I'm not sure, I mean we know tree roots support the dam and all the rest of it. I thought that to be honest, I thought that trees would be removed in order to improve the flow of water in particular directions. I think you've asked your question, Ken, if you could turn your mic off. Okay. Want to answer? There are all senses, the one that's currently on offer. I think that's the main point. Not all of the trees have to be removed. The thing we've got to remember is this is a, this is an emergency site that's valued by the Boynton village and it's part of a natural flow of a natural corridor that leads up into iron points and there's a lot of wild animals in this area. But the trees are part of that and they help cultivate that particular region. There are all services which is the systems engineer, the inspection engineer that we've employed will give you a better idea but there's no reason why the trees should be removed. It's not necessarily a requirement, there is an alternative proposal that would be simply put a bigger pine pin. The proposal that's on the table at the moment will increase the height of water which is going to be a bigger threat. There are a number in your report, there are a number of years when the flood has been recorded in this area and this, the bank is never over-topped. In fact, on your inspection war you would have seen a terrorist which is at level water level and in the past 43 years, which is by having low evidence, but at level has never over-topped. The right, the water is not an issue in this application. It's controlled as in the current years and that's where the trees are. What we have got is a lack of maintenance and trees by fisheries. There is a certain, there needs to be some work and there needs to be some spillway works but the tree is certainly looking at it but it's not necessary to remove them because they are part of the dam structure and it has worked for 250 years. Okay, thank you. Councillor Spillum, did you have a question? Thank you, Chair. Could you clarify something you said in the earlier part of your piece about reservoir in 1975 and then the 2010 changes make that clear to me what that actually did? Okay, it's just a planning application, flood risk, but you've got refers to the reservoir act from 1975 and I'm just making the point that 1975 is a long while ago. It has been modified, that particular act has been modified by the flood and walls and management act for 2010 and subsequently. So it's not just because it's old, I mean it isn't relevant, but the point is it makes no mention of grass or trees or indeed any other physical condition of a dam. Lots of dams are created throughout the country and they're made of different construction materials. I'm not a qualified engineer, you'd have to ask our engineer about that. But the engineer that takes back to the particular dam must bring his own conclusion to the current structure. Okay, Councillor Brooks. Thank you. You're asking the committee to defer the application and look after alternatives, but wouldn't the alternatives require a new planning application to be so different? And so in terms of that, I'm just wondering why you're not asking us to reject the application. You consider the opinion as some work needs to be done. There's nobody objecting to that, but there are discrepancies and reports that's been given and the amount of water in the dam, the amount of flows through the dam, the amount of damage to the country. This statistical report needs further examination and that's the opinion of the friends appointed. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions? Okay, thank you, Councillor Beanland. Thank you, Chair. Okay, and again, you have two and a half minutes. So I mean, we'll start, we start speaking in a maybe questions afterwards. Thank you. Members of the SPB, thank you. I'm not the board member, I represent the area to the west, the left, and that map of the application site. That's where you park the site inspection and that's the area that would get flooded. So I shouldn't really support this application, but I don't. I can't argue against the construction aspects of the scheme, as I'm not a structural engineer, I can and will argue against the environmental aspects, which even this report accepts our dire. 41 or 71 or 78 trees, depending on what you're reading, just 80 metres of headstronger to be removed. The result would even the case offers and describes as a blueprint. These trees have been calculated to have a capital asset value of approximately three million pounds and seven of them in the registers as notable trees on the wooden tree, trust ancient tree inventory. As well as the trees to be felled, those on the pool line will be put at risk because their roots will be damaged or removed when they're closed on half a kilometre of gravel path when concrete curbs are installed. Adding to all of this, the proposal to mitigate these losses by replacing and planting on a site in Greater Manchester is an insult. If this scheme goes ahead, Cheshire East Council will forever be remembered in point as the people who used the Government regulation as the excuse to win the Alboreal cloning tree cover of their park. Aside from the direct effective tree loss, the Council's own nature conservation officer advises and will result in a significant and adverse effect on local wildlife. These include according to the case officer, Caron Turgs, H. Youngs, several protecting bird species, and foraging and commuting paths. You know, it's been calculated that 22 Council policies are not promette. Finally, at the time of the flood events in 2016 and 2019, I walked all overboard to taking photographs of the various flood scenes. I told none in Pointing Park, quite simply, because there was no photographic work taken, there was no flood, no near-flood, just a very muddy path. Two, the viable less damaging alternatives, in the sense that it's left, and it's not been considered in the record. I plead with you to defer the decision on the application until a further independent investigation is undertaken, and a more environmentally friendly and likely cheaper solution is identified. Okay, thank you. So, Councillor Gartner. Just on that last point, Councillor Stewart, you made reference to deferral for an independence investigation. Is that an independent investigation into technical documents that are supported? Yes, and who do you mean by an amendment? I have no idea. I'm not suggesting that you name a person. I'm being suggesting, are you saying something from without Wing the Council? I think you will hear further evidence of that in the structure of the engineer who is representing Pointing Park. That's the way that I'm anticipating. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thank you, Councillor Stewart. If you go for a turn to your seat. We'll now come on to the objectives. We have two of them. Mr. Chair Thompson, Mr. Tennant first. Okay, thank you, Mr. Tennant. You have two and a half minutes. Timing must start when you start speaking, and I'll make the questions after this. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Tennant. Michael, please. Good morning. I'm a charge of engineering and a fellow above the institute of structural issues and civil arguments. The committee report states that this proposal will be a brutal intervention and significantly harmful. It acknowledges that this proposal is contrary to at least 22 of the Council's policies, which states this is outweighed by the need for the proposal and a lack of any viable alternatives. This is incorrect. There are viable, less harmful alternatives, so let's start by looking at the need. The flood study overstates the statutory by 25 percent, the pool volume by 100 percent, unrepent the outlook capacity by 50 percent. These facts have led to both the risk and consequences of downfearly being overstated, but don't take on word for it. Let's look at what Cheshire East Council and the consultants tell the reports. Jacob's in the 2019 flood study state with down a little overtop in a one and 50 year event. Cheshire East Council and the rest 19 foot incident report on July 2019 event note that Preachbury rainfall entrees from two miles away. There was a one in a hundred and fifty year event with a hundred and thirteen million of rainfall, but at all the toe of the top, you didn't come anywhere near overtopping. If I go back to 50 years, I can find no evidence either documenting or anecdotal of the conflict nor coming closer to flooding. Let's move on to viable alternatives. Firstly, I can see that the proposed scheme is highly unusual compared to dozens of other reservoir upgrades that you've never worked on or seen in the last 30 years in the warden stream. In fact, I've never come across the scheme like this other than the existing reservoir, felling and cutting down 80 trees and a 250 year old earth embankment on a non-composition, carry significant risks. The soil moisture content will densely increase. The shear strength will reduce. The huge root mass will dive back and see pitch patterns will develop. All these facts in combination reduce down stability. But again, John Take on word for it, Jacob's in the 2019 flood study recommend you attempt the investigation to open the environment to find out the sea pitch characteristics. If you wish to read, there's a nice paper by Eric's telling about risks when moving trays and earth embankments. At the point of the world, we're entering three schemes, one of the blistered on grounds of cost, a little media has been providing. We've also produced two ulcers for a short period of time. Both of these are conventional reservoir spill rate upgrades, since the viable environmental friendly cost-effective alternatives is application. We've have them costed. They're affordable. Any proposed works should be based on active design data, based on how do you regard the environment and sustainable management principles and natural resources, which is not the case of this brutal proposal. The volume and strength of a lot of this is substantial. This is today's really important. I urge you to reject proposal or defer any independent views. Okay, thank you. So I've got Councillor SMELLOM and then Councillor SMELLOM. Thank you. I mentioned a lot of previous data about things that haven't happened in the past. What was your opinion regarding the protections for flooding in the current news items that we're having about climate change and so on? It's been a lot of extra flooding in Cheshire East this last year or two, and I wondered if that was anything that brought it. I think first to say is we understand the importance of reservoir resilience and the catastrophic nature if you have a down breach. What we're saying is that this design is based on data which we've questioned. I think the question is reasonable and this will work well and we've done surveys etc. We would want the opportunity to sit down and go through that to scrutinise that data before such a big decision is made. So yes, it's really important. Yes, we've got climate change. Yes, we need to look at all these things but it needs to be done. We've good data. If you go really powerful computers, we've got bad data into them, you get a bad out person. Okay, Councillor Syden? Yes, thank you. Hello. My question is about, you mentioned that removing the trees would reduce the strength at the end at the moment. But this scheme has sort of concrete blending of effects and planning etc. So I'm just sort of querying, that sounds quite strong, structural feature. We don't really think about it in fact when there's not been investigating, but we know there's a lot of trees on the environment that have been there around our time. Whether you're structural engineer or civil engineer, most of us go out and try and dig at the tree, the root mass is extensively knitted to soil together. True, if badly managed trees fall over, they could pull out a root ball because of weak to the dam. We already heard people say the trees need to be manly to be deaf, or the cultural surveys and disease trees color do not remove, but not necessarily move. If you remove a tree, the tree is taking water out of the ground. There's going to be a change in the moisture content. If you increase the moisture content, much more weight, that's a destabilizing force. The roots act to bind the soil, they can intercept sheer blood within the ground. If roots die back, they believe voids in the soil and water can find its way through it. We're saying this needs to be investigated. Generally, I'd say let sleeping dogs lie and don't go out and make a major intervention. I could envisage that when you actually start taking out these trees, you might have to rebuild all the squares in the embankment because of what you find. But we don't know what we're going to find because it's not been investigated. So the idea about removing the trees is to so when the water overflows, it will, I mean, I'm assuming that this is the case, that those areas where trees have been removed, the water will sort of have a more forceful flow and then it will flow down to the ground. That's correct. So the solution is to cut out two sections of the crest and it will effectively be we hit with the water overflows. But in order to, what you're ready to do, in order to do that, in those extreme events, the water's got to reach the crest level and then it will overflow. I think the report talks about 100 mil over water depth over the crest and then it will flood onto London, onto London Road. So that is the beans of overflow. I say it's very usual. I can't understand why we're just having a conventional concrete spillway. Jacob's already identified a conventional concrete spillway in the option two. So it would appear they agree it's a viable solution. So the question then will be on affordability when the budgets we've got come back to demonstrate affordability. So I just really don't get it. And all we want is grown up technical debate. It probably needs to have an independent person settle that debate because obviously Jacob and Cheshire East spent a lot of time developing the solution. There's maybe lots of things they know that they thought about and we don't know. We requested that engagement on the 27th of January, which was the petition. We didn't have a meeting. We would have liked this copy. I closed doors and just talked through his scheme to come up with a solution. We think he's better. I would suggest you need to have an independent referee. I would suggest you appoint a panel engineer, an appointment. We have to be that referee and listen to both sides of the argument and come up with a balanced solution. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Garner. Yes. Thank you very much. It's very helpful that you stated that the two options that you suggested as alternatives were affordable, and how do they compare to the cost of the proposal that we would relate. Comparable a lot more and a bit more less. So I've got with all the figures, but offhand I think the figures are sort of one and a half billion have been branded about, but that doesn't include the cover value for the loss of trees, which is depending on which metric you can use can be three or five million to help into the overcome culture risks. We know about those things, and I'm sure that friends of point of view will provide these costs to you if you haven't already done. For option one, it was £800,000 for our option to see 1.3 milli. Laws include 30% risk and discontinuity. So I think, you know, they're in the right ballpark. But in mind, a bunch of amateurs who haven't spent any money, who've done this in a couple of months, you know, our own servos, our own drawings. So, you know, there's more work to be done, but we think they're pretty decent. In fact, the only couple we had on option two, see that it was okay, but we hadn't considered the crest raisin in the year. And the curve on the question here, we could resolve that in a growing up technical discussion. And one more question. There's been clearly about the data that has been provided to you, you may have referenced to it. As a technician, would you have anticipated that the volume of the war jacket pulled would be one of the first things to be looked at. All right. I think it's really easy to be critical after the event. You know, someone does some work at everyone calls it to be just as we put our options in. Quickly, people scurry away and send any emails to call to tell them there's what we've got wrong, you know, it's very easy to do that, isn't it? That's why people should talk rather than throw breaks in each other. I think what's happened if you've previous reports and the volume in those reports, fair enough, but given the strength of opposition and the impact of the works, which is truly very emotive, it didn't take the friend's point of pull very long to survey the pull of the near roof estimate and the volume. So I think it would be reasonable to validate that key data. Thank you very much for your honesty and integrity. Councillor BROOKS. Thank you. The actual depth of the pull seems to be, you know, the key thing here in terms of the dispute that it's 1.2 or 2 metres, and it's not very deep earlier than the points and swimming pool is deeper in places. If it was at the lower end of say 1.2 metres, what do you all would still be necessary for opinion? It would still be a statutory reservoir, if it in power is more than 25,000, giving metres in water, so it's going to fall under the act. Obviously the consequence of the breach means less water, water release, it travels less of distance, there's less energy being released. So I mean, it doesn't sound surprising given we know it was a—the lake was built for canal transportation and canals are typically about four foot deep. So in answer to our eyes and what we're finding out, the thing would be in the order of that kind of depth. Councillor CLOWS. Thank you. I've got no opinion, please. We've been doing a lot of days today and we have been it's been highlighted at houses two to ten of the street to the north of Point of Pool are also at risk and we'll see close. Can you just provide some insight into what the actual flood risk is for those properties if nothing is done or indeed what it might be if the proposals we have on the table today go ahead. So in terms of consequence, there should be no difference in consequence because we are looking to provide the same level of protection, there are two design parameters that the flood study, regardless of what we think about the input data that the flood study has two—two floods you have to get for the safety check flood and the design flood. So our proposals are considered both those. So in the event that you have an event that is more severe than those you could then medication because failure of the dam and the consequences is the same in the building. In the build-up to an event because the plan application best of proposal involves over-topping the crisis, I understand it, that means that in that extreme event you are raising the level of over-flow to being going above the crest so it will be more localised. But you've got to bear in mind we're talking about wanting a thousand and wanting 10,000 year events so that's not certain. Give your incidences. Okay, any other questions? Councillor CUNG for this. Thank you. Just a fact you have a question, really we've heard from various representatives mention the different numbers of trees that are going to be removed as a result of this project. Couldn't I just sort of ask somebody that I'm assuming I'm a structural engineer will know exactly how many trees are and the proposal before us is introduced. Mature trees are going to disappear. Okay, once again I'll ask the question based on the knowledge that the information will be provided to me by others in the friends and points of Bill Groot. But the figure is 83 is the thing in the latest application I'm doing, just to work for you as we board. I believe from conversations with Mark Ellison from Cheshire Woods and Strusches and on the culture he thinks that many more could be adversely impacted by a yet excavation for the full path of which he's supposed to be clear of roots. So when he's not cutting back, chop about the roots as a mature tree that it's not okay, it's not my area but that can weaken and mean the more trees have to be removed. Thank you. Good to end your mike with please, Councillor Butts. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tennant for your comprehensive answer. Yeah, there are little figures of Jack from Mr. Chair Thompson. Chair, I had declared interest before, if you want to start. You've shown my house on the map over there and I walked this morning but through those trees and it was delightful. Okay, thank you. So, you have two and a half minutes to speak and the time must aren't when you start speaking and there may be questions afterwards. It's the best tradition of local authorities that they work for the safety and well-being of their communities. So, I thank Councillors and their officers for the work for Pointon in this regard. Here however, the buzz of safety and amenity value has not been properly struck. Nobody knew the full extent of the amenity value of these trees when the original requirements for engineering solutions were being drawn up. The people appointed themselves never contemplated there could be a threat of the trees. How could the engineers know? Pointon was never asked until the finalised design solutions had been presented to them. So, the process itself of searching for a solution was defective from the beginning. The important factor of the amenity value for the people appointed was not given proper weight. The amenity value is illustrated in the most, the most vote appointed Councillor got last elections was 1,400 compared with 1,700 objections registered. Prior to the evidence of the failure of the process that happened here is indicated by the independent report into the Sheffield Trees Program. The independent inspector there stated the Council and engineers failed to get a proper balance of safety and amenity and that the super views determinedly to the point of being very badly wrong they were advised to apologise to the people of Sheffield. But you might think safety is paramount and the amenity value a minor matter. That's wrong. For example, we accept sensible risk in our daily lives every time we drive in our cars and every time we fly and even when we walk at the step ladder to change a bulb in the ceiling we accept sensible risk. So, Councillors, whilst it is very uncomfortable to contradict the advice of highly respected technical advisors, it is clear something is very wrong in this matter and it falls to you now to redress that balance. At 10 seconds. There is no urgency in this matter, no even a threat of disastrous dump collapse. So, I asked that you reject the application and refer this back to the officers so they can produce a solution that balances safety and amenity equally. Thank you, Chair. Any questions to Mr Thompson? Having done that, there are no questions. Okay, so we now come on to the final speaker, the agent, Mr Alan Brown. And I think when it comes to questions, you will also be assisted by Mr Thomas Gleason for technical questions. So, again, you have five minutes, it will start when you start speaking and as we said, there may be questions afterwards. My name is Alan Brown and I am representing Cheshires Council as the applicant. I am a civil engineer with 40 years experience in dam and safety engineering. I have been an all reservoirs panel engineer since 2001. The proposed works are to bring the dam up to current reservoir safety standards and comprise infilling low spots along the crest so that in extreme floods, the water spread out over the whole length of the dam, rather than concentrating in the current low spots or loading the dam. This work will require removing trees on the upstream half of the dam crest, so a new curb crest marker at a consistent level has a firm foundation and water will not be underneath. Trees will be retained on the downstream half of the dam crest except in 240 meter lengths, where clearings are required to provide a focused overload of resilience in extreme flooding away from existing residential properties. Overall, over the around 80% of the overall length of the affected dam crest at 40 meters would retain trees on the downstream half. An independent review by panel engineer by pointing by pointing tank council concluded that the option proposed appears proportionally and has less impact in terms of tree loss than potential alternatives. The work has to be done because pointing pools classified as a high risk reservoir under the provisions of the Reservoirs Act and Cheshirey's Council as a lander that has statutory duties in accordance with the Act to protect the public downstream. The duties include the need for regular inspection and safety reviews by suitable animal engineers. Following a routine safety review in 2016, the inspecting engineer required a flood study to assess the resilience of the dam to flood. The subsequent flood study in 2019 showed that the resilience of the existing dam to extreme floods does not mean the current institution of civil engineering standards, and this is the reason this planning application has been done. If the dam failed and released the store water, the amount of tasty reservoir flood analysis shows that around three and a half thousand people are risk from flooding downstream, including a significant risk of life as well as property damage of analytical impacts. Should the Council choose not to act on this advice, their point of suplizing planning engineer would serve formal notice of the Council to require an early section 10th view, this is likely to require mandatory updates this perway along the similar length of the current proposals, if not probably more onerous, and would include a fixed deadline in which to complete the works. The Council would then be at risk of enforcement actions from the environment agency as the reservoir safety regulator, the mandatory works would not entertain you. The loss of some trees and dam crests due to the works is an unfortunate consequence. Environment agency guidance states that no trees should be located on the banks which retain reservoirs. However, the proposed application adopt a risk-based approach to safe trees that possible, rather than adopting the full engineering standard, where all trees would be removed to accommodate the major raising of the whole crest. Overall within the red line boundary, it's estimated there are approximately 300 trees. The proposed works will retain around 80 per cent of these. It's noted that the British town that recommends that woodlands are surveyed as a cohesive group with individual trees identified as required. Further details have been provided for the request of the tree officer regarding the area of sperway clearance and the number of trees that caught stems above 75 millimetre diameter. In terms of national biodiversity net gain, these requirements are met by planting and maintaining over 1,500 new trees on Council-owned land in Woodford, which follows local plant policy EMB6 trees hedges of worker differentiation. Several looking at the alternatives have been considered, these are summarized in the summary options report that are in the three groups. Firstly, increasing the size of the concrete sperway would not in itself meet reservoir safety standards, but would also require the embankment to be raised substantially or make it resilient to overflow. Secondly, in theory, the normal water level would be lowered by over 1 metre, so the pond was smaller, but this would permanently expose the site for reservoir and have a major impact on the immunity of the park and were projected. Thirdly, in terms of the works, the embankment to increase resilience to overflow net, none of the alternative options suggested by those would achieve the two key requirements that the overflow and extreme floods have spread out evenly over the whole 4,000 metre length and the crest of resilient to overflow. In conclusion, it's appreciated that works will unfortunately have an impact on the immunity environment point to the pool. However, there are no realistic options for tree planting and the locality. The planning officers report recommends acceptance of the planning happen. So we urge councilors to give consent to this application in the interest of maintaining reservoir safety, proposed in the Council of the Reservoirs Act, and reducing risk to those looking downstream. Okay, thank you. So, I don't know if Mr. Pleaton wants to bring a chair after that. Any trade questions? Yes, in my body. Yeah, can we just confirm what Mr. Pleaton's expertise is, Andrew? I've been involved in quite a bit with the other cultural consultants giving it a phrase. Okay, okay. Thank you. So, questions. Can I answer the candidates? Can I answer the guard now? Thank you for that presentation. I've got one specific question and then just a general one, I suppose. The first question is one of the key issues seems to take the actual volume of water in the reservoir. Would you please comment on the intervention we've heard of that apparently that people couldn't walk across it in some point of call, the through call has got an integrated depth and so on, because it does seem to me in the amount of water in the reservoir is a significant issue. And then we have had a considerable amount of detail, technical and technical information given to us plus two alternative proposals. Do you feel able? I mean, I realize that you're going to just chapstone something is how do I imagine you have considered much of it. Could you comment for us, please, on a record you think that any of the information, technical information, you can see what you're like. Can I say, would it be worth reconsidering forcing us to defer this some proposal that we have before us? Okay, thank you. In terms of the reservoir volume, it's whatever the volume is, it's the surface area is such that it's definitely a reservoir. In terms of the consequences downstream, the key parameter is not the volume of the height because that government's have fast details. I've done a, I've had a dialogue with the environment agency because they've had a request to confirm the volumes. I've done a rough check and I advise that the volumes are staged. It is based on the information we've got. It could be out, but it's not going to change the consequence of failure by more than a few percent. So I don't consider in terms of the risk to people downstream the number of people in area flooded of property damage that it would have a material effect. In terms of your second question, we've responded to planning officer on the two options. The both options skirt around the issue of how we make press resilient to overflow and just say we'll put a bit of clay between the trees and I don't think that meets the objectives of a level crest to within six millimeters, which is why we've got the concrete plus minus quarter each in area unit, which is why we've gone for the curve because we can get that more precisely and make sure any overflow in very extreme floods is spread out and we put clay to increase the resistance to overflow. So I don't believe and that was the option. We did consider that option Virginia was option two and we said the cost was if you were doing a full engineering standard, you would do something like that, but you would also need to raise the crest and we said at the time in the initial options that the cost was disproportionate and we went for the lesser option of making the crest level. So it means very extreme events. The water is spread out and it doesn't do it. It's not going to fail the doubt. Okay, so Councillor Gartner, and then Councillor Brooks. I'm afraid I've got several questions. You've answered the question about the water. You make reference to the book that you need to go by in terms of managing reservoirs. Is that a book which sets out where if a reservoir on such a site should use a certain work or if reservoir is making you do different works or is it one site in its own? That's the first question. So the reservoir's existence, the legislation requires a process of qualified people appointed by Defra with advice from the students of engineers. They use their judgment and then the definition of guide is to get consistency. So the book, the guide to further reservoirs has four options. A dam that would kill hundreds of people. A dam that would kill a few people which is where the previous inspection engineer and myself agreed that that's where it sits. C wouldn't kill anyone and D, no one would notice enough from a few sheet. You're designed for a barrier and say to check for a barrier with those. So there is a one-size-fits-all. If Cheshire East or some of the farmer built a housing estate immediately downstream from the dam, it would become category A in this bill where we would have to pay for it. But where we are at the moment, with the current situation downstream, it's category B and we've selected the two floods for that category. So the categorization is determined by the potential deaths that might be caused by a bridge, not by the site. It's a matter of a judgment. No, not by the site of the dam. It's correct. No, it's nothing to do with the site of the dam, it's about the consequence. And it's a judgment by the family. So you've definitely answered my second question. I'm asking the category, the category. The category we've been saying, if we were to refuse this application today, there is a high risk that somebody would die. Yes, I mean, because I'm told we're in the room, we were going to die in the room. If members of the public can refrain from speaking, please, will the question is on. One of the criticisms of Wayne and Rich was the slow response by the Canal of River Trust. And the bump of inquiry has said that,A matter of interest and safety is this that your car has failed its M.O.T. You can continue to drive the roads and you probably won't kill anyone.But you've got defective oil. It's the chance that you're killing somebody's hire. So it's the same with the reservoir. The reservoir has failed its M.O.T. It's got safety ropes. That's what mandatory works are. And they should be done as soon as reason has been practical. So if the risk at the moment to those three and a half hours of people is elevated, above all, the institution eventually is would accept as a residual risk. And the longer you defer that the any decision, the longer that population is exposed to that risk, your driver and the car has failed its M.O.T. So you're saying that three and a half thousand people are at risk that this works and are at risk. That's three and a half hours of risk for full stock. What we're saying is that the likelihood of the moment is higher than means standards in this institution of so many years. And the risk would never be zero unless you wrote for that. But to do this work will reduce the likelihood and therefore reduce the risk. So we're reducing, right? Okay. If I'm out, you're saying that you and then the previous engineer agreed that the situation, it was a category B, correct. What has happened between that engineer and the taking, there. The human taking now that has provided that has brought us to where we are now happy to do these rather extreme works. He made a recommendation in the interests of safety to check the spillway because he wasn't. He's a third part of the auditor of what he's presented with by the council. He felt that there wasn't evidence that it meant with standards in the spectrum. Spillway capacity and recommended the study. His report, there are places in the report where he asked for the undergrowth picture, which hasn't been done, but that's a detail. The key is he asked for a, he made it mandatory. Spill is a motif in the spillway or needs a study. The study has shown it's inadequate and therefore needs improvement and that's what's changed. And finally, I in my professional career had broken their encounters with engineers and I knew they were very black and white people in terms of this. This or it's this, it can't because we don't have the ground yet. I knew the solution of being presented here, the two, fourteen need to stretch is then no worry that an alternative solution that achieves what you want to achieve in terms of safety can be achieved without just going to those extremes or is it just the case of, well, this is, this is the max optimum that we need, so we're going to go into long term. Let's have a long term solution where actually you do all the okay. I believe, in my opinion, they're necessary. I would say there's some grey here. We've chosen not to adopt the full engineering standard. So if the dam is re-inspected, you might have to build option two plus raise the crest half meter meter, which would mean carrying the full crest and I'm conscious some of the younger, and engineers have been on the panel at the moment, are being fairly more rigorous than some of our, so there is inconsistency. There is a risk to Cheshire if you went for a new inspection that you would have to do a lot more, is the area of grey. We've, in the Jake, in the, or the applicants, engineers kind of represent Cheshire have adopted a risk-based approach, try and find something that's proportionate to the environment, the local amenity, but also to the people downstream and find a balance between the two. Okay, thank you very much. So there is grey, energy is not consistent, which is why I have these guys, which I'll make is better. Okay, thank you. Councillor Brokson and Councillor Klaus. I have three questions if I may, Chair. The first question is you stated there was a significant risk to life. The actual report says that at the most it would be up to two people killed in a very unlikely event. I mean, in terms of the risk, I mean, wouldn't you say there's more chance of someone being killed, actually, during the construction of this site, or, I mean, say off on Cheshire roads, sort of, at least eight people are killed every year on the roads, I'm just kind of a little bit confused that it seems so to be overstated, the risk, and I would have liked to have seen a healthy packed assessment because in terms of the mental health, well being on the amenity of the people in point, and I think we should have seen that. The second, do you want to answer that question first? Easy to do one more time. Yeah, go on, yeah. I think the design standard, so what would you accept to a chance of killing someone downstream? Well, I think you were answering the question. Well, I'm trying to leave. So the design standard is one in 10,000 a year, and that's simplistic. There's a chance of downfilling in the flood, which simplistically is a chance of killing someone downstream. So at the moment, there is some, the best estimate was one in 200 chance per year. So the question is, what do you think, or what is a reasonable chance of what's a tolerable risk of killing someone downstream? Now, if you get your own car, it's up to you, that people die on the roads, that there are other things gassed by, but reservoir safety, the institution of St. Benjamin has set the design standards, and the simplest way of considering them is that the safety check is a flood that will not fail the doubt when it's therefor, or it's just about, it's near the tipping point. So that's effect from the annual chance of killing someone downstream. So to me, it's not overstated. I wouldn't be very uncomfortable with saying one in a 200, the chance of you dying tomorrow, because my action to my property next door is one or two. I don't think that's acceptable, and that's why the issues send engineers have set out their standards, and they're higher, where there's more people at risk. Okay, same question. Yeah, I think in the planning report, this sort of a disappointment express that there's no mitigation in terms of the increased flooding of the pop properties and angles to drive. So I'd like to ask why, why was it not considered possible to provide some mitigation, because you're actually increasing the chances of flooding, essentially that dying as a risk of flooding. I think there's two points there. Firstly, we're actually restoring the level, we're not raising the dam, we're restoring the low spot to the level when it was built to 150 years ago, because the level we're putting in is the same as the level up at the car park, which is the same as the regional level. So we're making good settlement. So we're not, we're restoring it to where, you know, that's clearly that's debatable, but in fact, that is, we're not trying to raise it, we're trying to make it level, but we've chosen a level that's about the top of the existing bank, which is probably where it was originally. So we're just making good settlement over decades or centuries or whatever. The second point is those gardens already, those houses already have their gardens flooded. Members of public can refrain, please, what are the questions being asked? The flood risk assessment can suggest that they're already at risk, and the increase in flood risk is their gardens are this much deeper, which because they quite steep is about this depth in garden increase, and they're still a long way below the houses. So to me, two key issues where, and then the third point is that balancing that risk of your garden two meters if you garden being flooded against the risk of three and a half thousand people down stream, seems to me not an unreasonable compromise, particularly if we say actually we're just restoring it to where the dam shouldn't be, because it's settled over time. Okay, final question? Yeah, in terms of the application, was there any assessment in terms of the impact on carbon missions in terms of the construction and the loss of trees? Thanks. Not on carbon, no. Okay, so now we've got Councillor CLOUZ, and then we're Councillor SMEVERN. Thank you. You've answered a couple of questions I had. We've heard a lot about tree removal and an argument presented that removing trees may actually destabilize the structure of the dam. Further, at the back of my mind, there is that we remove some trees and we've still watched them in the stumps as well. So I'm just, what the first question is, a mighty user, what is the balance between actually removing trees and their stumps? About leaving or leaving trees and having a potential seepage around the room systems? The first question is, we would normally aim to move roots down to about 50 mil, but leave smaller ones, because it becomes in practical or smaller ones, and the aim of the detail that was shown on the planning drawing is we're removing topsoil and roots over a full meter width of about 10-meter press, so it's the upstream third or half, or half, whatever, very thick. So the clay that we're putting in to make it resilient to overflow is in contact with what the dam was built on, whereas if you left in the roots and the topsoil, there is a potential seepage path along the roots and the topsoil. So the drawing shows we're removing on the width, so we originally only were going to go for the curt, but to get a betterment, we went for a two-meter path to prove the path. So that's long, there's our safety, but that was to come accountable to improve, to gain some immunity. So under the four-meter width, we're removing the tree, the organic material, and roots, down to 50 mil so that we can get a structure, structurally sand and tide into the dam. The downstream of that, we're leaving the trees, other than these two 40-meter curries. So 80% of the trees were remaining at a broad brush level. Thank you. So my second question is in relation to spillways and cells, we've heard various options proposed, but maybe we love at the level of the core and actually reduce the current spillway that we saw on photographs, which appears to have been doing a good job, up until now, after 50 years. So I want to just understand the rationale for not either lowering the level and lowering the spillway, or indeed pushing in another one of those colded spillways further down. And then the other question is if that's not possible, what is the engineering criteria that requires us to have two 40-meter spillways? What is the magic criteria around that? I do understand the rationale for levelling off everything, whether it's been erosion or a bit of subsides and settling over to 50 years. I understand bringing it all up to the same level. But when I'm having looked at the site, I can quite understand what the necessity was, what is incredibly, too incredibly wide spillways and what actually different sort of energy would be actually just. So if we could have had the question on this, so we could make some progress. The original options of the floor, which has been summarised in the summer, obviously, we did look at the various concrete options. But to meet the standards for a category being damaged, you need 600-volt freeboard plus the height of the plug rise in a desired plug. We're way below that at the moment. So you could lower the dam and build a new spillway to get that sort of meter freeboard instead of 300, but we felt that lowering, exposing the whole premise of the lake, you lower it, a meter say, and it's one in three, that is four, five meters slope all the way around. You've got to decide how you revegetate it because it's going to stay permanently low. So we rejected that. We felt that was a – and I think the cost would be similar. As I said in my presentation, anything you do to the concrete spillway will not meet this freeboard requirement, full engineering standard, unless you do a major raising of the press. The proposal in the planning application is a compromise solution where we're going risk-based and by spreading the wall crowd, we don't have to meet – we're not – so there is a risk to Cheshire east that, yeah, between 10 years, we're going to be reinventing. And if a future inspector engineer 30, 40, 50 years time changes their mind or the standards get higher, you've got to meet the standards current at that time. So what we're proposing now is a compromise, which in my opinion, professional opinion, is a reasonable minimum to meet the standards, and I will endeavour to make a case for it in the sign-off document. So the next inspector engineer says, well, okay, I accept it, there's no more work. In terms of your question about 40 metres, I don't – again, that's a judgment that I don't accept, that I'm concerned, because we're talking about in the – when we've raised it, you've got that depth of water over the 400 metres, and the moment the woodland is – I managed it's not Parkland, which is what the last inspector engineer asked for it to be, and I think there would be opposition to turning it into Parkland. So the compromise is to provide some preferential flavourings away from the houses, where if water backs up because of undergrowth and leaflet, because you're only talking surface water flow, it's got two places, which helps us grasp once a year or whatever, where the water can escape without building up. And the fundamental question is you're not realising the risk you're at. If you try and get an independent view – and that's why you read the report that point in town council commissioned – he implied there wasn't enough work that people would have done more. If you read between the lines, that's what he says. So I think what we're proposing is a minimum. If you want to try and get independent – I think you'll end up doing a lot more, you might end up doing a lot more. I know we have discussions between pan-engineers, I know some of the other ones do. I can't steer them, but they… So it might come back to both points. So in terms of – I just want to understand the mechanics, the velocity mechanics, if I can. So what we're saying is that if the at the point of failure in the banks… Well, I'm trying to point that. I appreciate that. But at that point of failure, the risk in terms of potential deaths, damage and property and so forth is based not on the amount of volume of water in the market but the poor rather, but actually the velocity at the point of rupture in the bank. No, I can't say that. The peak. Sorry, this judge said it was better hit, but it was said… That's not correct. The peak reached discharge, the hydrograph of release of the reservoir depends on the height of the dam at the point of breaches and the volume is released. And how fast did it go? No, if you can… This is, please. So that's the hydrograph. That flow building up to a peak and then falling off is rooted in a 2D model in the inundation and it's covered, it's released into a valley with a floodplain and things. And that flood wave travels down the street. The reservoir, the inundated reservoir flood maps count the number of houses that would be flooded by that wave moving down the valleys. Not the look, the fatality or the chance of death at each point where someone's in the model depends on the depth and velocity at that point down the valley. Not going to do with the dam, by that point, but the dam is about releasing a wave of water. And that wave of water, as it travels down the valley, obviously it tenuates, it spreads out and it's… The impact of that wave is the consequence to the public data. And again, you can always do more calculations. It's only a category b dam. The wave, all the commentators are worried about is the impact on the houses. I think we've suggested Cheshire East, their modes of planning should think about where they're going to put 3,500 people. You need a lot of rest sensors for that. You take the number of people from the vacuuming in the top world of 1,500. How many rest sensors do you need? If the dam is got a serious problem and looks like it's going to fail, you end up evacuating downstream and that's happening. Whereas Cheshire East is going to put that 3,500 people. And the other thing is, it doesn't include critical infrastructure. Because that's restricted as a security concerns, the aid don't include that in their maps. So knocking out house adaptations and critical national gaskets. Can I ask members of the public to desist, please, so that the members here can hear the answers to the question? Oh, when Ali had a serious incident and it lost half its spillway, the emotes, they shut the M1. But they said that's the damn thing. It wouldn't have done the damage. It was a national gasmate. That would have done far more loss of life than the damn thing. So these are facts. I made an engineer statement. There isn't a black and white rule. It's not a mess of people. It's trying to weigh these different factors together. The consequences, we know the limitations. Cheshire always aren't any analysis of consequence assessment. The impact on the dam and the people there, the likelihood of the failure of the dam. And so the decision or the proposal of planning application is of my judgment as to what's appropriate to try and balance the adverse impact on the local, on the dam, the community living upstream with the dam and the people downstream. And it takes and you can have all these different factors. And it's therefore not a black and white. It's a number of cards. I'm trying to work on which ones you're going to put more weight up and believe more. I think you've made the point on that. Okay. So I've got Mr Chairman, this is a point of order. We have a member of the public who is recording this on their phone. I'm not convinced that it's actually allowed our services to call it to me please. I think we did say at start Council Guard know that it was being recorded. No, I did say that a member of the public was recording it as well. Okay. I apologize for that. I was concerned that the general was being subject to the call. Can I just point out you might want to take advice on security service because some of the information is redacted when it's issued to the public. So it might be better to me to be reported by the Council because you can then take advice from the security service whether if I'm quoting three and a half thousand people, whether that should be redacted. Take advice from the officers on that one. Yeah, the information is in the public report. So if you can make some progress here, I've got Councillor Smellham and then Councillor Jackson. You mentioned about a formal notice, a section 10 of you, and a possible enforcement by the environment agency. Can you just elaborate? Have I got that correct? Can you elaborate please? At the moment, the last section 10, he was mandated to do a flood study, but he didn't say you had to do a thing about it. I used this certificate saying it was a flood study and that it needed the family to be made safer. If that was not done within three years, I advised that the suprising engineer should issue a notice on the section about 12, that basically the suprising engineer can require the undertake of the opening, which actually is to carry out an inspection and that is non-negotiable and he's postponed it once or twice, but he's expecting a consent. If a consent is not given, he would have to take a view, it's not me, it's another company, whether he would make it mandated an inspection. Soon as you have inspection, that will win, has the power to make more mandatory recommendations of whatever the individual doing the inspection thinks. We've fixed dates and if you don't meet those dates, environment agency would take enforcement action and Tony Deakin said to me,If I think the dam's unsafe, he's happy to use his emergency pass to come empty the lake.Okay, so, Councilor Jackson? Thank you. Um, who's responsible for keeping the open purpose already there clear because, you know, the maintenance round there, that's what it is, maintenance. I, I look to the open room, and it is all open. I'm sure that that should be kept clear to keep a lot of blown. That's a matter for Cheshire East. Oh, I was just asking you, do you know what, or do you take that? I, I, I would do my role is to implement the mandatory measures in the last inspection, not to do a new inspection or to look at other issues. So, it's purely every 10 years you start again and you do a full audit and, and the next inspection may ask it to be changed, every different screen, ranking, all sorts of things. But that's not, might be admitted purely to implement the mandatory measures from the 2016 inspection. And, what, what should not be more susceptible without which round the side of the dam to make it close to, or is that not the question for you? I don't think that's a question for me. We, the, that's more about operational maintenance of the reservoir, whereas the, the planning application is for structural modifications to reduce the likelihood of failure and, and the impact of those downstream and bring the reservoir up to more than reservoir safety. If you raise the size of the pool, that can stop and throw it surely. We're not raising this pool. We're, we're, we're, we're restoring the segment and making it level. I think perhaps this would be a question, Council Jackson, for, in a minute for the officers. Okay. So, I've got nobody else. There's this last chance for technical questions, Mr. Brown. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brown, for your comprehensive answers. So now, Mr. Wakefield, to be able to respond to what we've heard in, in that lengthy public speaking. I don't have the campaigns, and I think, um, any of the queries that were raised with ethical, uh, lots of things to ground. So I'll leave the channels in for the questions. Yeah. Okay. Um, so, um, members, any questions for officers, Councillor Brookes? Um, yeah. Um, if you report, I'm sure sir saw something about the risk to damage of the existing spillway through some, the construction of this. Excuse, is that right? Councillor Jackson, can you turn your microphone off of this? Sure. Yeah. Um, yes. I think it was referred to, I think, in simply by operating machine, with the proximity of the comfort, uh, and the existence spillway. It, it just had a, it's a potential issue. No, it was a particular risk involved, because obviously the careful upgrade procedures would, would still have been employed, but, um, that was the only reference for the report to any of the potential damage to the spillway. It's just a, you know, should have actually happened to reinstructure that pattern. Good. Any other questions, Councillor Jackson? And I asked you about the, the Willow Whips are, is there a somebody else coming to the state? But I think if we can build the side of the pool, with Miller Whips, it's, it's stabilized as it, and keeps the water in, and also opens responsible for clearing the water, because I had to look at it when we're on the side, because if it isn't, it can be carried, and then it stops the water from going down, and, um, the trees, where I think the trees should be planted here, at a point of food, if it will take all those trees down. Um, can't bring up, put the whole side of the road on the opposite side, which is like, um, instead of in 34 or 35, because what's the way it's going on? Okay. Um, in terms of the responsibility for the clearance, I can't give you any, it is the responsibility of Cheshirey's council, as, as the undertakers, I've never, the rest of our homes, if you like. Um, so it's a Cheshirey's responsibility, that's as much as I can say on that particular point of clearing the spillway. In terms of Willow Whips, I think, I mean, the point of the proposal is that it provides this, this resilience by installing a concrete curb, along the crest, um, for this full 500 meter length, it's that resilience that's needed in that concrete curb, and I think, you know, it's installed within sort of, plus or minus six millimeters, so it's a very specific position that can be achieved, and it, and it can be secured in that location, I think, things such as Willow Whips or, you know, building up the embankment with additional soil doesn't beat those engineering standards that are needed, to achieve the solution that's sort. In terms of the mitigation planting, yeah, the, the, the, the planting is, is some distance away, it's in wood, but it's, it's in stop pause, you know, reset hour in the report, uh, and yeah, it doesn't address, and again, it's clearly set out in the report, that doesn't address the sort of visual loss that's going to be experienced, within the local area. The applicants have investigated other sites, you know, and I mean, I've asked them about other sites, but, um, do you know what the local sites fail before, uh, replacement planting? Well, I would have thought you could have planted them along the side of the road, on the opposite side of the road, and today it can take them down on that side of the road. Okay, that's just a statement, I think, rather than, than, than, than a question. A note that you can come back to that in the debate, possibly very shortly. Any other questions to officers? No? Okay, so we will now move to debate the item. Um, I think there are a number of, we've got two of you members who aren't that far away, but I think Councillor Kenny Edwards has volunteered to start the debate, if I can invite him to. Thank you, Chair. It is, uh, in a sense, a privilege to be dealing with such a difficult and complex matter, and this balance between amenity and safety that has been mentioned is obviously a crucial element, and also the fact that, uh, uh, point of call, as we can see, the evidence here today isn't extremely, uh, first of all, aesthetically, pleasant area, there's absolutely no doubt about that, and it's, uh, a pleasant area that is deeply in the, uh, if you like, the psychic heart of the community in terms of, uh, the protection that, uh, we should be, uh, attempting to, um, ensure it has. Now, having said that, when I read the report, I look at sort of three paragraphs, 21, 24, and 26, and I would just like to refer to them. I'm sure everyone, you know, they've jumped out at everyone, but this is where I started. A key findings is that the S10 inspection, which I do note is in August 2016, and we are now attempting to provide a solution to, uh, the results of that inspection in 2023. Um, so it's not as though there hasn't been a considerable time in which we consider this, and what it tells us is that, um, the findings were an updated flood study, which I believe was done in 2019, and I can be correct if that's not the case, to assess the risk of embankment overtopping. And then, arising from flood surcharge on concurrent wave action, and it was a very interesting description of Mr. Brown's, I think, in some detail of how that, uh, flood surcharge on concurrent wave action, and if it occurs, has a whole variety of impacts on the environment, including, of course, the, the risk of, uh, the risk to life. And as a result, an emergency drawdown plan is required, and I am supposed to have an emergency because I do reflect on the time that has passed since this particular inspection was carried out. So that's the first, um, paragraph that took the jump out. The next one, uh, is on page 24 ofBots of the Environment Agency Reservoir Flood Mapin carried out in 2019, which is, um, apparently, uh, the, um, the, the plan, uh, about drawdown, shows that the consequence of failure that point in reservoir in a flood is likely to lead to flooding affecting around 3,000 high and a hundred people, and is likely to lead to lots of around two lives, and cause 79 million pounds of property damage. And I'm mindful that as a strategic planning committee, we are responsible for taking decisions that haven't impacted the long term. So there's that paragraph, and finally, the paragraph on to make a six. Cheshire East Council, as the undertaker or owner of the reservoir, in other words, the responsibility clearly comes back to us, and that responsibility for the council's a whole six with us today, um, is obliged to carry out necessary improvements against extreme flooding and implement these by the end of 2023. And we are already in 2024 to avoid enforcement action by the environment agency, and, uh, the agent for the applicant, uh, Mr. Brown has set out the young, if you like, the legal consequences of not managing the situation. Now, there is, therefore, it seems to me, a very clear obligation to come to a decision on how this is going to be done, and, uh, it's been described as an emergency situation. So I feel, as a member of the strategic planning committee, the pressure of time to certainly, uh, to consider this, and therefore, um, I must say, I feel that there is a weight on us to consider very, very carefully, uh, any suggestions for deferral or, indeed, rejection. Um, now, we have heard, uh, a considerable amount of detailed technical information, which obviously certainly are, and, indeed, I think the planning officers have said, but, um, it's very difficult for them to make judgments about, but we've also heard from Mr. Brown, what I regard as a, um, a pretty, sort of, solid defense of the proposal here, the proposal is to, as I understand, to strengthen the top of the dam and to equalize it. So, the pressure of water won't be able to, if you like, pick out one area at the top, and then concentrate on that blood down, uh, into the valley. Um, it seems that the measures that, um, we put in there have been considered in detail, they've been considered against more extreme and costly measures, which, of course, is a very great concern to us. Um, and, uh, also, uh, there has been, I think, over the time to consider the, um, representations that have been made by, uh, the public, in great volume, there's no doubt about that, and in great expense as well, to the local community, and, uh, and we have to acknowledge that, uh, but I think there has been a reduction, a reduction in, uh, some of the work necessary to reduce the environmental impact, and there will be a environmental impact, uh, the work proved to have been mentioned, uh, several, several times. However, it's a balance, and I have to say the legal responsibilities that we have to ensure that that dam is safe, not only safe for the next 10 minutes, but for the longest time possible, so that future inspections don't ask us to go back and actually, um, do more work. So, I am at the moment, I have to say, minded to support this, uh, this application, but I do want to hear the detailed considerations that will be given by my councillor colleagues. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your opening contribution. Councillor Ebers, I'd like to appreciate you may want to come back. Councillor Garb, I too recognize the legal responsibilities of Cheshire East Council to ensure that they maintain, um, safe water courses where they are responsible. However, in my balancing of the harm provided by this against the safety issues, that the risk appears to be relatively minor. There is no evidence being presented of an immediate risk of flood. I am not convinced by the arguments provided by the councillors agent, um, in terms of this is the only engineering solution will be, uh, book, it clearly isn't. I'm perturbed to understand why somebody else who is technically qualified to advise was very good at saying that he wasn't going to criticize anybody else's report, but he felt there was a need for some of the data to be reviewed. And I think it'll be a responsible of us to just approve today when we clearly have been presented with conflicting arguments. If we were being presented with a scheme by any other party that was so contrary to so many of our policies, we would not be recommending it or approve. This council is effectively being bullied by the water authority, let's be honest, they've not got exactly the best press recently, into doing something which we might all recognize as necessary, but without engaging with counterpoints, I'm considering a different way. I'm not convinced today that there isn't a different way, and I'm fully aware of having worked with engineers the most of my, uh, work he like as a planner, that they do have a rather, um, black and white approach, even if, um, our agent descended, but they made flights and rail these incidents, and I do not feel comfortable in supporting the recommendation. However, mindful of our responsibilities as a corporate body as opposed to as this board, I'm happy to recommend or defer the item to facilitate further investigation, engaging with all parties, particularly the friends appointed board's technical advisors. I appreciate a lot of the residents might want to be involved, but unfortunately, we have to separate emotion from facts, and I think if we're dealing with a technical person, we have everybody in the room with dealing with facts, I think it's important that we do have the correct data, and that that data is provided and analyzed, and only when that data is being provided and analyzed. Either this application will be involved as it will not be, um, the pro-predictable board, or alternatively, it will come back to us with all those questions that have been raised today, answered, and in those circumstances, I might have managed to support the desecration of the audit areas that are proposed by today, but the modification is that we should give that to those citizens. Take Councillor Cloughs. We have in front of us an application today that technically is acceptable to Jeshos Council officers, and that is recommended for approval, for the reasons that we have heard at length, and which are justifiable and sound reasons, i.e. we do have a duty of responsibility as the Council to ensure future safety of residents in relation to large bodies of water reservoirs in this case. However, I do feel somewhat anxious and perturbed that there is such variance in the data that's been produced today with the options, and I feel that we have a duty of responsibility also to the residents of the winter to make sure that we have looked at that data, and if that means getting the environmental agency to do another debt analysis which has been suggested is already in motion, then we should wait for that. It may not make any difference to the fact that the volume of water is still going to be sufficiently high that we need to take action under the legislation. I think it's been made quite clear that that the fact is the case, nonetheless it may have an impact on the nature of the solutions. And to be quite honest, if that means that we need to go away and look at this, if only to come back and say to the residents around a point in call, that actually your data has been looked at, and unfortunately it still is found water, then so the age, but at least then it's open and transparent and the arguments are clearly stated and outlined. From my own perspective, I would be interested in looking at some of those options in a little bit more detail. I appreciate that if we lower the level of the pool we will be left with exposed banks, but there are some amazing engineering solutions around at the moment. I've been looking at vegetated intentional wars for river banks and reservoirs of this kind in relation to other projects in south of the borough. So I think there's an awful lot still to be done before we make a definitive decision and I would be very uncomfortable simply to pass this one today because it is technically acceptable when actually we need to ask ourselves a different question. It's not, is it a correct decision? We have to ask ourselves as if the right decision. So once again I'm happy to support the proposal that we defer this and that we would ask that officers prioritise this and bring those results back that pace and so not to lose any more time. And I don't want to go forward to a section 10 with you any more than anyone else because I think our gesture is advisor. It's quite right. We don't want the environment agency taking this out of our hands. Similarly we need to make sure that it is the right decision. I'm sure we'll all be keen to hear more about vegetative retention wars in due to cool since that's not very exciting. So I've got Council of Braithwaves and then Council of Smellham. I am very conflicted among the conscious of the safety aspects. I'm concerned that the recommendations make it their style of flawed days particularly around their body's mouth. All the thrillers of war. So are there other things that are at stake today? Okay, so Council of Smellham. Thank you. I'm also a very difficult one. I haven't seen one like this for a long time. Do the recommendations today preclude us from doing more work later. That's my question which is a bit too late to ask actually. So my ward has seen much more flooding over this year so I think something is really needed in this area obviously and the reports that had to be complied with from Mr Brown. I think it was really important stuff. It's causing great conflict and difficulty and for local people. In an ideal world we would make a permanent job of this but for the moment I think we should be concerned with the safety aspect that's been highlighted and perhaps take on work in the future to enhance the psych ward at later days. Presumably we won't be occluding taking on more work if we approve this today. So I just don't want to precipitate a difficult situation into a worse place than it already is in. So if the option to improve and we can go back and look at things later so I'm not keen. I would like to approve this at the moment in order to make things safe and to have the future option of doing more later. Okay so we have had the final move by Councillor God by second by Councillor Cloud. I want to allow everybody who hasn't spoken yet to speak and I've got Councillor said and Councillor Brooks and Councillor Jackson. I'm now would just make a very brief contribution at this time. I mean I'd wind the diff by not going with the recommendation today. I'll be kicking the can down the road so that those were living in points and in 40 years time later this century may have more brutal intervention than we are facing here. But there is clearly inconsistencies here which I think we would, you know, the Councillors deciding on this do need to know that the technical data in front of them is the correct data or there is Black and White as Councillor Gartner said. We want to know if information is the correct information that we've got in front of us. And there are numerous Councillor policies, Councillor policies that this will be contrary to. So that's where I would stand personally. Councillor said. Yes, thank you. So my approach to this is that I don't think that we should differ. I think we are just kicking the can down the road. I think we've got enough information to make a decision. And I don't think the volume of water is not the depth of the pool. It's thinking about extreme storms. It's thinking about increased rainfall in the future. It's climate change. So I think we do need to do something. Everybody is agreeing that we need to do something. So I think if you delay the costs are going to increase even more just for inflation. So I think we have to make a decision today. In terms of, I see the logic of the design, I like the fact that it's going to be reinforced to get a constant height. So you've got even overflow water. I think you do need to remove those trees. I accept that design so that the water flows in a direction to reduce the overall risk of flooding properties and so on. You want a nice, even slow flow. We want more on this to be a 100 year design, which I think the engineers have done. And as a as a council, we do have a statutory duty to protect public. I think it's not the case of if it's a case of when we don't do anything. And we all know that climate change is happening. We need to get warmer and wetter. I do appreciate that it is a beautiful area, but trees come in planted elsewhere to counteract the loss of trees on the site. It's not poor. I can't remember the public to keep quiet fees. We are in the middle of the debate here and we all want to hear what's being said. I am passionate about trees myself. I am, yes. I plan to choose. I am part of trees for Collins and Groot. I plan to choose regularly. And I'm passionate about this, but we are a society. We have to have infrastructure that works for these extreme weather events. And trees do grow. They do have a lifespan and they can be planted elsewhere. So, you know, in terms of the gaps, it's 40 metre gaps. You've got 800 metre length. So I can see quite clearly that it's someone who has taken 10 metres, they've taken 80 metres into two different sections. Which is quite a logical to me that that would be a sensible way of getting that water overflow controlled. So, I would like to support and approve this proposal. We do already have something else on the table at the moment, which we will be putting on in due cause. I would just remind Councillor—or I said, Councillor Gardner, you blew the deferral for further investigation. We will be asking you to remind us what you wanted on the further investigation before we move to the vote. I've got Councillor Brooks and then Councillor Jackson and then Councillor Redgar. I did say Councillor Edwards could come back at some point. I would say go some point, Councillor Edwards. Councillor Brooks. Yes, I can't support this application. It's contrary to numerous policies. The actual report from the officers is damning in terms of the actual impact and the way that it's not in any way, shape or form, any compliant with any of our policies. So, I'm not actually convinced at all by what I've heard today in terms of the risk. I think it's that in the worst case, two people would be lose their lives from that, not to discount the value of those two lives, but I think every year, 50 people, 40, 50 people, dying construction projects in their daily work and we don't put in measures to, well, we should put in measures to protect them, but I'm just trying to balance the risk and we're not seeing a health impact assessment and I think that would be very useful in actually, it would actually demonstrate what the impacts on flooding of those 3,500 people will be. We haven't got that information and as Councillor Gardner said, if it'd been another applicant, we wouldn't be approving this and I think in terms of we need to do better as a council because planting trees in Woodford that aren't actually accessible to the public is no compensation at all. I think the office is acknowledged that in the report that it will know in no way compensate for the loss of trees and the habitat, so I cannot support this. Thank you. I'm very concerned about this. I, um, policy, one of our new policies, H.E.R. Mall is after heritage assets and it says that, um, one of our, it's one of the policies in our supporting information is locally significant historic parks and gardens and other locally important heritage landscapes. What I would say this is a very, uh, isn't a heritage landscape. It used to be where Pointon Towers was, where Lord Vernon lived. It was a park and it's always being a park for everybody to enjoy and their pool has never risen any higher. It's always kept at a certain, at least a level. And I think it would have been a good, another offer to throw in. It would, uh, um, help that. And, um, and the vegetation, as I said, around putting little wips in, around the edge will stabilise it, help me build up and keep the water in. They've done that down the river bowling in the cars and all around there and it's worked wonderfully and it looks nice as well, not all concrete. It just fits in with the local pappy tats. And when I went on the side with it, I walked around that park and there was wooden enemies, there was cellar dimes, there's goshmolly could marry girls in it, in their pool and there's violence. It was, it was ruelling and it's all parts of our heritage. But we should be looking after that, not destroying it and I'm sure there's way around trying to make it better for everybody. And, um, to put the trees in, the litigated trees in Woodford. I think it's wrong. It should be near the past, it does actually come to that. And, um, as I said, plant them along the side of the road, on the opposite side, that would make it help to mitigate it all. So, I'm, I'm going, I'm not quoted, I'm voted with it for deferment. I think that's what we did. Thank you. Councillor Eger. Thank you, Chair. I kept my powder dry so far. All my questions have been answered. And most of them haven't been answered, such as fact rates. I don't believe there's a case law and I don't believe there's a case being made against by the residents. We need a further debate. I will be supporting a deferral because I can't make a decision. Okay. So, uh, final contribution and then I will be coming back to Councillor Gardner and then back to the officers before, for any final comments before we move to the vote. So, Councillor Edwards. Thank you. Well, I have listened very carefully to what's been said. But we are faced with a decision that we are not taking. And I do not see, personally, any hope of actually resolving the significant differences that are between us, which is about prioritizing the environment to look at the other alternatives, which have been considered in some detail and not considered suitable by the terms of the cost in some cases or inappropriate remuneration of the difficulties that we're facing over the land in others. I fully accept the the difficult decisions that we are taking, but we must take the overall responsibility of our council into account here for the long term safety, not only of, I mean, I have to say I was a bit concerned when I heard that, you know, the prospect of people dying as a result of an overflow here. Yes, I understand, but it is a very serious matter and the consequent damage of any such an event would be, you know, very, very serious indeed. And if we do not look at very, very carefully, as we've done, I think, the various options and choose one, which will ensure the safety of and in my view, you see, actually protects the environment. Imagine if in 10 years time somebody comes along and says, oh, I'm sorry, but this has reached a stage. Now, we're going to have to deconstruct all you jesuries, going to have to deconstruct the damage we've built it. Now, imagine that that will be absolutely devastating to the whole area. So, I look on the risks in a completely differently balanced way, and I see, what I see here is a sensible way forward, which protects the environment overall. Yes, it does involve the removal of some trees, but yes, some, some, yes, I'm sorry, if I may speak, some trees, and I think on the other hand, it does ensure the safety of the dam and meats are lethal obligations, which I think are very, very important and will not be sold by the coronavirus stage. Thank you, Councillor Rifford. So, if I can come back to Councillor Gardner, you moved the further investigation. Do you want to just remind us what that further investigation would be on? So, during the meeting, several speakers have raised questions about the capacity of data. I think data needs to be reviewed by the parties that submitted it, because if it does form a document as part of this application, and it's the data that is relied on in being presented to us. I think we need to look at issues relating to the current dam and an inspection should be undertaken by the appropriate party to ensure what all problems are to ensure that they are not using a hammer to crack the peanut. And I would like to encourage there to be a meeting between the Council's technical expert, Jen, who was like earlier on, along with a technical representative from point of view, and if necessary, this third party should be involved if there is still disparity and agreement in the results presented, and then the council seeks a third party and arbiter to resolve that. And then once that has happened, a report comes back to this committee if it is felt that the scheme before us today is the appropriate way forward. In the event that is not the appropriate way forward, I would expect a further application if necessary to be submitted and asked to be continued in the day as a separate. Excellent, thank you. [Applause] So, can I ask if the officers got any final thoughts or comments? Thank you, Chair. Okay, which is one moment. Did you have a point of order, Casa Klaus? Yes, just as a seconding, I just wanted to add a couple of points to what Stuart said. If I may, I don't know. If it's going to add to what Casa Carlos said, yes, okay, yeah. So, first of all, I did say earlier that this should happen at pace in recognition of statutory responsibility, and second, that if we're going to do this, then we should also look at non-compliance with 22 other policies to see if further mitigation could be made in those parts as we move from any change of order. Thank you. You happy with that, Councillor Bion? Yeah, I'm happy to accept those both of those points here. Okay, thank you. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but just a quick comment in terms of those reference, it's 22 policies and conflicts and everything, and that if this was any other application, we would be rejecting it. Yes, we would, but that's why we deal with each application on its merits and what's presented to you, and so that's the weight. That's what you've been debating, but just to don't get on the fund, 22 policies, obviously, the weight and balance that we look at with all applications is what's before you. There's obviously conflicting views on that just fine. I think in terms of the reasons for deferral, the reason why I was just sort of discussing here is about, you think, in touch a little bit laterally around sort of that third party sort of arbitrator. To me, the only way we get that is to get a number panel engineer, because I think the issue is over the data. I mean, those comments from speakers about reliance on data has been critical to what the decision should be and these sort of mitigation required, and those other comments say, well, yes, it's all, it's that there are some inconsistencies that data body, and in effect, the solution to this, because of that data, is the correct coming up to you for today. So while we can go back to the applicant in terms of making sure that it's based on the correct data, I'm not sure about inspection of the dam quickly. Again, that's something that we can ask the question. But when we get to sort of engagement with the third part is obviously there's been, I suppose, that remote engagement has been something submitted. It's looked at, it's discounted for all the reasons that you've heard today. So I think, Chair, it's just that appears to be a conclusion from me listening to what's going on here, and it's that you're almost got two conflicting opinions. Arguably, the town council did get a third opinion previously. They didn't like it, and that's why you've got some of the comments today that the additional engineer that was that they appointed. So it feels either needs to be, again, we're into sort of trying to sort of get to be else independent of this, and that's what you're seeking, I believe, because my concern is in terms of that third party, there's a limited pool, if you like, of talent, in terms of the knowledge around us that we can refer to. So we are back to sort of looking at another panel engineer to look at this. So I'll just want you to just test that with members. Is that because my concern, otherwise, is what we will bring back might not give you the assurance to those sort of expressed concern. I thought members were seeking to have the inconsistencies resolved, really. Did you want to add to that, Councillor? Yeah, I think the first thing is to resolve the inconsistencies in the data, and even our own agent accepted that there were areas of his data where he was relying on other people's information. Clearly, his person has to know that actually what he's saying is correct and has been challenged. It's been challenged, and therefore it would be the grown-up thing to do, and I think those were the words employed by somebody else earlier today. The grown-up thing to do is to go back to that data and say,Okay, it's been challenged, I need to verify that my data is correct." If the data is correct, then there you need to look at the solutions to the problem, and that's why it asks for an inspection of the dam. Whoa, which appears not to have happened, because, actually, if there is no damage to the wall and we are looking at a different scenario, then what we're trying to do is to make sure it's high enough to overcome the 1,000-year option, which is what we've been talking about earlier today, or even the 1,000-year option. Let's remember, you know, 250 years has been there, there hasn't actually been an overspill that anybody can recall, and it's never been recorded, and so therefore, unless there is a problem with that bag, I would suggest that I can't see what the difference is, and that's quite what the inspection is about. Once that has happened, and I have pre-septices, some likely odds with councils and the clouds being at pace, because, obviously, there are some things that will take longer to do because they are another 10 per inch. Once that's done, I would expect there to then, if the data is wrong, as to be presented with a different scenario, because we're told that what you put in the sausage machine depends on what comes out of the other end. So, if that is still, if you say the data is wrong, then I'm expect to be different, and therefore, I would expect it to be a different solution, which takes me to have to have this application, or the new one, or what. If the data is proven to be correct, then I would expect the point pool, friends' point pool's attention to agree that, and then for the parties to accept the most appropriate way forward, and then that, that, that, that that's the point in that way. And I don't think, I hope that another public body would respect this body in allowing us to do that, and would not challenge the gun, and serve any enforceable notices, which would be totally unacceptable, and I know what the members in the press are in the room, and I would find them that, that would probably be the lead on the use of our fleet, the nadget. Okay, so, that, that's what I'm asking for. So, I hope, as I understand, why I'm asking for, and it's exactly the same, as we ask other people to go back, and if the data is challenged, and they're unable to verify it on the date for me, so, if it's having a way to project the date, it's what I think is about it. [Applause] That's fine. If you don't have the sufficient data before you today to make the decision, and that's the decision that you have to make, subject to the votes to come, I'm just trying to clarify, if we get to that point, the level of the independence bit here, given that we've clearly got conflicting views, albeit, I think the recognition of something needs to be done, albeit at that high level from local maintenance foods to the solution that you've got today, or potentially from what we've heard today, could be something worse, if you like, but, so, that's fine. I'm just trying to just, given the stages that we go to that process, the end result, in my eyes, and I suppose I'm just wagging this nail chair, is that it may require a number of panel engineers to look at this information, so that's what I'm trying to get to, because, talking about the at-pace issue here, I don't know how long it takes to inspect it down, but if terms of there is the pressure from, that's not our pressure, because all we are, it's a local planning authority, we're at least assessing the application, but I'm just trying to sort of get to the solution, if that happens more quickly, then that might be something that, and again, queuing up into the panel engineer might take up some time exceptions to the limits of travel though, so, does fine chair, I'm up in, go forward, close, we're good. Thank you Chair, just again, just really a point of clarification, just a car from, in terms of inspecting the gap, so, it's obviously unexpected by inspecting engineer, by a 6, 5, 7, engineering. Are we talking about a general walkover inspection, or ground investigations, because that's the point that's been raised by the interested parties, that the ground investigation should be carried out to understand what at this point it ties with the makeup of the dam and how it's constructed and what the theory is actually beneath it. They're going to take a bit of time. No, I, I, I, what, what there need to be, was a lack of information pertaining to any, apart from the height of the dam, and my recollection is that it's narrow nature, it was saying, oh no, and I'm not being expected below water level, and I think actually if there's an issue of the veracity and the safety of that dam, then there should be an inspection. If all he is saying, when it's not high enough, well, then in that case, I think the weight he needs to afford to the risk that he is saying is far, if, if, if, if the issue is that the, the height is insufficient and therefore he needs something on top of it to deal with that particular issue, if that's the only problem, then that means the only risk is the water overflowing over the top. If the ward and, and therefore the number of people in fact on that is not going to be in the three and a half thousand, because we're not talking about the whole lake disappearing, the volume of water, the whole lake of the, if the dam itself was breached as if it broke through, then there is a greater risk, and therefore more people are going to be impacted, and therefore the weight being given to the risk should be higher, and it's that that doesn't appear to have happened, and if they don't know whether or not the, that the, um, dam itself itself, intended, intended ground, intended ground, then they can't assess how really to modify that, so if you're putting extra weight on the top of the dam at the moment, and the structure below is not safe, then you're, you're actually creating a problem whilst I'm resolving it, and I think that's why I think there's some inspection of that part of the dam is to be looked at, because I think it has material implications to, um, the outcome of what, what we're being asked to assess today, and I'm not convinced that our own expert was, um, confident in the information that he, I mean, I'm not saying he, he disputes what he said, the outcome, I don't believe he is confident that necessarily, um, that is the position, I think he needs to be down in the problem. Did you wanna come back, Mr Wertfield? Hey if I'm sorry for the, obviously I'm going to be carrying these through, so I just need to know exactly what I'm, what I'm looking for, and I'm excited why, um, the reason for the application is obviously to raise the low spots that I'm being identified, I lock it down with this consistent crest line that's going to be installed. I suppose I'm just struggling with what, I still don't quite understand exactly what this inspection, it was worthy of use. What, what, what are we looking for? What are we inspecting? Right, we need to make sure that the issue is, if we are balancing risk over the risk of risk, risk of risk of life being harmed, if a user has done this or were harmed, then if that is only because the, the identifying that is, it's not high enough, then if the construction of more, of obviously spillways is going to be on top of the existing dam, there is a need to make sure that the current dam is safe, from what he was saying to anyone, he doesn't know that. So, and my argument is that actually if we're talking about spinach, some water coming over the top going on to the main road and going into the fields beyond, unless there is a breach in the wall of the dam itself, that will be a relatively limited amount of water. It is not the volume of the lake that's going to suddenly go down towards a point of rock, it's only going to be a small amount of water, whereas if the dam itself is breached through it and a lot of water comes out, that is going to cause a more harm and further damage. And I think what's happening out here is a mixing of two things, I think we've got a risk factor of, it's going to affect 3,500 residents based on the volume of water leaving the dam, and that is the total volume of water rather than a slight overflow, which is what the racing of the dam would achieve. And so I think those two things need to be clarified for me to vote to have the dissapration of all those trees, if that's, and that I'm not clear from the answer that I obviously don't know, that's the answer. And that's why I think it was referred to by other people, it was referred to by the technician from Point in France, and I think it's important that we know what we're looking at. Are we looking at the only deficiency being the height, or are we saying there is something else deficient, and that's the reason why, because I suspect also if the waterboard had worked so, and there was just a suggestion with the council, and they were unable to defend that position for case for its run out. Yeah, I've got to put a don't follow, because I think the application is based on that premise that the low points are being raised. No, that's the checkpoint, I understand this way, because what is happening is we are basically saying, well, we must raise the level of the because in order to meet the safety levels, but we're then saying that the actual damage to everybody down the road, the risk, is the three and a half thousand people, well, that's it, they're all the water comes out upon the goes down the road, and that isn't what would happen if it just kicked over the top, not all the water suddenly, it's like a bath, not all the bathboards doesn't come out, only the stuff that goes over the top of it. I agree, and while I think I said the damage can be done, I'm saying the level of damage is probably going to be less than we did in time, but that's what the application is doing, by instill in this regulated crest one, it limits that flow, so if you don't let it prevent that erosion, it could potentially lead to the catastrophic failure of the gown, and then lead to those four defects that affect three and a half thousand people or a few people. So, like I said, why don't you strongly, I don't know what other than, well, I just don't know what, what are your expectations? I'm not an engineer, which is why I asked the questions I asked, and the answers I received to those questions did not fill me with confidence, and I felt they were so, there was too much maybe what more tips in the responses, rather than an agreed position, and given that we have two technical people in the room disagreeing with it, saying that there is issues that need to be addressed, until we address those issues, we do not know the basis on which this application is being put forward. Sorry, just one more point in the crowd. Obviously, the volume of water was mentioned quite a lot, it was the brown gave quite a, quite a low detail response in terms of the does not necessarily impact the potential impacts of any breach, and how many number of people that it affects. Is the volume of water one of those aspects of data that you want to know in fact, because again, if I make the time and take to get that piece of the battle metrics in a way that the environment agency in the hospital, we could be down, you know, we could be past the next section of the table before by the time we get that report. So I think again, we just need to be careful what information we're asking for, or, because it's a wide, if it's, it is that sort of information. I think both of them said the technicians will know what they're being asked to provide. I think, I think the issues, this is, if you're going to go with an engineering solution, you need to make sure that you are based, it's a technical solution, that you are based, based on technical data. We have heard that the data is broad. Therefore, we need that data verified in order that we can confirm the solution being presented, which is being, and the solution is generated by that data. It's not just, I'm saying, oh, I quite like this idea. It's, it's basically based on the technical data. It says this is what we need to do to overcome this risk. That's the case and the data is very, it's in question, without us being having that data verified. We cannot make a decision because it's exactly the same as when we're asked whether or not a roundabout works. And we're told that, oh, well, this will provide so many. It's exactly the same scenario. It's a technical data based on, it's a technical solution based on technical data. If the data doesn't work, you can't rely on these solutions to correct solution. That's what we're looking to be providing. But in addition, there were points raised, and they were raised by Mr. Brown as well, in terms of whether or not the removal of the trees, which will be required, will cause an issue for the bank, the stability of the bank per se. So if you cut a swings room, take out 40 trees here and 40 trees there are from within a number of trees. There is going to be an impact on the existing dam. And therefore, if he doesn't know what the impact is going to be on the existing dam, and yet he's wanting us to approve ads, and that could have an even more catastrophic effect. Instead of making the dam currently in that subject, it's not quite high enough, it will have great holes in it, which will make it infinitely effective. Mr. Martin, must be helpful here, so please. No, Golly. I think we understand what the ask it is. I think you just need to give officers flexibility that when the information comes back, it might not be as complete as you are seeking, because I think there's some purification of data that perhaps you're seeking. For my sense, I've got an understanding of the issues that you, again, I've not developed yet, but the issues that some members have in terms of that data, but the people who are in the room that will be doing or looking at this from that perspective. I've got a bottom line of another panel engineer reviewing this, and I think that's the appropriate way to deal with this. I think, Chair, we can move on as those are reasons you've heard concerns by the officer involved. I share those concerns about the specific nature of that, which is why I'm saying what I'm saying now, but with that, I'm happy if members wish to defer on that, that would be acceptable. Okay, well, clearly, members will take a view on any information that is subsequently presented to them. So, we have deferral moved and seconded it in, but I think everyone, we need to all be confident that we understand what that deferral is for. I have got four members who indicated they wanted to come back in. Councillor Broughley, but I mean, if it's still relevant here. Yeah, it's a clarification, really. Have the environment agency already agreed to do a survey. So, it says the involving rules. I don't know if there has been before, but I can't remember if you said it, I appreciate it. Yes. Yes, in a word. I'm also kind of aware of it, but I have read it. I remember the word being a bathymetric survey that I've not come along with before. So, I have seen reference to something. Excellent. I'm sure you wouldn't remember the bathymetric survey. Councillor Smellan, did you want to? Yeah, just to add, I was thinking about the trajectory of the water, not simply the bursting rope of flowing within the dam itself, increasing waters on its way. That's for sure. And I was just thinking that, are we looking at where the trajectory is expected to go, so that we know where a flood might happen? But I think that's really asking for the sun and the moon and the stars as well. May I go across the farmland where the trees are removed and end up on the farmland by it? But just go anywhere. There are no trees to stop it on the far side of the road. Okay, I'm sure the officers have heard what you said that. Councillor Perks? Yeah, just a quick one really. It was about the depth of the pool, really, because I couldn't quite understand why the depth wasn't relevant. And there was an uncertainty expressed that it was 1.2. Between 2, it probably varies, doesn't it? Across that, but I think I would like to see that information definitively provided by the Councillors. So, we've got Councillor Kenneard Woods. Thank you, Chair. Briefly, please, if you can. Very briefly, the original problem is the uneven nature of the dam at present, which directs points to flow of water in particular direction. It is very clear from the historical evidence that if that happens, it is likely to wash away the rest of the material of the dam. And that is the problem. That's the reason. That's the reason. That's the problem, that's the problem. If members of the public can assist again, please. Sorry, I'm not certain that this is taking us anywhere. I think we are going to have to move to the vote, I don't think we're progressing on sensible lines. You've got that view, but I do think we've got been around this enough now, the officers are confident of what the deferral is on. So, are we all confident that we know we're voting on here? Councillor Jackson. Could I have three mitigation items, please? Because if you're looking to put in trees on the other side of the room. Sorry, Councillor, that's what you mean, the location of the mitigation? Yes. Yes. Okay, so, let us roll confident that we know what we're putting on here. So, deferral has been moved by Councillor Gardner and secondly by Councillor Clough's, those in favour, please, in case. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight in favour? Any against? One, two, three, against? So, that's no abstentions then. Yes, so deferral is then encouraged and so, I think we've quite a link to debate here, so I think we will adjourn for lunch at this point, restarting at 1.30. Is that okay, everybody? Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Can start again. I thank you for this morning and something we've still got a bit of business to get through a call so we can move on to agenda item five. Then we don't agenda item six so application 22 slash zero seven eight five in land at cradley green lane world war proposed golf driving range in junior golf academy center involving the change of use of land and agricultural to leisure the regrading of the site and associated landscaping works the construction of a reception slash office and driving range building car park and site access and the installation of a situated flood lighting on the bike the scout tails and to introduce the item. Take a check after me I've gone. Okay so on your screen this yeah tread is the application site of the proposed drive range to the north you've got an existing business park and there's also a residential property here north south and other residential property there and across the road it's a farm diversification slash coffee use and then you can see the office is running which is right in the directions that's just the googler footage which only bit more context it's a rural context. These are photographs of this is the proposed access of the main road leading to the site property lane. These are photographs inside the site so you know there is a large shift in land levels to go into what the site of that shows. This is the road leading to the main road and you'll see that that's recently been widened. That was doggler's park works for another consent site. This is the proposed site. We don't have to make out but this is where the drive and range film would be located with people hitting north in this direction. I think it's the various landscape in treatments on the boundaries and the green lines that get thick and early that's the variation of land levels to show this height up on this site. The appearance is just a typical timber-clad war or building, a 3.4 metres high and not considered to be a particular excessive, certainly the appearance is particularly akin to what you would expect to see in a rural area. These are the land levels now it's difficult I know it's just to see what's actually happened from here but I'll maybe switch on that later. I mean in essence the green is proposed and grey is existing but I'll maybe come back to that in a bit more detail later on and again with the this is the looks level of the flood lighting and this in essence is showing that it is contained within the existence site so there wouldn't be any external lights built and this is the lighting that I'm going to park in area. Okay so in terms of broad principle it is a use for outdoor recreation which is supported in terms of policy and beauty service. The main criteria being is an essential facility to facilitate that use. So in this case the applicant provides information, he has an existing academy, a junior academy, a rate to children, given the lack of teacher facilities, the local area, he currently takes them next early to north which then there is facilities they do share at the moment in Still Valley and that's going to know what one to cover teaching facility. England Gulf I'm also confirmed as not one of the facilities in the local area now no Gulf expert but I'm guessing that's the equivalent of the football association equivalent for football. That's what I'm saying I hope to do with that. So we've also got a needs assessment submitted by the applicant. That in essence is locked at a 30 mile radius it's right site within a 30 mile radius of the site that not concludes that there are two or the driving radius facilities with a 30 minute drive. One is in private, private members early so there is only one for public use and there's also some information about the 61% growth in membership figures within the area which further supports the need for this like facility. So one of our patients offices are satisfied that that has proven that it's essential and therefore such a size over the BD6. We do have various policies which support development in the rural area employment policies, health and wellbeing community facilities, etc. In essence the main things they talk about is is it essential for that facility to be in a rural area and is it's location? It's sustainable. In terms of the first one I mean it's generally accepted that driving rate buildings are found in rural and there's not being as of the London take and essentially the immediate impacts for flights and etc. So in principle there's accepted that there was a lot of uses found in rural areas. In terms of its location I mean it is actually sold from the Google Oklahoma. It is somewhat isolated as something that gets away from that. Then there is town is that's a middle which three miles away from a middle which in terms of public transport there's limited options so it's not really full properly into the site so it would largely require customers to drive on that basis because of the score value in terms of sustainability policies. Having said that outdoor recreation is a use of boards on the open countryside and therefore it's inevitable that you're going to have this balance of sites that are isolated to try and accommodate uses. It's also that something that needs to wait up in there to plan balance. And so so let's go to the landscape. I'll just go back to the levels of plan. Okay so from top to bottom you've got the lowest level at this end here leading up towards the back of the site. Between the lowest and the highest point about 25 meters and what they're proposing here is in the front of the drive and rate building. Again even zoomed in I'm sure I want to see what the gray area is the existing green is proposed. That area there is raised by 2.5 meters that's in front of the drive and rate building. I should move further along where you've got the most significant landable change. There is a proposal to take this section out here by five meters and have it to that green area but the main point to make in there so I'm not sure how easy that is. The main point to make is from top to bottom the land level isn't going to change so officers are satisfied. Although there is a change there won't be used significantly and the whole context of the site won't simply change the change on the bottom level. There isn't any soil to be removed or imported and that's to be spread around the site. We have also had some support from the landscape officer. I think subject to a petition to deal with how it's looked like on that basis there's no objection from the landscape perspective. In terms of highways initially the highways requested a petition to improve the access point which is off the main road. Those works have already been done and by the previous teams the widening of the two-way traffic has already been done. With that I've also looked at the vehicle numbers and that predicted to be loud. On that basis there's no objection from our highway perspective and with the safety and safety of the large access we've achieved. I've already touched on the design by getting this theme to be akin to that rural area. In terms of the mean it's a so as to this kind of use it's the comments and the earnings, the noise, the ping of the balls and such which we need to consider. We don't think this is a different harm in terms of the massing and site of the building giving it proximity to residential properties and it ought to be in treatment or into time. So in terms of noise the barrier to health have commented on this application. In essence they're happy that the shape of the building would contain the ping of the balls and such like within the building and obviously approximately residential properties. That is something to be significant from right back to health perspective. So the main noise issue is it's going to be for people arriving, cars, etc open and closing. What they're suggesting is that we're only likely to be harmful if all 16 people turned up at the 16 base or 16 people turned up at once. So whilst that is potential it does seem unlikely that would be happening all at the same time. In terms of lighting, that plan doesn't show you that well. In that in essence it's showing that the lighting is contained to the site boundary. But yeah, residential properties are basic to the rear of the site. So really the light shouldn't impact the naming properties and as it is contained with the site. So subject to condition controlling the hours of operation of the lighting and some slight tilting or handling them to make sure it's still extra early from the wider setting around health. Happy in that regard. In terms of trees, does that require number of trees to be planted? So it is, that's considered to be a benefit in that regard in that role. So it's also a net gain for biodiversity. So there's no significant issues from ecology. So it's the last issue to comment on is the flood risk element. So it is within a flood zone one which has a low probability of flooding. It involves a submitted development, sorry a submitted a flood risk assessment. This nest is deemed that the assessments for risk and drainage can be ensured. The reason being there's going to be French rains will be provided to get rid of water and similar to levels outside the site not for changing. And the existing water cover will remain unchanged. The ground is officially porous, therefore, of suitable terrain. So the way that water for the site will be discharged by gravity to reduce sewage water treatment plants. And it's also a pond to be a low keg to the site and reveals the third deal with any direct issues. So we have had comments from our flood risk team. In essence, they're satisfied on this can be achieved. It's none of the methods and so what we've put drainage area, therefore they've done that objection and they're quite satisfied as single drainage can be achieved. And I believe, yeah, I believe that's it. So that is recommended for a brutal subject to the conditions you see on page 91. The only addition I'll add on there is papers conditioning hours operation. I realized I've just bought hours of operation. You know, you're thinking, what are they? And what's being proposed and what is that set to allow us health? It's 9am to, sorry, 9am to all 9 monday, so that we can put in an issue. It was 9 to 9 monday this Sunday. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So now move on to public speakers on the side, of which there are two. First of all, Mr. Peter Chapman. Okay, wanted to move to the public speaker. Chapman's speaking as an objector and you've got three minutes. The timing will start when you start speaking and there may be some questions afterwards. Just press the blue button so it's a mic up. Yes, my name's Peter Chapman. I live in Brady Green Lane and I'm objecting for a number of reasons which I'll go through now. But firstly, can I state one point? Not one of the neighbors all premises who were on the planning notification list have written in support of this, not one. I also want to point out is a residential area. I live there as proposed hours 9 to 9, repurting in seven days a week and completely unacceptable. And the whole proposal would have a massive detrimental effect on the enjoyment of our rural location. We live in the first property as you enter Brady Green Lane. We would like to enforce our dangerous we know where the A49 Brinley Green Junction is. The A49 past the period the Green Junction is a known, very known accident black spot. People have been killed that and I would be shocked if it's a proven application which would involve a massive increase in traffic stopping to turn in the lane and then having to turn back out I think they aim because it's a no through road. You have to go back out the same way. We frequently hear tires screeching and horns blaring when people get it wrong because there's two turns into opposite us and they get it wrong and turn into the wrong one and reverse back onto the main road. The A49 is a 60 mile hour speed limit but I'm more than aware of the speeds that vehicles past the end of our lane. I have to make it clear that Brady Green Lane is a single vehicle with unmaintained road with admittedly a new parking space now. It is still not wise enough and I'm in the industry to know that it hasn't been under standard so I do know that. The only way to get past is by taking those into private property entrances which we don't want. To now invite up to two and a half thousand extra vehicle movements it's just numbers 16 bays 12 hours 7 days a week numbers per week up and unmaintained single road just seems the odds of any consideration of highway safety and accessibility. We've had flying Dr helicopter's landing our field several times for crashes outside and I've personally gone out and held someone's hand or both his legs were smashed in the front of his car waiting for the ambulance to turn up and it's not something I'd recommend. I should also point out we on regularly used farming entrance five liters from the main road which is used by the local farmer which we rent land to and that would make it further more dangerous when he's turning in out while other people are trying to get in and out. During the winter months we have serious flooding problems on both sides of the lane entrance on the a-49 which forces vehicles to swerve onto the opposite side of the road increasing the likelihood of accidents. 10 seconds left. Yes go up to 10 seconds left okay sorry carry on so I could give you a warning coming towards the end. Yeah I want you one page in sorry. I did time with myself but I thought it was going to be two and a half minutes done sorry. So you have finished it? No no I'm not on the page in it. If you could give me a discretion I'm a nerdy person that's trying to fight my car on here. That gave me another I can't not with not the whole lot I can't know that 30 seconds then. The council of Stan Davis wrote to the council himself requesting some input because there was a lot of problems in the area and he suggested we shouldn't be using that road to allow people to turn in now very very. So let me see now it's very hard to pick and choose when the other got the time to choose. I think I said to all the people on the planning committee so if everyone's ready I can't really fix it all the time to be honest. Okay okay so we'll see if there's any any questions. Any questions? Mr. Edwards. Councilor David Edwards. Um it seemed to me some sort of ferrets between what Gareth there was saying and what he said about the entrance. We saw a photograph earlier and it appeared to be too late you know wide enough for two-class staff. There's just been a wide link there you can see it on that big GS that's correct just to the left of the ball art. That's just been done but it's not still not two car wits wide if you want to pass because I've had a bit of evidence. That's my entrance the light created. How's the entrance to my house yes. Okay thank you and the other thing is I've heard a lot about planning perhaps this isn't a question to you but I understand that there's going to be a plan for putting putting in practice as well as well yes won't be inside the building obviously. Is that an external? Yes I'm not sure I'm assuming that would be external according to the drawing yes. And that's close to your book. Closer yes. Thank you thank you. Councilor Smitherm? I'm just hearing that this is not my favourite. It's not my favourite. It's owned by the council but it's very low on the priority list with that way. Any other questions? Where? Okay Councilor Jackson the very first property as you're coming in to break the green lane on the left hand side yes the green bank farm so that one yeah where you're pointing there yeah so have you if you'd like to pass our house. Okay Mr. Chairman thank you can we turn to them. So now we've got the agent Mr. Robert Ashbrook and so you will have because I gave Mr. Chairman some extra time we'll have up to three and a half minutes. So I'm going to start speaking when you start so I'm suddenly start speaking and then maybe questions afterwards. Today I sit here before you to discuss the opportunity that not only promises to enhance our community's recreational landscape but also offers substantial economic benefits. I am here to advocate for the approval of the planning commission proposed also a project that embodies progress sustainability in community engagement. Firstly let me consider the economic implications. The development of the gold zone in our area will create numerous employment opportunities ranging from construction jobs in initial phase to long-term positions in maintenance management and hospitality and wants to serve as operational. The influence of jobs would significantly come from future low income levels and the economic stability. Moreover the gold zone will attract tourists and infuse has from surrounding areas and beyond injecting vital revenue into our local economy. The ripple effect will benefit local businesses including restaurants hotels and retail outlets. Further strengthening our community's financial health. From the recreational standpoint the gold zone offers an inclusive space for individuals of all ages and abilities engaged in the physical activity, enjoy the outdoors, learn the new skill. You will serve as a hub for the community events, tournaments and social gatherings, fostering a sense of belonging and community spirit amongst residents. Environmental sustainability is at the core of the gold zone's design. Modern eco-friendly practices will be employed to ensure that the development enhances the natural beauty of our local area without compromising its mortality to put the integrity. The project plans include the preservation of Natal Habitat, the use of sustainable water management systems and the planting and native vegetation demonstrating our commitment to environmental stewardship. In conclusion to the approval of the gold zone is a forward-looking decision that aligns with our community's values and aspirations. It promises economic growth, recognational enrichment and environmental sustainability. I urge the Council to recognize the immense potential of this project and grounds the necessary planning commission fading away for a brighter more prosperous future in our community. It has been supported by the Gold Foundation, England Gold Family RNA, so it's got all the major plays in golf supporting it. There are numerous other businesses up and down that lane already so I can't believe that we will affect too much more than what's gone on already. Thank you for your time and consideration. Okay, thank you, excellent time. Speech, you can wait for a moment. So, Councillor Gala. And then Councillor Cloud. Good afternoon. You may reference to a gold zone. The description here is for a driving range and gold category and I'd like to use you to clarify what the applicant will actually see. If you can put your mic on again. Yes, we also keep a mission for a driving range and gold academy. The name we've picked is just the gold zone. It's just something we thought it was an error. You know, it's something we can use. It's just the name of the academy really. And secondly, you may reference to the level of community, but is your, is this not a sister organisation to one with baste elsewhere and outside the county? We heard earlier on from the office at the uncommon potential people to north. Well, I'm currently meeting teaching gold fashion in Hill Lovegal, which is actually in Wicked, which is also disruption. And Wicked is the closest town. It's two minutes from the area that we're, this area for our degree. So, I'm a teaching professional there, but facilities there unfortunately are not in any way adequate towards what I'm trying to do. So, what I'm trying to clarify is this isn't something that the community locally has been asking for. What you're saying is that you have a business located elsewhere, which doesn't provide you in everything you need. You assume this is a way it's an opportunity to be able to provide decision facilities. An extra facility. I want to provide a service because there's no facilities in our area like this. I want to provide a facility. Okay, so go back to the first question. I understand what a gold drive would be. I'm not quite sure what a gold drive would be. So, basically I wouldn't be able to be in some weather office coaching, whether it be coaching for children or adults. I've always, since I was a coach, I've specialised in coaching younger players starting children and often getting them developing their games. So, the idea for me is, is, is always be a gold drive. So, an academy is somewhere where you can teach, whether it be young people or old people. You know, put everybody off the gold lessons. But obviously, there's only so much space there, so you're not going to be able to do that. So, it kind of scales in it. Yeah, it's exactly that. Yeah, bringing people to the game, really. Thank you very much. I've got Councillor Fowls and Councillor Broke, right? Thank you, sir. A couple of things. Just to turn it on, I'm going to be talking primarily about a gold painting rather than the local rabbit-greeting and the advanced community. Is that correct? It's bringing people to the game of golf, whether it be a level that can be, you know, to me it's because we are quite local to which, we're very quite local to which you're looking for, you know, to me, those images and sounds. It's bringing people, basically offering gold to those people and teaching coaching those people. So, when you talk about teaching and coaching in their pattern, is this done on one-to-one basis? It can be done on one-to-one, or it can be done on groups. A lot of it, if you're like uncoaching, ladies and children, sometimes they, like, prefer to be part of a group, so you'll all come towards starting a group. So, how large of your average could be? Around about, if I'm doing a group less than probably about six. Okay, Councillor Braithwaite, let me be Councillor Brooks. Councillor interjecting. Are you mentioning social gatherings? What do you think are you doing? Sorry. Sorry, you mentioned social gatherings. So, things like if you're, if I'm offering like golf lessons for groups, let's say for six or whatever, it becomes a social thing for ladies and kids or men or whoever or actually, you see what to mean, rather than, you get to meet new people. And it's, that's the social gathering to me, you know what I mean? Because it's getting people to introducing people to the game, and hopefully introducing people to new friends and whatever. Okay, I've got Councillor Broths, and then Councillor Ken Edwards. Okay, the focus of the plan is 30 car parking spaces and two disabled parking spaces. How many of those parking spaces are located for staff and how many, sort of, is it just you anticipate any one plan? Staff-wise, it would be probably two, but then in one time, I would have thought, depending on what we've got going on, you know what I mean? Visitor-wise, when I started out as a project, I looked, I had to look obviously, how many people I thought were going to come to the golf front, you know what I mean? To the driving range. So, I looked into how many balls generally hit on a driving range, whether it be a rural or a busy driving range. Most, at a rural range, we've had someone do this look for us, you're looking at about 7,000 golf balls here today. The average person, when it comes to a driving range, they will buy 100 golf balls. So, you're looking at about 70 people, you see what I mean? No, they don't always, they would always go 7 cars, but they'll be, and these men can chill with them, whatever so. We're looking at probably about 40 to 50 cars in a day. You see what I mean? Working on the balls, the golf balls at the head. Staff-wise, they won't be there at all there at the same time, I mean, no. Okay. Councilor Ken Edwards. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I mean, obviously, the nature of the access is concerning. I presume the A49 at that stage is basically a banging road for the country at the headboard, since it's a mile down. I was looking up and down. So, I take on four of the concerns of the residents, because it does look, I mean, you mentioned children, how many children currently do you serve in, and how many do you expect to be coming on a regular basis to your facility? Well, I keep teaching students 50-60 children, but if they don't always, they don't always come into me at the same time, they can be spread over a week, so a period of time, you know what I mean? So, and so, if I may, in addition, you mentioned tournaments, I think, I mean, is that performance between the children? Yes, between children and adults, so whoever's on you giving lessons, but if you can do that on a driving range, now you can put a facility in where people are playing golf against some wire, someone in another driving range, some way, you see what I mean, technology's being done for that now, and that children actually, children love that kind of thing, you know. Right, okay, so, and then you're operating, did you say one of the hours again, nine until, nine until nine, nine until nine, because you've got to vote, although, I think you mentioned in fact, it says that we vote, but, like, it will not be that on the local, uh, dwellings that are there at the moment, and we're sure that, um, yeah. Right, thank you very much. Okay, any other questions? Okay, thank you. Sorry. Okay, then, Councilor David Edwards. Yeah, sorry, just go back to the board about a simple practice area. Is there going to be anything that's right, it's not right. At the moment, I haven't got any plans because I'd like to know, man, no. Just don't even know. Okay, thank you very much. So, um, I know, obviously, obviously, if they wanted to respond, I don't know if it was to grief, grief, grief is, wants us to respond to the highways issue as well, respond to the general. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um, I just looked at our accident record, the last official accident, uh, appreciated yours on the court. It's a fact of the nature of an accident, unfortunately, it was in 2018. It was a serious accident in 2018. Um, it doesn't actually say way in 2018, but that, that's six years ago. Um, I'm fairly typical for our high speed road. Um, just looking at the traffic generation that, um, this facility would produce, yeah, five cars an hour since cars an hour on that day. Um, materially, it's going to have no road safety impacts that really would be a sustainable reason to refuse one highway's grounds. Um, since, uh, 2018's obviously some changes to the junction. There's been a visibility slide provided. Um, um, the, on the entrance from, from the new ground, I've just looked at the provision. It's four and a half meters wide, which is suitable for two cars. Appreciate it all, like a bit more space with a new body. You can get two cars side by side with your lower health square. So, um, from my point of view, I, I don't feel there's a, there's a high raised issue that we could sustainably support planning between so long. Um, so that's the end of my mind. Okay. Thank you. Just, just, just, the councilor David Edwards, uh, talk about the, the putting green in the practice areas. They are, do you see on that plan that is the practice area, not the putting green. Um, I'm not sure if it was more of a question or if you wanted to know some distances to process running or that, but that, those are those areas at the front of the area. Okay. So. Okay. Any, any questions for the office from members and a council red girl and council color. I was just checking, I don't think it is, but I, um, give me five minutes, I can double check, but I was half of it. I don't think it is. I just walked on Google map. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Just normally suggest it's not. Councilor. So I've got two questions. And the first one relates to the adjacent properties on the, between the eight, 49 and the side. It says here, it's, is it a commercial centre, because we do decide this is, uh, sorry, which ones have to the north? To the north, to the north of the side. There are capabilities. Are they commercial? Yes. They're a business part. So it's a business part. Yes. That's easy to solve. Okay. Thank you. That's easy to solve. The second issue relates to the land on the opposite side of. It's, it says on the location plan that it's a waterfowl sanctuary. And yet there's no reference to anything in the report to the impact of this proposal and the noise associated with it. And the lighting on the waterfowl sanctuary is waterfowl sanctuary. Can you explain why that is a place? Because you've got references to biodiversity in the game and greening birds and sensitive lighting in the report. And none of that means any evidence of the war that the waterfowl sanctuary. I'm assuming that's still there. When I visited the site, uh, when I can't say I noticed that I did actually park on the site and because it wasn't heard to park on the road. This to me was a cafe and it was a cultural enterprise. I didn't see any evidence of that. Having said that, I can't remember if I confirmed it's not because I just didn't see that. And since my mind it was the cafe/culture on the on that side of the road. Can I ask, obviously, to check because it says it's a nature zone which means we'd have some communication on the proposal. There is the stuff, sorry, it's actually just the other side, actually. There is there on the end of the site here. It says there's no waterfowl sanctuary. I mean, in answer to that, the impacts of this are both on said sanctuary. I can only hope that that's been considered by our ecology, so obviously it's not here. I can't understand confirmed that but certainly James does the collections very far at the time. But I can't 100% say he hasn't looked at it because it's not able to describe what I thought of. All right, okay. Um, Councilor Ploughs and Councillor Sutton. Yeah, this is obviously quite a large agricultural field. Um, and when you Google map it is clearly cultivated and a different crawl. Um, you don't really go into a lot of detail about the loss of good authority and the cultural man in this context. And my understanding is it's um, two and three a cultural man. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Councillor. It's um, yeah, page eight to nine. It's basically on the coast. Um, we didn't have a book. We didn't have the great quality and it's right on the border of good and poor. So therefore, it's almost all neither. And so certainly not losing the best quality itself at the site. It could be a good range in essence. Okay. Um, Councillor Sutton, then it would be Councillor Groop. Yeah, going in the um, roads and nearby would it be appropriate to put low in the speed limits or what extra signage, or let's try and prevent accidents? Thank you. Um, just, just in the clarity, the road is adopted. It's an adopted highway, at least in theory, um, clearly not that well maintained. Um, in terms of, um, going back to the accident record, it's not unusual. I don't think it's, um, particularly, it's sort of part of the course, you know, roads, general accidents. Um, that, the, it's an A road with, um, a speed limit that's probably appropriate. It's probably just an enforcement issue for the, the odd vehicle that is actually exceeding the speed limit. So, I don't think there would be really any justification to examine the speed limit. Um, and we'd have to do so in context of our speed limit policy, which probably would still recommend it maintain for the six and an hour road. Um, and clearly, um, the side road itself is, um, you know, like, that's, that's a unrestricted road, isn't it? With, um, it's never going to really get any enforcement anyway. I don't think there's anything to speak to them in, um, science or policies on that road. If they make any real difference, I think the speeds are very low anyway, probably on the side road. Yeah. Okay. So, Councilor Brooks, none of the Councilor Jackson. Thanks. Um, in terms of sort of vocational accessibility, it's not great at all, is it? In terms of public transport, um, I just wanted in terms of walking and cycling, but I want to do is fancy my chances on a bike going down that road at six, within 60 mile per hour, vehicles travelling, but um, is there any kind of, um, cycle parking, or is there any kind of public fault pass where the site can be accessed at all by walking? So, I think the short answer is no, um, but then we probably need to look at the context of what this facility is. I mean, um, people are being in golf clubs and, and the like. So, um, I think given it to a location, um, it's going to be a site that attracts, you know, you're going to probably have to travel there by a private vehicle. Most likely, to be honest, um, probably not single occupancy. You know, probably going to be families in a single vehicle, uh, partners, et cetera. Um, given the sparsity of public transport, it's probably not going to be convenient for people to, you know, you've got an allable service to allable services, rural locations. It's not really going to work around people's ability to squeeze half an hour in the, the driving range. So, I don't think the fact that there's not good, sustainable transport in the context of what this is trying to do is a reason necessarily, uh, you know, to sort of say that that's the reason that it shouldn't proceed. I think we're not, we're not, we're not saying that it's good, but we're probably saying it's not necessarily relevant for what this department's trying to do. I don't think there's any cycle parking, but that's probably something that could be conditioned if, if it's felt that that would improve the sustainability. Okay. Uh, Councillor Jackson. Thank you, Chairman. Um, if by a chance this doesn't, that, or after a few years that it, it closes down, it's ready, conditions can put down to happen. Hi, Councillor. Um, unfortunately, when, when there's a financial outplace such as this, it wouldn't be a reason to say the bill would be moved. So, in essence, if we are, if members are subject to approve it, I think we would be, do we relate? It would be, and so therefore, it affected because I know quite from the golf course is places like this, the golf said it on, and then it goes down. There aren't a bit worried that when it goes down, well, we use the after that, and that's why I think it should, you know, it's better if we could move the back to green to that point. Well, I think the question has been asked and answered, I think, you can obviously make that point when we move to the debate shortly. Um, so, Councillor Cloughs for a second one. Yeah, sorry, I could have it on my list, so I couldn't find it. Um, yeah, so I'm going back to the road to a Brady Green Lane. So, it's not a road that goes anywhere. It just goes to, as far as I can tell, two businesses, which are agricultural supplies. So, the traffic on that road is relatively limited, but might actually be quite large in something like the agricultural businesses in my area. Um, I am concerned about the nature of this road, which may or may not be adopted, which may or may not be maintained to a good standard. Um, do we know what the passing places are like elsewhere, as I can see some of these farm lorries, you know, feed and agricultural supply lorries, get it into some really quite difficult, um, confrontations at that start of the road. I'm not sure that that passing space is going to be wide enough for, um, the average, uh, wagon, um, you know, domestic cars coming up about. Um, you know, there are already two businesses there. They probably don't conflict that much at the moment, but you put another business with, you know, between, uh, 40 and 50 cars passing up and down there today, or being just for that end of it. Um, how are we going to manage the conflict there, and actually do we need to think again about the passing spaces in the world? So, it is an adopted road, um, and we'll, uh, pass a suggestion on the main, the state that states the maintenance of that road. Um, um, so, um, you know, I haven't had the benefit of business like personal, um, our offices have, and they've advised that, um, from a road safety point of view, um, the purposes of this planning application, there's no highways objection, and I think that is not what's saying, um, you know, that things are not 100% perfect, but what we're saying is that given the very low levels of traffic generation, this will produce 50 cars a day, but it is open nine to nine, um, you know, five cars an hour, um, in the context of a background sort of traffic of a few tractors an hour, um, the balance judgement is that, that isn't a reason to actually, you know, have a highway's objection. Um, but planning is always a balance, um, and that's our professional view, is it from the same objection on that basis? Okay, um, Councillor Kenneb, it's a game chair, just a couple of points on the, uh, the road, first of all, it comes, uh, necessarily, it's said that there will be an average of low traffic, um, it does seem to me that it's allowed to be concentration from having quite a few children, um, you know, they have a, they have a pattern of life in terms of school, you know, we game activities, shopping, whatever it might be. So what is your question then, Councillor? Well, the question, the question is, is there going to be appropriate signage of the main road to ensure that as car drivers coming in each direction are aware of the, the, there is this sort of a situation in which cars and other vehicles coming out, um, and, uh, and stopping to go in, I mean, is there a sign that going, for example, will the, um, person wishing to, um, develop the site being asked to provide that kind of warning if you like, because it does seem to me, it needs more management, it's got a lot of information. So who would like to answer that one? I'm going to certainly know, I'll see a minute before you, and there's no, there is no signs out, I think they might, and so I've got the road ramping now, I don't think you can get it, but we've got it, we've got it, we've got it, we've got it, we've got it, we've got it, we've got it in the signage, we're going to get to the site, it's not a good sort of thing to do, um, what was the sorry, what was that, Councillor? So there you are, there's no other, uh, host office to learn, you can see somewhere in the order of the site, it's a, none of the work, I don't, I think that, that's, uh, across the road from a different site, I think, and, um, hmm, right, I'm just, here comes Markle, Councillor, to us to know, if you've not, I see, if we're just giving questions about those, you know, while you're thinking of a sign to show that there's a driver's range or a sign to say, this is, it's a junction here, well, I'm, uh, can you hear Mike, please? Sorry, I prefer there to be a set of road signs to warn people that, you know, there is, um, you often get warning signs up on roads about busy junctions and so on, um, and I think that's going to become quite a, potentially quite a busy junction, and, uh, as we've said, it's a speedy road at the moment, with the limited traffic coming in and out, um, and, uh, I, I do think highways need to take these kind of considerations into account and manage them before the evidence, for the need for management. Um, just one, it's like, I mean, ultimately, yeah, this is, there are numerous junctions of them down the A49 that will be probably worse than this and some of them that will be better with it, and we don't signposts that thread it down to people driving, um, for the conditions of the road, which will include all sorts of accesses, both directly gone to, and various junctions, with some aside posters in accordance with normal sort of highway, um, away. Carrots is alike, but not all are, I'm not, I guess there's no one that, um, everybody has to drive us to the conditions, um, I think that's just a bit more reassuring to me. All the members may be aware of driving great schemes that we've had, um, go through committees or through delegate footing. This has only gone 16 values, and therefore, the traffic generation is, is going to be low, not, you know, not belifting concerns over impact, but this is, this is a very low impact driving range. There are many that are basically, aren't viable, officers, there's a, there's an audience here because of the, there's some cold and they have a, they have a business associated with golf and coaching, but if it was probably accessible, um, driving range, normally looking at sort of at least double that in order for it to be sort of a more, uh, sort of a more viable operation, um, with certainly some more local, so this area that are, uh, of that sort of nature, so perhaps just to reassure little bit in terms of obviously certain highways, they don't have an objection anyway, so that kind of deals with it, but I think just to reassure you from my experience of driving ranges, this is very small in terms of it's, it's sort of size and scale, comparison wasn't going to be dealt with, that's fine, okay, thank you. So that was all of your questions then, can I say, can I just, okay, yeah, so, um, now move to debate, yeah, some, now the nearest walkout, so I don't know if that's, you can, so clearly, how does it, I thought it probably was, so can I perhaps invite you to open the debate? Yeah, I don't have a principle, a problem with the principle of, um, a driving range of this relatively small size, but I think it needs to be seen in context of its location, which is highly rural, and, um, in the context of its other infrastructure, I hear what part of this is saying, but, um, I must, that would not be a reason for refusal on certain, getting where we're going, um, nonetheless, it is an an amenity issue that needs to be considered alongside all the other amenity issues, and this is, I've just got this idea of 7,000 walls a day, um, you know, being hit seven days a week, nine to nine, but I live next door to that, I will be going absolutely out of the morning. Um, together with 40 to 50 cars a day, going in and out, maybe not all at the same time, but nonetheless, there's a lot of cars going in and out where we're not necessarily used to that. Um, also that potential confrontation with two, um, significant well-established small businesses on that same lane, whose wagons are probably better able to cope with a poorly maintained road and people's domestic cars, normally, and to that, so you're going to have, uh, lighting there, light spreads a long way in countryside, and these are on the areas at the moment of relatively low light pollution. I don't think I'm interested in that one over. So, um, I do have a sense about the 849, um, one major incident on this particular junction, but there are other junctions not quite far away from me when we have a consistent, consistent stream, um, at the time of the 849, being able to do the difficult road. Um, and it's right on the border of Cheshire East and Yorkshire, um, Cheshire West. Um, yeah, we'd get the business rates, but this wouldn't actually necessarily be serving the community of Cheshire East, so we're in much wider community, um, as in the coming months as well, but clearly the business is already established in good church in Yorkshire. Um, so I'm not quite sure what communities we're talking about, um, it's setting up a local resident community, uh, which is relatively small. So, afraid for me, or the balance, um, of amenity and purpose, um, I'm afraid I'm more concerned about resident amenity and this point, but I'm all but happy to listen to what other people have to say and see if they've been waiting. Balance is tilted in a different direction. Thank you. Okay, yeah, 7,000 balls a day is a lot of balls, certainly. Um, Councillor Brooks, Councillor Powell. Thank you, um, you know, in terms of the, um, the lighting, um, our officers have advised that the, the lights would face some of these would not result in any light pollution to those properties, their garden areas, so I'm satisfied from that point of view, and it also mentions about noise that, um, that it would be minimal, and so I'm satisfied around the amenity. In terms of the location, it is, it's not ideal, but I think we need to take it to balance the fact that, um, customers are driving a lot further to north, which should carry out their activity, so in terms of carbon emissions, they're not driving as far, and so it would be a facility that will benefit the local community and people that like, like, like to learn to play golf, I suppose, and I'm happy to support this application. Okay, Councillor Gardner. I'm not so sure. Um, when I first looked at this, I, um, we know there's, I didn't think there wasn't a much to be concerned about, um, I shared Councillor Claz's use about the lights to travel along the way, and I'm concerned about the impact that I will have on the wildlife center of this next door, and I'm disappointed it is not what you've heard about this. Um, because I think that when you, we've got an application later on in the agenda where the issue of lighting is going to be, and, um, I have to be raised, and I just feel that when you are looking at rural locations, the same level of the velocity that you experience in an urban setting, or have a far less impact because it's luminosity, it's a light source in the area of light sources, whereas this is a light source in the area full of darkness, particularly winter months, and so I'd actually like to see if the argument is that we challenge the power of our issue, and I have no problem with, during the summer months that the period of British summer times was going to be precise, that the hours of our issue are 9 in the morning until 9 and 9. But I would like those hours produced from 9 in the morning to 6 at night in the winter time, so that would be the period, there's not British summer time, because I think that the, never the light and luminosity at that stage will have a green impact on the wider, not certainly just residents, but the wildlife in those areas, and the century, so, um, very reminded the nesting birds, et cetera, the winter months, where we would do it, we would not finish their life, but also their lives. I always think that in terms of traffic generation, that, that will happen slightly there as well, because there will be fewer cars driving there in winter months, and potentially more, so I'm sure that the houses will come back to the mountains there, and on the way since they've come back after the afternoon, they're like, and so, um, I think on balance, a lot of people aren't happy, and I certainly feel like I'm so proud of the, the community that seems to benefit its community, but I've seen that this is a vicinity that is acceptable on the countryside, and given that our engineers are certain, there isn't a high risk of them, I don't think you've got grounds to refuse it, and so, everyone that could go over to my, uh, better relation from the moon, uh, out of operation, but it's so, so you're moving a approval subject to the amendment to the hours of operation, okay, thank you, um, does anybody else wish to speak? Councilor Brooks, I confirm that you weren't seeking to move in, were you, when you, when you spoke? No, okay, so we've got that, um, move, no guys wish to speak, it would need to be seconded, but I will second it from the chair in that case then, um, so, um, I ask for any comments from officers, then, and I don't, thank you, Chair, um, I'll try and, um, a piece of the concerns and council government, um, I'll, I'll try, uh, the waterfowl sanctuary, um, obviously it's located, water the south, uh, south west of the side, so you can't be into being buildings, lights, the main flood lights, the other building where my mountains are facing this way, here in this direction, so from the floodlight, there will be zero spill to set birds, because they're also to the other side, now there is lighting a pose in the car park, and let me, how long does it do that, um, that's, um, sorry, technology is not much wrong, it's going to be a little bit wrong, yeah, so this is the lighting that will be in the car park, now that is low level lighting, um, low intensity, now we do have a condition, um, when I'm aware of the condition, I'm aware of the condition, but I'm also aware that although the lighting wasn't directional, it will have a sliver of spinach as far greater than the would have a seems in the dirt there, so now this is the drunk car park lights, and then all the lighting, all that light affects it if you put lights on, that all glow beyond the end, it is, it's direct lighting, so therefore that glow will have an impact on the wider area. Okay, so the wider area, it will be intact on backs and birds and not just the sanctuary, it's not just the sanctuary, there obviously the sanctuary being there, we need to go back, they don't add any extra, I can sit there in terms of looking back. No, okay, I hear what you're coming from now, I think yeah, I think the impact for lighting from the birds would be limited in the sanctuary, but I hear exactly the right area, um, the only thing about it is the condition does deal with it, but that's how you break it, yeah. Okay, Miss Malcolm, sorry I'm not wanting necessarily to push the point for that, the condition is designed effectively for that purpose in terms of ecology, and obviously ecology isn't just about a bird sanctuary, there's resonance within there, um, ecology is just a common sense of the adjacent water body, so it has been considered book, um, there's a condition on there to sort of manage the luminance and obviously there's any particular glow or anything else, so I'm just, I'm nervous about putting the restriction on, something that, that now has no effects in the business, again just common knowledge that a lot of these facilities do hate most neppers ensuring they went to most because a lot of golf courses that even flooded or whatever, or there's lots of water on them and things like that, so, like I suppose I'll leave with members of this next time, but I'm nervous about kind of when there was a, you know, the condition is clearly there, so addressed that point, and I think ultimately that would also deal with sort of the overriding sort of the whiny ecology concerns, I get the area that we're in, we used to use this to sort of deep, raw or puzzle, it's, it's dark, it's, it's in a very dark location, so these things are actually more about light spell and those areas because it did become very much more noticeable than it would do even in sort of urban fringe areas because they're very much so that you do see these things, but also the topography of that I should see it in that is, it's not quite in a bowl, but certainly not sort of northeasterly sort of direction, and the land, you know, grades up with the light and you'd be the sign of self-concenting, so I don't know, just my thoughts, I think it's actually quite acceptable, but it's with members of those. Well, I'm sure we always appreciate your thoughts, I said our planet, and so does it even ask each to speak then, oh goodness, so Council said, and then Council quotes. Yeah, I was just going to say that, I think, I've got, I did have concerns about the road network, but I've been satisfied that we can't object based on those, but if we are going to approve this, then I think we, there's an economic benefit that the one business to be successful, so I think if you reduce those hours of operation, then that makes that more likely that the business will fail, so I think on balance, I think this is an acceptable proposal. Council quotes. Yeah, and then I'd just like to start with Mr Malcolm's view really, because there is a condition, if you see on the bottom of page 88, it's about wildlife sensitive lighting, and that's going to be secured by a condition, so I mean my worry is that if we do restrict the hours, then it's actually restricted the opportunity of emotional people to take part in those activities, so I'm happy to propose that we accept the application, I say it is, without restricting the everything else. Right, okay, I've been listening to Mr Malcolm and to other speakers, I'm inclined to agree with that, and also through this condition, 14, the more sensitive lighting to be provided, so I just then withdraw my approval of Councillor Garver's moving. I appreciate the reasons for that, and the right of me having that in support, I will remove my recommendation. Okay, thank you, Mr Malcolm. I was just going to try and give some reassurance, I don't know, it was just around, I think one of the issues around looking at looking at something else, it might well be that that might require certain lights and scenarios, perhaps being switched off or reduced, but that would still give enough light to enable the driving range to operate, and I think that's kind of what I am positioned from that condition, so it wouldn't affect the operation of the business, but we would be looking at those wider interests around ecology, so again just to give a little bit of reassurance on that point in terms of the, I think that's the intention here, is to look at what the lighting will be when it's on, if there are any, it talks about providing dark areas, etc, so if it's too illuminated in certain areas then that would be the greatest of them reducing the lights and down in those areas, so just a process for others. Because I have the assurance that the conditioner is drafted will prove that, so they will all be in need to, they will be in a lighting of moment, a plan submitted, and that that will be assessed, and the event of it being installed and causing problems, there will be an option to have it revised to the company problems, and then over here. Yeah, I guess there's a, what, with conditions 9 and 14? The problem Mr Chairman is that we can't always, we only see that at the shorter version, so we don't know what it's going to say and I'm asking for that to be, that's why I'm asking for it to be expressly included in the way outside the light box in it. So, can you confirm that then, Mr. Markle? Yes, yeah, it will include a photo work, so it will also be the holidays as well to make sure we get that correct wording, so to make sure it's dry, right. So let's see if we can move to a vote, so council procs, will you move in approval, subjects, recommendations as they stand? You're going to second that council seven, so we've got approval with the recommendation, with the conditions there, moved by council brook, seconded by council seven, those in favour if they can indicate please? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, four, and those against? One, two. That's everybody then, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely, yes. Okay, so that application is passed then, so we'll move a quick swap round of officers here, and we'll move round two onto a gender items seven, application 24/0130C, former Thaiford bathroom site Linley Lane All Sager, variation of conditions 215/16/19/2021/22/26/30/32, 33/36/37/39, on approval 13/4/1/21C, full planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings under construction of a new retail food store, parking and circulation spaces, formation of new pedestrian and vehicle accesses, landscaping and associated works, the re-submission of 12/0800C of Mr. Daniel Evans to introduce the item. Thank you, Chair. So what we have before us is an application site in All Sager. You can see it read on the screen, so it's a ground field size lodge covered in last time, they got some recently self-seeded over room agitation. So to the right of the east of the site, you've got Linley Lane, and to the south of the site, you've got the crutadabi railway and industrial promises beyond, and to the north and west of the site, you've got a consent scheme for 268 houses, which is under construction. So this site extends to 3.08 hectares, and yeah, you can see the location plan on the screen, so this shows you the access roundabout, which has been constructed up in Linley Lane, the access road in here, and then to the north and west, you can see the consenting residential development. And these are photographs of the site, so you can see large areas of cars standing on the site from the former buildings, and you can see the recently constructed housing surrounding the site there, so under construction. So that's direct to the north, so the application site is just here, and that's looking southeast across the site, so this is towards Linley Lane, which is beyond this boundary here. That's looking towards the southern boundary, so the railway is in the mid-area here, but looking from the roundabout on Linley Lane, so you can see the application site is this extensive area in here, and the access roundabout is in place. That's slightly further down in Linley Lane, so the roundabout is behind from the stoto, and you can see the Linley Lane has dropped down under the railway bridge, and you can see the application site over here. So what this site has got, it's got a planning mission for a new supermarket, as you can see it's specified at the report, so dates back from a mission in 2013 application. The pre-grantsment conditions were discharged, and they commenced the development, so it is lawful, so they could recommend, well, recommend some to complete the store development tomorrow, if they wish. So what we've got before is some amendments to that approve scheme, so this is the approved layout, so you can see on this photograph, you can see the access roundabout here, often the lane, and then the access in here, so to the Linley Lane front, you've got a proposed petrol filling station, and then the store over here with its service yard in that location there, and between the petrol fill station, and the store you've got the car parking area, there's a cafe element on the plant here which is now removed, so we've liquidated between the two plums, this is a proposed plant, so you can see the mismide layout changes in terms of the layout of the store on the car park, you've got petrol filling stations been reduced in size, except the cafe dimensions have been removed, and those various elevational changes to the building. So these are just some of the quick and quick reviews, but there's very little difference between the elevations, so on each slide you can see the approved and proposed, so the main point to notice on this is the front which is based onto the car park, you've got this toilet towel section which is retained in there, but the sewer elevation towards the railway, so that's a cafe on the top slide there, for glazing which has been removed, that's the west elevation, so that's the east, they're facing the service yard, further the change there, and that's the northern elevation, it's in the accessor road. So in terms of the principal developments, clearly the principal has been accepted and has been implemented, so we've got no objections there, the design amendments are relatively minor, the design principles a lot of the same in terms of the location of the service yard, the access to this door, and there's minor elevational changes, that's detailed on the design section, so there's no objection, the main change relates to the highway's contributions, so in the highway's section of the report you can see it was a package of highway works and some conditions, so just going back to the area of photograph, I was just not showing the area, but as part of original consent there were two conditions, numbers 36 and 37, so 36 required off-site highway works, they were the round of our access which has been built, the bus stops which have been built, and then junction improvements at the A5, 011, and the A50, B50, 700, which would be just off this photograph here, so rather than the developer providing those works, it's been agreed, those contribution can be sold for those works, and we do live up to authority, linked to that, there was provision of a improved footway in cycling along the name here, and again rather than it being provided by a developer, it's been agreed that the contribution can be secured for those works, in terms of the other contributions there was provision of a bus service contribution, and since part of this application the position has changed, there is now a bus routes that aren't along this line, the name, so what we've agreed is a smaller contribution to provide a sustainable service for those three years, so they are the highway to country contributions, there's no impact in terms of immunity, the separation to rural flights, significant and largely the same as what was previously proposed, renewables, so previously the number conditions related to a biomass boiler, the biomass boiler is no longer being provided, but they are providing any solar panels to the river Bristol and to mitigate the provider human energy for development, the no objectives and symptoms of any ecology or trees and hedgerows issues, and since of the flood risk drainage, so there was an original condition on the planning commission to open up a culvert along this boundary here, instead of opening up a culvert what we've agreed, the drainage team is asking of a culvert works, which would improve the outputs in this location here, access to the outputs, and some biodiversity planting along this boundary which would improve biodiversity as well as the drainage issues, so on that basis a number of other conditions would need to be granted as well, so on that basis the application is recommended for approval as per the officer report, and there is an update just to clarify the issue in terms of budgets, so you see that the budgets were accepted, it hasn't been surveyed, has now been surveyed and is not in use, so it was just an amendment to condition 18 as per the updates report. Okay thank you Mr Evans, so public speakers, there are none, but there is a written statement from Councillor Vod Fletcher, the Ward Councillor. Okay sorry this is if you point out to me that there is the agent here as well, Mr Gary Morris, so first of all there is a written statement from wall Councillor read Rod Fletcher which Mr Evans is kind of going to read out. Sorry Mr Jones, Mr Jones. Yeah as I stated this is a short statement from Councillor Rod Fletcher as the ward Councillor for Australia, it's only a short statement, but I will stop the time if it would normally have five minutes. I'm making this statement as an else age award Councillor, in the interest of openness and transparency I have attended pre-app consultations with Sainsbury's, Jester East officers were present during all consultations, else age of town council fully supports this amended application, local people continue to ask me when this new Sainsbury store will open saying it will be nice to be able to buy fuel in else age and no longer have to drive into the potteries. Many people do their main shopping outside else age due to due to less choice in Asta which is smaller than the proposed Sainsbury store. I urge the Planning Committee to support the officers' recommendation of approval. Could a ban be imposed on construction traffic using Richard Woodcock way? Also can the Council enforce the traffic calming measures that Wayne Holmes should be implementing to stop Richard Woodcock way being used as a rat-run? Okay, so there are no questions because he's not here to answer questions or there are. He does pose a couple of questions which no doubt the officers will reply to in two calls about the Richard Woodcock way. Then we also have then the agent, Mr Gary Morris. I'll do some missing help before. So you can move to the chair there. So we'll have up to three minutes of time when we'll start when you start speaking in the maybe questions afterwards. Thank you very much. So I shall be aware Planning Commission already exists for our Sainsbury's here. So I just wanted to set the scene as to why these changes are necessary. It's obviously original Planning Commission in 2014. So over the last 10 years the retail market has changed a lot, the grocery market has changed a lot. People are shopping different ways now. A lot of people work at home gives them more opportunities to shop during the week. So we don't see the Friday and Saturday peaks that we're used to. So that means we don't need as many car parking spaces because you've not got so many people in the store at any one time. We've got online shopping now which wasn't really a thing back in 2014. So around 15% of people do their grocery shopping online now so they don't need to visit the store at all or be in the goods that peaked from the store. And we've seen the rise of discount retailers as well now and some people do a split shopping by some of the discount retailers. So guys some of it are in the store. So to reflect those market changes Sainsbury's proposing some relatively minor changes to the building itself and the site itself. So the coffee shops being removed Sainsbury's don't generally run coffee shops or very few of them these days but there is a development plot within the site that we've been able to create by by shrinking some of the other areas and we're expecting that a standalone coffee shop operator will come forward with their own scheme for that area in due course. The petrol station that's being shoved down to three pumps that will be six filling points but we are putting in four rapid EV charging points to reflect the shift towards electric vehicles and we reduce the size of the car part like I say we don't get as many people in stores at any one time. So that means we can pull it away from the railway embankment retain more trees and we've got opportunities for landscaping along that boundary. As Mr Evans said the previous scheme added biomass boiler we tend that to be not quite as sustainable as everybody thought at the time it was off to men bringing wood pellets in from sometimes overseas so we've got solar panels now and new technology in stores, doors on fridges keeping cold air in the fridges and the freezers rather on the aisles use less electricity and then that less amount of electricity generated in green waves so either from the solar panels or or sanitary zone wind farms. Again Mr Evans talked about the culvert so the new proposals incorporate a stone river bed with so the water can permeate through indigenous planting while flower meadows look a lot better, a lot more viable to implement as well and then again also discuss the highway improvements so we've still got a package of highway improvements that amounts to half a million pounds and in terms of construction traffic I know you can have some flexor and breeze. In terms of construction traffic and all say introduced deliveries will be via a linearly day if you feel it necessary to attach a condition happy to accept that. So just in summary I don't give new jobs for our sager, new central store, our bus in the store, new petrol station, new EV charging points I hope you can support your officers recommendation to approve. Okay thank you so any questions to Mr Morris, Councillor Brooks. Just a quick question. I think one of the representations is made as mentioned of the possibility of the KFC being on that block of in the cost of coffee. I think it probably would just prefer the coffee shop. I mean in terms of encouraging, healthy eating and all that but yeah I was just interested in that point. If news can be, I'm certainly not aware of any conversations regarding KFC, the uni, I mean there's no deal done on the development plots at the moment all I've heard from sager users that they are in discussions with the coffee shop operator. Okay Councillor CEN. Yeah did I read that all energy is renewable, so that's certainly heating. Yes so on Sainsbury's only used electricity in their new stores now there's no gas and so Sainsbury's have their own wind farms and obviously the roof will be covered in solar panels which usually covers the vast majority of the needs but anything else needs to be topped up in a great but it's all sustainable. Okay any other questions? No okay thank you Mr. Morris. Thank you very much. So do officers have anything to come back on? There were the points from Councillor Fletcher's about a ban on construction traffic using Richard Woodcock way and forcing traffic calming measures at Wayne home should be implemented. Yeah so in terms of the those two points so dating back to the original permissions which were 2011 I think they were on this part of the site, on the site there's always been provision of an access routes through the community lane through to the Lord and Road which is over here. As part of the Wayne's homes condition they have got they were required to do some traffic calming measures within the site so they haven't provided what the requirement is for the way home to provide them and colleagues in enforcement have been discussing about the way home so it's separate from saying to breeze in terms of the access to the site so clearly I wouldn't recommend putting the condition on about the details of the where the access comes from. So any questions to the officers? Councillor Brooks. Yeah I think it's for that Paul in terms of the bus service contribution it's being reduced because now there is already a bus service in place. Is that bus service currently subsidized by Cheshiree stores it is self-sustaining? I'd have to double check I think it's self-sustaining now and a half at the moment which we suggest so the contribution that we've calculated is to extend that service to leave the site today because there's no commitment at all for the weekend and that course is also so state of hospital as well from outside jail. Any other questions? Okay so move to debate the ice so I don't know who would be the nearest walk. Councillor. Okay Councillor Redka thank you. Thank you Chair. The commission has been granted. There's been updated for a more moment and I can't see any problems other than what Councillor Fletcher requested regarding access so I wouldn't move now to approve. Okay Councillor class. I'm going with those comments and I'm happy to send them. Okay Councillor Smillan did you want to see one? Okay Councillor Garbner. So I can just clarify all we approve would be additional condition for is that what comes to the— Councillor I'm sorry to clarify he's asking for the application. Thank you. Okay so if no other speaker then we might as I move to the debate so set for approval with the mincey mendic condition there. Those in favour please indicate. One, two, three, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven. That is your name. Yes. Okay. Right so I'll are we okay if we have another agenda right and we then have a quick turnaround after that. I can see Councillor Gansa asking for a five minutes now so we'll take a five-minute break now start again at 15.05. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. 8th the planning enforcement performance update to update members on the performance planning enforcement during the last quarter of 2022-23 and the year of 2023-24 and so it's for information only that debracally will be introducing the item for us. Thank debrac. I don't want to play with anybody else to go to the degree just to be able to give you some sort of take away points from it and then you take any general questions you have at the end of it. Just looking at the first table in the report you'll notice that we'll be fairly static on the number of complaints we'll be receiving throughout the court is we are closing west and we are receiving so we're still carrying a significant case load across the team. July 2023-23 was the peak to down at David and October to December but it's going back up again and the challenge that she has continued to receive a significant number of complaints. So obviously we're always judged by what we're doing in terms of action and the nature of complacent with receiving as well. This just gives you some indication of the most prominent cases that we receive and it asks that with all the court is operational development is the most significant thing that we can complain about. Usually because it's the most prominent impact on visually within act on their living conditions etc but it is significantly higher than any other complaints that we receive but also in that regard to that we need to remember that a lot of development is a community development so the following table just highlights that for the reasons for closure. You'll notice that the main reason for closure is that actually there hasn't been no breach of low control and this will in the main event of development where it is actually committed by the general community development order. So regardless of what we think about the development we have the original over it and actually be aware political development rights have extended significantly over the past few years and they continue to extend. So we'll probably have more closures as a result of that relationship because we have no powers to act. The legal bonuses issue is quite telling in terms of through the reporting period where the shoot 59 notices 24 of what you believe was the notices. So that's quite a rise on previous years. I was saying it's something that I don't want to have an artificial thinkers that we don't want to obtain now because it has to be the decisions have to be made on the harm being caused by the which is not the number of notices we want to serve in any particular year but I think it just demonstrates there is a significantly through put of notices and actions across the borough. It may not necessarily be in your wards but we are taking action when it's necessary. We still have a little bit of a backlog of notices so there are a number in the pipeline that are on way to the issue. Obviously we are relying just well on our colleagues and legal disorders. Members are also aware that obviously there is a right to appear attached to notices and at the moment there are delays in giving decisions on enforceable appeals because there are other nasty issues so that is expanding behind the span of the bottom of the cases which can lead us into frustrations and all that. One case in particular which is which the headlines recently was a site where we issued a injunction for significant unauthorized development, residential development on the site and over the countryside. That injunction wasn't provided with so we had to go back to High Court with a couple of proceedings and the judge in that instance imposed a 12 month suspended sentence on the random subject to that injunction. We are awaiting for compliance with that. If we don't get it we will be back in court and obviously with that comes to the new cost which of course we are seeking to recover but we don't know if we have a cost order on the land to try and secure those costs at some point. So obviously that's something that's important as we're following through is to make sure that we do become our costs wherever possible. Just as a showing this scared of development which is taking place, the alshay building that you can see the photograph is a dwelling which has no language. There's a domestic algorithm to the left outside of the photograph as well. Also on site is a very large commercial building and another large bookstore for a commercial not like business. They've gone up around the point of the injunction so he's continuing to develop the site. And that just gives you a little bit of a reminder to you about the site. So that is still a working service and we'll continue to absorb just a bit of a reward. That's really all I wanted to do to put to you so if you have any questions? Okay, Councillor Redder and then Councillor Brooks. Thank you. So I'm going to add a follow-up date. I already read what you're seeing if you can do the writing. Oh, fine. So I'm just saying that you put the bare windows to the resources that last update came to you. Thank you. I'm going to ask for one comment for an update and one particular one. Do you know any about that? Oh, no. Councillor Brooks. Yes, I was just interested in how we compare with all the local authorities because there is a deception particularly in my order concerning the particular development that were soft on developers in their life in terms of planning conditions not being enforced. So I'm just being interested in that. I haven't got any capacity for this to happen but the local government website, go.com has tables on them, tickets on them for performance across local authorities. With regards to conditions, obviously it is something that we do look at. It's sort of something that we will enforce but we're very busy speaking to do so. It's interesting to note that to actually I said that tomorrow the funds refer to the private rich conditions go from 2500 to unlimited. So that should be that a rich condition notice will act as a more legitimate manner. In some instances we haven't used them because they're not being utterly good to tear it. It is the level of violence which are imposed but now they will act as a greater deterrent. Can I ask for a close? Yeah, so whilst today is not the day to get specific ones I'm looking through this with some of my colleagues and there are things that we feel are active cases that are not clear. So do you have another list somewhere of enforcement action that is in some different stage of development? Yeah we have a list which we consult and update on the databases which basically is a list of cases where we feel that it may expedience taking calls for action and we break those red apples into the black roses. So in terms of advice to members are they better just sort of contacting you to get a progress report? Yeah, the consent of that is a specific case instead of my holdings and I don't know what the useful enforcement involves and it will get them accepted into action now. Councillor Smellerman then Councillor CASSIDY. It was the same as Councillors. I've got two on the list and about 16 actually going on in the environment that I think should be really investigating. Yeah, okay yeah I'm sure as Deborah said any specific cases, the contractor director will be in enforcement inbox. Councillor CURMANN. Yes, are there any plans to take on one step to try and pay that help or how's that going? We have recently been immediately recruited to an office to the team. So they are, they're getting traction now and we are feeling very into that. Obviously when anyone new comes into a team it takes a bit of time. But that is going to take the help that's going on for you. Well it's good to be able to go in the right direction over going and stopping. Any other questions? Councillor CUNNOW. It's a couple of years. I mean first of all is there positive and satisfactory and sufficient resource to ensure that one should get to the right evolving collective realities that certain you can move forward effectively in that area. Another most basic sort of act that you like in the whole system is working recently by which you choose. You mean back from me? I mean at the end of the day that's the enforcement and real bustle of the system. Anybody else in? Thank you. Anybody else in? Okay, thank you to everyone for that report. So we will now have a couple of minutes break as long as it takes for anybody who's leaving to leave for myself and the vice chair to swap over and change the officer as well. Thank you for today. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. All right. Ladies and gentlemen we will now move to item nine which is application two three oblique one at one seven four m dawson's farm buckston road bostley for the demolition of existing agricultural buildings and playing house and the construction of a new replacement building house with associated renewables and landscape. This matter was referred to Northern Planning Committee on its meeting on the 10th of April 2024. This application has been referred from meeting the Northern Planning Committee as the committee resolved to approve the application subject to conditions but contrary to officer recommendation. Under the terms of the council's constitution in terms of reference to therefore refer to the strategic planning board for a decision as approval of the development would represent significant departure from planning policies within the development plan regarding development in the open countryside design and those affecting protective species. I will now ask Robert Law to introduce the item. I'm sure a whole number of declarations. If you have the declaration that you didn't declare earlier on council Edwards yes you can do so. Hi I don't I'm not sure what I did yet but I'm declaring it now. I was a member of the Northern Planning Committee that considered this application and I spoke broadly speaking in relation to wanting to come for consideration this committee because I look forward to some strategic considerations. I have a computer of mind about it in general terms but therefore I'm not predetermined in anywhere at this stage. You did mention that before but thank you for the answer I see if anybody has come so long. Okay so Mr Law if I can hand over to you please. Thank you Chair. Just direct members over to the presentation. So the site you're looking at today and lastly considers a working farm which is located outside of Bolsley to the northeast of Compton south of Sutton measures approximately 3.6 hectares in size and it has roughly 9 buildings on the site including the farm house and you'll see the point here it's got a really long access track to the farmstead which is taken off Oxford Road to the south. So just in terms of aerial image you'll see it here nestled in into landscape here. Along the east is a woodland and an area for the to a southern common and that's also part of the habitat that changes land. So this is as you've traveled along that long access track as you get towards the farmstead and you'll see towards the right hand side which is the east left hand side of the west various farm buildings which will be demolished to make way for the proposals. And this is the this is the farm house that would be demolished as well. Essentially the application you're looking at today to demolish all buts and one of the buildings on the farmstead and to replace it with a new house so it's a replacement the well naming essentially. Again these are some more pictures of some of the other buildings and you'll notice that this two-story brick built barn that is the building the one building that would be retained as part of the proposals and that would serve a storage and also would serve as a bat loft for habitat mitigation. And then another another barn again alongside the farm house this would be demolished. And again this is the building to be retained as a bat stroke barn hour loft. Building six it's referred to as in the clouds. And then moving further and to the north of the site this is then turning around looking back at the farmstead towards Oxford Road would be on the horizon here is the farmstead on this plateau and you'll see the land dropdown in this natural depression which is the western portion of the site and this is the portion where the development would essentially be located which I'll show you in a minute. This is for a similar location but to looking towards that woodland and towards the farmstead so looking across the site in an easterly direction. And again this is taken from that natural depression I showed you earlier looking up to the farmstead so you'll appreciate from this photo the farmstead occupies that plateau higher ground and then it drops down into all this sort of a valley. And this is a similar photograph similar direction but you can get more south and just out of these cross societies again farmstead up here. So I mean in terms of photos mentioned this application is for placement dwelling so to demolish all of the buildings it's a flat barn, a very built barn and to replace with a sort of partially subterranean dwelling. Passive house design but also in addition to that there's a solar panel installation which would occupy the eastern portion of the site where this existing agricultural building is cited and map solar installation would be 760 solar panels. So this is the existing site flat because you can appreciate this is the layout of all those buildings that are showing you on photos this is that natural depression on the left hand side so towards the west and this is what we'll go into place so you'll see this is the retained brick built barn so the right hand side here is the solar installation of those 7160 solar panels to the left hand side so to the west within that cutting that valley significant engineering re-profile will take place to make use of that depression and to build a dwelling into the land stage purpose of re-leveling so you can see the footprint here as well and again here so it'd be served by a road that an access track continuation of the existing track around to the back of the building here. So in terms of what it would look like so the side elevations would be setting to the landscape so these buildings here you would not see because they would be set into the landscape as a result of the existing levels and also re-profile in other land and then the southern elevation which is this one which you can see would be exposed and this measures approximately 59 meters across and 9.8 meters in height and so this is a profile of that so this is the southern elevation you may get glimpses of within the side so the western elevation see how that relates to the existing farm at the top and then to the rear of the building where you have that being the correct sense would be an exposed path or be it partially set into landscape again with meteorites into this garage here it would be about 70 meters across so in terms of the new house it would be across three levels the living accommodation would be across the lower ground floor and then the first floor and then there will be storage of parking on the second floor at the top and be nine, nine bedrooms each way of the road on the suite so this is the upper level we can see the access here this is parking here this is building six the barn that we retained and it uses a back straight barn out left and then this is the solar panel installation and then a proposed visual but computer-generated image so CGI or that would look like close to rock within the sides and then further field see here into the landscape just to give you an appreciation of the amount of the earth that would be excavated to accommodate the proposals and that is a level of cut showing in red so the cut and feel like the size of the type of ice so this application was recommended for a few years old on the basis that it would result in the replacement dwelling that would be materially larger than the buildings that have been replaced also that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the countryside by the ultra-scale sighting size and design and the extent of land to be re-profiled there was also considered to be a harm in relation to back species because it was considered there was no overriding public interest in terms of our way and that conflict and so whilst we're benefiting in terms of renewable energy the application was recommended for a few years old as the chair pointed out at opening this was resolved to be approved by a normal planning committee at the meeting a couple of weeks weeks ago on the tax of April but landers of northern planning committee considered that there were significant environmental benefits from multi-generational living and renewable energy some economic benefits from construction it's either the size and scale was acceptable and that the impacts on protected species was acceptable in light of mitigation and the fact that there were in my view overriding public interest because of the environmental benefits of multi-generational living so that is why it's before we need to thank the members and so it's to consider it it's also thank you gentlemen thank you now ask the public speakers so the first speaker is the council of the owner of some who's the chair of the northern planning committee and it's on making that happen she said today there are five minutes councilor we also know which there might be questions well thank you chair and good afternoon colleagues and unfeldibles and i'm vice chair of northern planning and i'm speaking here today to outline to you the reasons why northern planning committee by a significant majority resolved to approve the supplication the committee considered the report before you today very carefully and the reasons we resolved to support this application a detailed on page 160 of the report park and have been very helpful to outline by mr. lord just now we feel that the proposals presented an innovative and exceptional design for a multi-generational family home with many environmental benefits including renewable energy the proposed photovoltaic array would provide significant energy for both the new dwelling and service energy to feed into the national grid there are no objections to the proposed dwelling from the statutory bodies or the public and bodily parish council quote support as well considered aesthetically pleasing sympathetic application with little visual impact it's also important to note that neither the environmental agency nor natural England race any objections whilst the reasons we wanted to approve the application are detailed in the paperwork i want to give you more detail on our responses to the visas for refusal the first reason for refusal is that the proposed building will be materially larger than the buildings which it replaces however as you can see it out is 167 and 168 of your pack and in the presentation the narrative from mr. lord one new building of 4788 square meters is replacing the existing farmhouse and seven other buildings which currently total 3166 square meters we felt that the second reason for refusal the argument that the proposed development was too large was not appropriate as much of it will be built into the hillside as we've heard in a natural depression in addition the end result will be less impactful on the landscape than the current farmhouse and agriculture of buildings we also felt that using current policy in respect to building size to refuse an eco-friendly passive house which will be partly subterranean was not appropriate the passive house premium standard which this design means is a building design standard for an energy efficient building and will also make positive contributions to biodiversity through planting and rewilding therefore northern planning committee did feel that the design was of exceptional quality from the paragraph 84 of the national planning policy framework the final reason for refusal was the adverse impact on bats which as the proposed development is not of overriding public interest was said to be conjuring at a planning policy however as we've just heard the existing bond which contains a bat roast is to be retained and so impact on protected species is already being dealt with northern planning committee also felt the development was of overriding public interest this is an exceptionally designed eco building its uniqueness should not be reason for refusal what's your reason for approval you'll have seen from your site visits and the presentation drawings and photographs today as members of the northern planning committee did that this is an application that addresses many of our current challenges of climate change a building that replaces sprawling agricultural buildings with a modern appropriate design that will blend into a landscape and open countryside on behalf of northern planning committee i ask you to approve this application as we have already done thank you John thank you are there any questions for Councillor Wilson Councillor Seddon? Hello yeah one problem with the water generational aspect about it is that something that the applicant got forward that it was a design used to be more generational yes it is okay my own personal looking at the design it doesn't feel child friendly at all to me feels like you've got one master bedroom and then you've got eight other double bedrooms with ensuites which just doesn't feel like it has different final units within it so i think he's more designed as like been breakfast facilities something like that do you want to respond to that because there's not a question so no but i will respond to the final part of it as we say jerry welcome to question but i do think that the issue was it was discussed at northern planning regarding removal of admitted development rights so that it could not be about breakfast so you'll see in your pack that the suggested conditions would be to remove the removal of permitted development so we ask in the questions you may wish to address this of course to the speaker on behalf of the of the agent or architect who's speaking that that's particular question um i don't have a family and don't you know what typical family home looks like but um the application is for a multi-generational living accommodation um you know use of it as a future bed and breakfast could be avoided by so you're in a planning condition any other questions for council wilson thank you very much council wilson thank you i now ask the applicant agent mr budden to come to the stand mr budden you my script is telling me you are the applicant and the agent is that correct okay you have five minutes because we gave council wilson five minutes so and again there may be any questions after your presentation thank you i try not to repeat some other stuff so it means that um it is direct i'm going to end the agent i have our client wants to remain homeless because of the size of the property so that's why it is not the application they came to us to his family right now they are my children multi-generational family they have a third old children at the moment so it's more that there's children later on when they have a family to come to us to live there believe it is designed in a family-oriented way um the mainframe for house was through that and also to be completely climate resilient and house the future so this is why he came to us in architects with what we're leading so there are energy buildings probably doing that in about 15 years i came to us wanting to do this it's also very much about the location in terms of the natural environment or casing biodiversity and the natural environment it's very they're very out of family and the family want to do that but also very private hence why we helped find this site for him to make sure that the house was as invisible as it could be both for public on looking and also for the future if you had something really landscape as could be seen by the anti-keeper's appraisal that the building is pretty much invisible and that was one of the main get aims for the beginning the main donation also is facing south to allow that so again to be honest but also to allow us to make sure that the building is highly so again it's reduced and so again given into building so it's really cool willingness to either in some as well and the main reasons for the objectives i think is on the scale and design clearly it is a much larger building than existing but you need to take it back to the policies and rather than looking at the numbers it should be looking at the impact and the council did that they look to the design officer who looked through and made comments on the building they say that the building sits on high ground it's pondered to the landscape whereas now we're with nesting down Instagram to make a much lower impact the design officer concluded a post home is in obtrusive to the point of being almost invisible for all vantage points so looking at it in terms of scale and massing which is what we're really talking about that's that's what we have to pay them to do there is a case that we could make the buildings smaller so as it's all underground we can make an extra debt visually we've made no difference at all to the overall building so we feel that it isn't um only developed in terms of voting policies i think we have we have to take any advice on how that's working i think the local minds that everyone last played with it is able to make this a mix i would also strongly disagree that it's significantly against the plan of um policies and that it is in your works as councilors to bring this forward potentially under our graphical key design exceptional quality wasn't something that we originally put forward in the application we were very modest and we felt that there wasn't any reason we wanted to be forward but we have come to some extreme measures in terms of digging environmental design which is part of full architectural quality um so it is we believe fully within your your rights to vote the favor of it regarding the bats the project is of low impact to bats as the proposed mitigation departments of the planting will maintain a highly favorable conservation status for bats as noted by the county economist all the way through the the application when we try to give more and more dialogue with the council on this um two universities we haven't had met and do pre-ex or anything like that um it's been very positive it's only really the week before but we first heard that there was any objections um obviously with natural incomes also being able to control the bats things we will have to go again to natural England to make sure that the bats are conserved and looked after again it's part of our client's wish to enhance the nature so looking after these bats making sure that lighting is low level and so forth would be also important so in summary um most all the reports and so far have been in favor of this including the committee meeting last last week um and just just to summarize really just what the urban design has said it is clear that there has been careful consideration of the design and material specification and it can be seen that a mage effort has been made to fit in and into that that this place overall there has been a very thorough process undertaken this house is of and from the landscape as a result there are no urban design concerns so that to me says there's no issue in terms of scope advancing um as i i don't think in the previous meeting it was five minutes is up okay i didn't interrupt you because i could see that you were you were getting needed but you had scripted so right so questions right okay so i will go with council books uh staying council clouds then councilor baby edwards then count to seven and count to seven yes um one of the concerns of the planning office who is that it is going to be a massive engineering projects in terms of the plan to be able to make an inflow just what do you could sort of give some more detail as to how those materials will be managed and will they be utilized you know the ball cut from the you said just wonder how then it would be supposed on the okay there isn't an outcome we've had to get into the most of it we'll be cutting and fulfilling to be moving stuff around or taking stuff off or on site there is unfortunately there's some hedgeros that we'll have to go as part of it then we'll then be replaced in half state there is we'd love to reuse as much materials as possible for hardcore but i don't want to go on site so yeah that's part of what this is is not fair enough. do you want to come back to councilor books or is that okay? okay councilor councilor thank you um could you explain um why the um the ocean barn is to be retained and what its function purpose will be um as you know and i jumped to this the main reason for obtaining a barn is so for bats um it was an area where the bats would be there and we want to make sure that we gave them good opportunity so to remain on the site and also for enhancing some of the trees and hedgero performed that barn down to the wood root to allow them a hurricane grid that was the worst that was enhanced it was yeah that was the main reason for obtaining that barn a bit of storage as well do you want to come back council first okay so councilor was you and councilor said thank you chair um believe it or not my concern really isn't about the house itself but about the area taking up by the solar panels of the barn they naturally i take it would be some of the animal itself would play the invisible coming up the valley from both of the crossroads and so on it seems to be a big sorry, a big area big area and there are trees and stone just behind it on that hillside so then you're trying to get in 700 something solar panels between the old barn and the start of the trees and all of that matter that's my first problem i'm going to ask are you happy with the ambition that is not used in commercial development uh purposes that would be a good job that's interesting i'll turn the second question first at the yester art that edition would be private um the first question in terms of the pb um the amount of pb has been designed so that the building can be powered during the winter as well as summer when the winter has got less sunlight and more light in the east so that's why the size of that is there we felt that was the best location because that's where the existing barns were which are no six meters tall and now they're going to be 1.9 meters plus it's a petro from low level as well so the landscape which of the trees there has looked at that and it's greatly mitigated in terms of the location of that so that's why it's located it's kind of where the existing barns are but that much done well thank you at this point now i used to have a little fun just over in the back of those that hill i do enjoy the winter it's covered in the snowmen rather than darmel right actually councilor seven yeah i'm also concerned about the 760 solar panels in this beautiful part of the countryside and unfortunately on page 170 it says that even though you've got 760 solar panels it's not enough power to fulfill the energy needs of the house alone so this house isn't an energy fishing house if it means 767 to heated what's going on right okay it is an institution house it's to the better house standards of the amount of heat loss is 50 kilos per meter compared to the energy built at around about 19 so we're ready to very much very energy is still very large and there is also for each of the transport cars so there is amount of energy provided for transport as well the it is dependent on how much PV and efficiency so that a lot of work still to be done to make sure that it is as completely off grid as possible so that even though we then get beyond where it is if we try and give it free and we're going anything out to the grid during the summer it will be able to be stand alone if it needs to be if that makes sense does that make sense i've got the mind of bubbles so how efficient this house must be if it's car you can't keep it in seven hundred sixty solar panels to be honest if you take a normal three bedroom house besides the roof to allow it to be all year round and this one took them but we're probably what is just about now possible to do that but you're you're net zero so you're exporting during the summer and importing back into it that's net zero what we're talking about is taking a step further so you're actually having enough energy for most pvs where the efficiency of the PV panels during the maintain is going to be about 20 percent so still be possible to run the house which is at least biggest demand as well because like some of the long run owners need to run so that's why it is such a large amount anyway it also takes up two kilometers squared land which is not very good anyway i've got another question like about the internet and generational living and that to me signifies a grand you know grandparents parents and children and the design of this house is not perfectly children do not need ensuite ensuite facilities there's no place where family units can rest and relax together about the unit but it to mean that old designers have worked got no playrooms you've got nowhere for children to rest and the question is well the question is this is not an intergenerational design i don't believe it i think i will give you the opportunity to say why you believe it is intergenerational intergenerational i think people and families live in lots of different ways and we have designs with our client and that's how he and his families wish to have and there are so many spaces within that that are those places for playgrounds kind of other activities to have so i would say that it is it is it's a debate that i'm sure we all have different duties of consciousness nothing one is the same there's a previous question about being couples and um not being um the suitable in their voice pictures and talking to some of the people i don't know how it works there's some time it's even going it's going to be nice to know the way we are looking at alternative options in terms of interseason storage which i think we mentioned in terms of potentially sand banks and other things and maybe other ways of looking at a story about which would come with an additional application so it may be that we end up with less people but we felt that it was better to go in with the full amount now and to come back more later to go the other way but maybe a bad decision are there any other questions before i ask mine okay so i've got several questions the first one is there are a number of areas within your plans that you're referred to as services and i've never seen these in a layout of any house however big in the past so perhaps you can explain that to me i'd like to know how the greenhouse is going to work given that it appears to be covered um at the top and it does appear to be on two levels so um if i was suspicious i might be asking what you're growing there um the layout of the eight bedroom the eight on sweet bedrooms i do share cancer settings and concerns about being appropriate for occupation by children and you might want to explain the rationale for your design choice and similarly i'm amused as to why you are having a separate suite for the dining and living of guests normally when you invite people into your family at home they to die at the spend time with you and i then look at two further questions one is to do with the light emissions from all of those windows given that at night in order to because you've got it's all the lighting is from the front there's going to you're probably going to have to have the lights on for longer than a house that's got front and back lighting and secondly how you propose to dispose of wastewater given this is an eco-friendly house okay number one was that um so let me take that in reverse order the wastewater we dealt with an institutional wage so it's accepted tax and logistics um how it has it is existing okay maybe larger than currently the um night light one of the things that we have designed is to make sure that we're reducing it out of direct zone gain in summer in case some of the summers are increasing in in temperatures they are um so that we'll show you down some of that light coming in to the night light because it has got large overhangs on the top and on the first floor walkway so that will show you that thing it's also where it's located it's nestled in it's a valley so there's less large resolution to other areas so it's less than the current farm on the top i think as i said earlier we will be looking at so so it's less light than the farm at the moment i would have thought so the farm at the moment only has three bedrooms so you can have three lights on but and obviously you've got farms the farm buildings will all have low level lighting if it i'm not convinced that the cows and the sheepballs need to have a full extra light but maybe you can explain to me why you believe that's through the case although obviously there's an amount of external lighting around the farm for when they need to move around um so that don't be reduced but there is also curtains and other things that will be used to reduce the light movement so that could be could be conditioned you could condition stuff on that much which would be acceptable because i think i said the client does have the views you want to be in nature encouraging um so we've got the first question now why it's it's actually the next you've got services green house to uh lay up the bedrooms and we've got a separate guest also part of the brief game is to be a house for the future and these are uncertain times we don't know quite what that future will be so the services are to allow the building to be resurfaced that's any opportunity so very easily to have access to be able to be modified services as as required in case the building needs to change in terms of the layout of the green house yes you're right it is um doesn't have your roof lights or anything like that just purely from the south and west that again is to make it as climate resilient as possible so you're looking at all the extremes so that's it can be fully resilient and also can be aware of growing food um in such terms um i'm obviously dependent on the drawings pack that i've been provided with but there appears to be a windows and one intervention i don't mean good one intervention that's correct oh sorry i forgot to turn my microphone back up so what i'm saying is i just wanted to clarify you said east and west and i just wanted to check there is only the one that's the one the one front of the little bit yeah no i understand that's fine that's okay which is the west is the green house that's the one i've got people so again which is where we need it okay and issues relating to the internal sector that the servicing and why why you've chosen the layout that you have again this is client led it is to make it as adaptable for the future as possible thank you very much are there any other questions before i let the show people go okay thank you very much and i'll ask the officers that you could you can step down and now ask the officers to respond to any points that being raised during the questions then they feel it's appropriate to consider at this time thank you chair turn turn to just briefly um now that there's been reference made to a lot of objection from those bodies including internal properties and just wanted to sit me in terms of the first and second reading spirit user which is a recommended which related to size scale design and they very much relate to impact on character of the the countryside and the landscape and and it's that kind of assessment and judgment which takes place and it is is undertaken by the case officer for a planning officer so you know the designer open designer main look at the the dwelling itself in terms of its quality and when it considers um no it's it's very unique good use of materials in terms of stone where it's visible um and considerations like that but in terms of looking at the general impact on both open notes countryside views that is a primary for the case officer in his its officers view that well yes it will be set into the landscape that's going to be following a significant re-profile of the land um you know a a change in character to that western portion which is currently on the ballot it's actually a field a valley that is then going to become the ballot and and even so you can go to the right hand side of the east it's going to be a significant solar installation so these are all in parts which unfortunately it is too much and managed while officers are concerned about and there's also a reference finally in terms of the design of coins that um and this will be discussed by your colleagues on the northern committee with the potentially the design of the house was and what's called a paragraph 84 and house which are basically dwellings which are exceptions to planning policy in in the countryside on the basis that the design of the and I read this it's paragraph 84 section E of the MDPF it says that sometimes we welcome it isolated homes where the design is of exceptional quality in that it is truly outstanding reflecting the highest standard in architecture and would help to raise standards of design more generally more there is now officers view views are that this is not one of those those those designs and those exceptions and so we are considering as we walk into policy which is it's a replacement dwelling material larger the raw impacts in terms of character appearance and landscape impact as well as impact on parts because we don't consider it as a heroic public interest so those are the issues that we have and I'm going to be one final thing you would say is that these are cases for equipment runs they're bread and butter for officers and for us as an authority many of which you will not see because they're dealt with on the delegated powers and where we have to make sure that there isn't there isn't impacts on countryside in Green Valley from the region of dwellings which related runs which are too large and we on the whole do a very a very good job at that now it seems to me that in terms of this application specifically the applicant is it's putting great way to tell the fact that there's multi-generational living now we better consider from the information we've got that that is in Oxford where the conflict with countryside policies and protect expensive policies and so my face is that's why I recommend the list of things okay thank you thank you Rob um so we now have questions to officers Councillor Brooks Thanks um yeah the design officer concluded that the dwelling is in obtrusive to the point of the almost invisible from all vantage points but then again it goes on in the report and the the case officer saying that due to its sheer scale and ability to build it will be an incongruous and overly dominant addition to the site it just seems completely conflicting opinions uh just like your comment on that thanks yeah so as with as with any consultations they are they are only advice and touch on this particular response earlier the case officer is also looking at why the impact in terms of the balancing or the considerations in fact on countryside and landscape setting now just because he's setting something down um if it if it was if it was entirely subterranean didn't have the re-profiling works then yeah it would be invisible but I don't consider and I don't think that other officers consider that that will be the case and I think that's evident from the fact that if you just look at the presentation you still I mean within the site you will still see this further further afield uh so the back as well you will see this which isn't insignificant this is 70 meters across and then furthermore you know the applicant so you can complete the janitor's image the CTM shows from a further field you still have this impact and that's not so that's not including the solar installation as well which will have an impact so just because something isn't visible from a road for example does not mean it does not have an impact and those became things that we consider as officers maybe that answer the question that's a great way yeah thank you chair I wasn't deciding whether a building is of exceptional quality is that a subjective view from officers yeah so in terms of exceptional quality there can be a number of reasons why that will be the case and sometimes it's whenever you see some some of these sometimes on grand designs where they're using you know a revolutionary building product or technique or construction yeah construction technique it's never been used before either nationally or great to feel and so it's really truly innovative in that in that sense and so sometimes like and more and an exceptionalism policy this this application isn't one of those in terms of the only thing that differentiates it is the fact that they reference multi-generational living and maybe we have seen we have seen partially subterranean dwelling before so it's not it's not of a design quality which officers consider is exceptional and there aren't any features of it which are truly innovative so for all it would not qualify as a such an entity for we have as an authority had one of those before which I think strategic planning board considered a few years ago and so we are we are familiar with what could represent you know an exceptional design this unfortunate that is as it comes forward so council day they don't think council can it it's very small on this what's the material is it natural stone levels don't again council can we yes thank you thank you chair and i'd like to i ask the officers how they think that's small farm of 3.6 or if there's technicals i could do um with its widespread abilities some of which aesthetically Oliver said not a visualite except they're saying do not add a aesthetic beauty and appreciation to the countryside in any way whatsoever what do they think is going to happen there because it seems to me that we have to be a little bit comparative here we have we prepare if you like area of development and so on but it does seem to me we need to compare the static current impact on the countryside and i have to say i find even though it's a large building that because of the reconfiguring of the landscape and because of the careful concern in relation to the various sort of the impacts that it has it is far more integral in a modern sense as far as i'm concerned to a small farm that has absolutely no long-term economic purpose office is very happy to answer that question yes in terms of what i would say is you know agricultural buildings, farm steps by the nature they're a typical feature of land stage, countryside, and rural areas so you know the common features which do not look out of place or in common works some of which can be very large also they're broken up into sort of massing and layout so in this case they're well clustered within the farms there but they're broken up individually into separate buildings that allow space in between and they're also relatively low height in terms of the span and that has a very much lesser impact than taking a load of that volume and bulk of massing and placing it into wall consolidated maps so you're actually better having buildings that create a hierarchy and they're actually divided up and clustered together they will have a lesser impact and you know consolidating a whole mass together and yes as said earlier the dwelling will be partially subterranean there still will be that sort of an elevation which is exposed and also as a result of the engineering reprofiling there will be a change to that valley and landscape to the west and so it's not insignificant so that that is the difference as your question you asked the Councillor George to come back the answer is what is the opposite thing is the long term but not necessary long term you have a collection of buildings that are very relevant to the depth of mass in this case otherwise I don't think that's the one I'm a person of pleasure and I'm sorry I would ask the officers to address your question Councillor Edwards so just in terms of the the countryside existing buildings obviously what you have at the moment is typical of Jessica's life or be free of your whether it is yeah the relevance of it might look on tidy we've seen farms change from being operational farms through to farms that have been converted and then you have a sort of small residential area forming because if you've got large farms that have been converted that's part of the progression it happens and things that are going to be most new farms we've created again all of those are done in accordance with the appropriate policies that have been called at the time we never crystal ball games in planning if you know we deal with what's before us or before you as a committee to address at the time what we're not doing is what was going to set what's going to happen to this farm in the future what we are assessing is the planning application has been submitted to take away all of those buildings apart from a view for the for the banks but I think just to pick up the point as as Rob said I think I don't I don't get everyone to tell how members think this is fitting with the policies I understand and if this isn't about the quality and the presentation has been put forward I think it's you know in the right location I completely get where you know the design something else but the starting point for this is just well it isn't about numbers per setting for the replacement dwelling policy perspective which is what we deal with day and day out and you'll see on the list of planning applications that we deal with probably in any one week we probably have five tiny plates with dwellings and some of them are always pushing well most of them are always pushing me envelope because because it's about within material larger than the dwelling is replacing we've got some that have tried to remove sort of farmsteads and sort of add additional sort of mitigation starting to be larger perspective but I think in the area since it's my right real concern is that the well yes each is always going to be on its merits but the numbers on this are off the charts and I'm saying that with somebody of 25 years experience of dealing with replacement dwellings in this part of Cheshire onto a part of Cheshire as Rob said we've approved well intersectional dwelling that I'm aware of again through is my time that I'm aware of when you like to set out on that under exceptional part of the policy we have a very in part this authority you'll be aware we have a well and very wealthy population who are always sort of trying to push about is of how can we get a very large dwelling in in an area could decide do we absolutely want to live in exactly why you know we like Cheshire is where we are with the aggressors that we face in in the borough are very you know as you know as most of your residents is just considered so concerned about impacts in the place that they look so we have to balance all of these things and that the way we do that is by looking at the policies that we have and yes we look at exceptions is are the circumstances are the material considerations to weigh against those policies and that's what we do day in day out with replacement dwellings but say well it isn't just about them because the numbers do speak to themselves and I think the size of this is something that maybe isn't easy to appreciate you know I wear houses that will be approved at least more than the size but in addition to that we've got 760 solar panels in addition to that we're not knocking down all the buildings because we still need some of them before more storage and bats and barn elves and then don't forget we're filling the whole site with material from the local landscape just to fill in the house so it's not visible you stripped away that landscape it would be 59 whatever it is you need to cross it would be clearly visible so I think I don't want to sort of be sort of let those blunt terms from next down because there's a lot of effort coming to design and as our design consultant has said he likes to design things to you know how it's being designed has been it's been really well thought through but the final decision has to rest because of the planet's politics and all of those different policies so I think if you strip it down to what it is it's just in the wrong location and it doesn't mean the test from my perspective from a policy perspective and I will be really concerned if we approve this where it takes us in terms of what reputation is because we get constant pressure for people to build innovative designs that you probably haven't seen because of they don't really come to committee because they're just single to one of them so you don't see that behind the scenes but that's my you know my concern in life is that I don't want to sort of come down too much on the artifacts in the ages and the reasons for this but it does really mean real concern if this was this was something that was supported but ultimately that's down to the members of the party didn't it matter in the demographic process so that's why it's before you today can we have the books can we have the books yes I think listening to the debate on planning the depression I got was basically too big replacement so and you just said that it's in it's in the wrong place and so I'm trying to work out it did come forward with a new application which was on a smaller scale would that still not get your recommendation to approve because I'm not sure where the best place would be for a dwelling this time I don't know where else it would go because it won't go in the neighborhood itself I don't know just just me got me as Rob mentioned we have had subterranean properties submitted to us previously the reason why there's subterranean is they're normally trying to minimize the impacts of a very large building on a site that's actually got fairly modest building so okay it doesn't mean they can't and we've all seen the granny's eye sort of stuff it doesn't mean that they can't come forward but generally the reason for them is that they're trying to minimize the impact on something that they know is potentially pushing the boundaries of the policy and the maybe something that could be worked with in terms of there are other replacement dwellings that you know policies where we we've had farm steps and yes it has been materially larger than the dwelling it's been replacing but there are limited gaming impacts like some of your buildings that we've perhaps taken down as well so that actually overall impact is reduced so there's almost like being a little bit more condensed on a particular area of the site and that comes a different argument where you're looking at so well it's yes it's materially larger but in fact the art of a circumstances here that would be significant and this is kind of what's a what normal committee of dalton is that they said it is between you can't deny it's going to be larger they're bringing all of those other factors into it I think it's as I we've done the training the weight of balance that you apply for those issues are for you what you're doing as members today I suppose I'm just giving you my thoughts and that's that of service in terms of that respect the okay that accounts for books right so I've got four questions the first one is did the design officer consider that this is an exceptional property second and they might you might want maybe I was up here and secondly with regard to the lighting potential lighting dimension is that something that we can condition because I think this place is going to light up that valley like something of coast encounters in the third kind and I want to know what's going to happen to the remainder of the farmland because I know that the red line to this site doesn't include the whole the farm stage and finally where's the guy and just the first the first quote the terms of the design officer he is not going into an assessment as to whether it's exceptional design it's not going to present it but where and in terms of lighting and the main source of lighting will be emanating those windows on the southern elevation of which are quite a number everything that would say is in terms of applying submission it's referenced that there'll be integral shoppers to each window so I mean if members they go with the adaptation are being controlled by web condition in terms of both external lighting and also implementation of those shoppers farmland yeah I think says in your report part of the farm is probably a part of the whole image service etc we don't know what to happen so the remainder and garden is a good question and albeit you know we haven't thought about the benefit of quite a large site so I'm not sure exactly where the garden is going but I assume it's in the rear with the property actually just one can I come back on just one of those yeah the issue about the farmland is the land accessible virtually from a different location other than the access to this drive or this drive would the use of that land is sharing the drive with this present property. Good question I actually don't know the answer for that first the access truck would continue and Northwards I'm not sure whether there's alternative access to that elsewhere and just so I can't actually answer that can I ask Councillor Redford's that because he's yet sorry Councillor Edgar that because he appeared at the site in a different location for the rest of this then you can't get out of the out out onto the main road that way or can you might be up to you. I can't answer that question thank you. So are there any other questions then on my assumptions I believe that because we're in both of me we're in Councillor Sneddon's war so I'm going to ask Councillor Sneddon to open the debate. Thank you, Chair. Yes it's a difficult one isn't it? However I was interested in everything everyone had to say very much so of course and I think the impact on the countryside we've got to take into consideration problems generally are particularly pretty are they but we are losing them hand over this so I don't know how we can stop that but we probably can't. The policy issue interests me very much because should we set a precedent against this our policies I like to adhere to them as much as possible they're not there they are there for a reason. We've got mostly comments as well and the conditions of being referred to and if it were to be approved to make sure it stays what is intended to be and lots of really good comments are made but overall it's rather much easier for what is being said it's intended to be for various reasons and I don't think we should approve this mainly on that policy okay we also like to speak. Can't let it get then, Councillor Flowers. Thank you, Chair. I would rather have come up with this application particularly in this style of the A-rooms and the fact that the green hat is only on one with them the face of West and my agricultural experience and the green hat is it's plus all over for the project. I think we need to approve strength and support the review and as performed by officers and I want to go to the review. Is that a proposal to review yet? As in according to the officer's recommendation, Councillor Flowers. First of all I don't love grandsons. I watch these profiles all the time and this is an extraordinary design in some senses of that interpretation so I have absolutely no doubt about its credentials in terms of heat, source, retention and things and all the other things but in terms of what it's been designed for, I mean design is eternally questionable. I do not am afraid and adhere to this idea that this is more generation living. It looks more like a curtain inside or some kind of hotel which may mean how people prefer to live I don't know and I can't judge people on that but in terms of if this is more generation living then we have to assume that at various points people of different ages and different generations will live there and I can't see how that is believed in my mind. In terms of UV design there is that balance isn't there between looking at what the MPPS says and possibly setting on welcome questions and I think here we're setting an unwelcome precedent and then similarly in terms of impact there's a lot of information in the design statement about the pros and cons of positioning the house against different elevations and they come up with this particular elevation sort of it's like southeast this southwest space and so on. Well I went to the site visit I went around this you know where the road was going to go down and the one thing that immediately struck you is of course you can choose this to the ocean because the views are absolutely fabulous and I can quite understand why someone ought to look out of that every day but at the end of the day they can look out people can look in and whether you're on top of those features in the far distance or the near distance you are going to get a view of this even if it's a new relatively far distance one but it would stick out appropriately in the landscape where previously we just see a few rooms of bonds and I have to say there's probably used to be the largest factor that I have to come across in my planning career. A whole lot of thought of that and I cannot see that it's in addition to it that it would be learnt on that it would have to be developed and the banks would have to be accommodated within that construction but we have a lot of choices in this happening. So I think in terms of aesthetics and the published side is this prettier? Yes it is in some respects but actually that's trying to compare apples and oranges. You know farmers and farmers are working places just to look in it and their planning policies related to private buildings are quite different to those related to dwellings so I've had a conversation and I'm going to call this agreements with our panelists about this issue and how we're going to find aesthetically pleasing faculty buildings and countries like it but they are definitely necessary for people so I don't really need to be there or to give a proper question because there are all those reasons language, dark arts and how that can be for traditional relationships and the set of social interests. That is the model of the traditional and principle that I was sharing with others about the issue of cross-diving all the standard youth. All those reasons are not going to be about this point of worship and that you have to understand what it is. Does anyone else want to speak? Chapter 7. Thanks, I believe that we also have the decision on the relation to the youth. This application is in the notion that the issue. 7th and 10th and 6th. So our panelists are both the world and I just asked them from a third of ladies of the generation of women. We've got a nice group of jazz that I've connected with especially with non-in-profit and we've got the women areas to have a nice group. So we have all sorts of problems that we've designed. I'm going to ask some questions from a general opportunity to talk to them and how that acts. So I have some various things in the lab that we can share with you in a real class very, very good. It's a shame because I want to include something in a fifth and general in a fifth, by a family, but it's a small reason. So we're going to have to cancel out the data papers. Thank you, Chef. 7th and 7th is the degree that we have. So you did it. As I said before, I used to do it in a fifth. And if you go afterwards, you've got to close and take it to the next. There was a massive white out there. The moment I used to put a spray in. And it's a hard one to do with it. In the context of achievement, and this idea, I know the ability to learn from the end. This idea is the second degree. This building is behind this huge palace. And so I don't think that I'll close it. And so I'll answer it. Thank you. We've got to comment on a few to make. So David has alluded to the fact that it's spreading butter for officers as well. For a while, it's spreading butter, my brain butter as well. And I was on the other side trying to get permission. And I can assure you that there were various ways of trying to calculate the floor areas. The volumes of these buildings to try and assume we would often put a floor below the ground. Because that way you can count it with an aerofonometric capacity. It didn't always get asked the officers at Matt Rossville about the council or elsewhere that I tried to do that. The reality is that the applicants said that they were future-proofing this building in the way they were doing that. And they have a service provision. And I can't say what him or his clients are thinking of. If I was a small-scale boutique hotelier and this property came on to the market having been used as a family home, I would have snapped it up because, as the council said, rightly pointed out, that's where the views are. I find that the interior layout to be quite interesting if this is a family home. There is no nursery, there is no play area, there is no TV room. These are all things that there are cold stores and wine stores. All the things that I would expect to be only in houses occupied by adults and possibly having lots of guests while they're there. I think they're called party houses. There's actually a people are now buying up properties and letting them out of the weekend as party houses. I had this being a case of the office's support in the city being an exceptional house. I might have been in favor, but the trouble is, I can remember many years ago when I was a panel officer down south. We had an application for a subterranean house in the area of outstanding electrocuted around North Berkshire. The applicants came in with a much lesser explanation, but their argument was, because it was underground, it couldn't be seen, they had no impact on anybody. My boss, rather cleverly pointed out to the applicants in the meeting, where were you going to park your cars and then in this one they are under the ground? Where were you going to hang the washing? Where were your children going to play? Well, all of those things, so play equipment, rotary lights, all of those things have an impact on the environment. And actually they do change it. And I think the point that was raised about the scale and massing of existing buildings is, actually the old barn that's being retained, the barn opposite are actually attractive buildings. And if they were maintained and converted, that could be a form of the income from there. And separate residential properties, that would all be acceptable in terms of the reuse of, and much, I think much more eco-friendly than digging out half of the valley, and Anthony, and concrete, and whatever. I know it's going to be front and stone, but I very much doubt that the valuations people will allow the developers to use stone in the back walls. So, I'm not favorite of space towards this. We have a proposal and a recommendation. I'm going to ask, is anybody else want to speak for the back offices? No, I'm not going to move to you, I'm not going to move to you, I'm not going to move to you. Nothing to add, but in that case I'm going to go to the table. It's being proposed that we go with the officers' recommendation to refuse, proposed by council registrants, seconded by councilor Klaus. Will all those in favour of that recommendation please show? One, two, three, four, five, six. And those against? One, two. And those against, council members? Okay, so those against? Yes, thank you. One, two. And those abstaining. Thank you very much. In that case, that brings today's proceedings to an end. It's been a very long meeting, particularly to all those new members. However, I'm kind of sure this is not the longest meeting in the strategic plan board, but I've been sat in. So, this might become the norm. So, I hope you all have a safe, journey home and a pleasant evening. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Yes, sir. It's kind of a question to you. Thank you. That won't be telling lies. [BLANK_AUDIO]