Transcript

Dunoon's Planning Committee. Welcome to members of the public too, or here. The first item on the agenda is to notification of those present that the meeting will be recorded and streamed online. Are we live currently? Yeah. We are live on YouTube. So just to let people know, our members of the public know that the camera goes to the speakers, but it does, it does also catch members of the public as well when it goes to people who speak. On this side and knowing that Councillors on that side, there will be speakers on that side. So just to make you aware of that, that you'd be caught on YouTube. So the first item on the agenda is apologies for absence, and we've got quite a few tonight, Catherine. Yes, thank you Chair. I have Councillor Shakesha, Councillor Brooks, Councillor Tif, Councillor Sallyington, Councillor Simey, and Councillor Spours. Second item on the agenda is a declaration of interest my members and officers. I'll declare an interest from a South Councillor Dales and Councillor Moulton as a member of Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board, Councillor Rainbow. Yeah, I'm not sure whether I should declare this, but item number six, Landick Greenway-Rollston, we have considered a similar application here before, but obviously this is a completely different application. Okay, don't know whether that's an interest, don't I? Well, that's why I just- Yeah, yeah, better to raise it than not. Yeah, okay. Next item on the agenda is minutes of the meeting, health 9th of May. They've got them in the agenda back here. Happy that I signed them as a true and correct record. Thank you. Part one items for decision. First, a gender item is a gender item five, which is a former allotment of Barnaby Road, Newark, and over to you, Oliver. Thank you, Chairman. This proposal is for an outline permission for residential development former allotments on Barnaby Road, Newark, with access and layout being considered. This means that appearance, landscaping, and scale are reserved. This proposal has been referred to committee by Councillor Moore on behalf of New York Town Council, who have raised a number of concerns which I shall highlight during the presentation. There is a late item with respect to the draft conditions, which I shall also bring to members' attention towards the end of the presentation. The proposal is located on a 1.15 hectare site on the north side of Barnaby Road, roughly to the southeast of the town centre, and it's within the Newark urban area, as defined within the plan. The site is best described as an 'L' plan, sort of upside down 'L' plan, and the bottom part on Barnaby Road adjacent to a particular bagel balls is bounded by a mature hedgerow, which is some sort of three, four metres in height. At this part of the site was last used as allotment, some ten years or so ago. The East Coast main line runs along the northern edge of the site, and to the south we've got some modern housing, which you can see there, just on the south side of the site. There's some beautiful photos here. The site contains a large number of trees, but it's otherwise very overgrown and unmanaged. I know from my own site, I felt that I needed a machete or a strimmer to get into the site, so it's very overgrown. There's a remnants of a track adjacent to Ascot House, which is the house on the right-hand side, if you're looking at the site from Barnaby Road. The Barnaby Road part, as I mentioned, was last used as a private allotment, and the image on the top right is taken from 2009 Google Street View and gives you a bit of an idea of what it used to look like, but I can tell you it's very overgrown now. As I already mentioned, there's a modern housing site and some pictures of those properties, which are set back from the road with very pleasant greenery to the roadside. There's just some further images, as you would see the site from Barnaby Road, just showing you again very green landscape on the street, and you can see there that it's very overgrown and quite a high hedge. In terms of the planning history on this site, we draw your attention to the fact that a single dwelling was refused in 2016 on that bottom part of the Alta Barnaby Road, and the planning committee, aside from concerns about character and policy, we're also concerned about impact on ecology, in particular common toads, and the potential impact on grass lakes. The proposal would see the creation of a vehicular access off Barnaby Road. This road would be adopted and it would extend into the site and then sweep around to the eastern side parallel with the railway line and it would provide essentially a cul-de-sac to the proposed dwellings. The layout plan shows an area of managed traditional orchard along the western side of the access adjacent to the gables, which would be open space, and beyond that would be a larger area containing an attenuation and wildlife pond and an area of habitat to the northwest corner adjacent to the railway line. You can just see that on the slide there with the blue bit being the pond and the land to the northeast alongside the railway line would be a managed traditional orchard. The application sets out a housing mix of two bedders, three three bedders, and four plus bedders. The dwellings would be located in the broad lines, the rear of the existing ribbon development along Barnaby Road. Plots one, two, seven, eight, and nine are depicted as detached dwellings with plots three to six shown as semi-detached dwellings. None of the plots have garages or outbuildings shown. All dwellings would be two-storey except for plot nine which would be a bungalow. A little bit more detail on the proposed vehicle access. You can just see then a bit more detail the managed traditional orchard and the attenuation pond, and you can also see the proposed roadway and turning area. One of the key concerns raised by the town council is the site's not been allocated for housing. Officers believe that the principal development on this site is acceptable. The site is within the defined built up area of the town as identified in map two of the allocations in development management for DPD. It's not been used in allotment for some time. The site is not identified in the current council space strategy. The proposal offers the housing mix that would help meet the identified needs of the area and the provision of nine dwellings would make a contribution to the housing stock albeit a modest one. In character terms as this is an outline with only access and layout considered we're confined to considering whether nine residential units are capable of being developed without detrimental impact. Officers feel that the proposed access and layout is compatible with local character noting the presence of limited other backland schemes nearby and I would also draw attention to an extant outline permission for ten dwellings at Grovebungrow on the southern side of Barnewood. Overall officers feel that there will be limited views of the development from the road and notwithstanding the impact of the new access. No adverse impacts have been identified in respect of highway safety nor upon the living conditions of existing or proposed residents. Please note that consideration has been given to the proximity of the railway and a noise assessment was provided as part of the application and should members be minded to approve the scheme consideration would then need to be given it reserved matters for a noise mitigation strategy and this might take the form of an acoustic barrier or design features on the properties themselves that would be sound insulation for example. Clearly the trees and ecology of this site are incredibly important. The site comprises a currently unmanaged area of green space in the habitat including trees and hedgerows. As such the applicant was required to submit an Abora cultural report, an impact assessment, preliminary ecological appraisal, a reptile survey and a ground level back roost assessment and all of this has been submitted in support of the application. For clarity this proposal was lodged before mandatory biodiversity net game came into force. The Council's lead ecologist has reviewed the submitted reports and the proposals and does not object to the scheme. Given the retention of a large part of the site for habitat and given the areas available for enhancements it's considered a subject to conditions and securing a biodiversity management plan that would see favourable management for a 30 year long period that the scheme would comply with core policy 12 and ecological policies within the MPPF. We have noted the town council's concerns about impact on ecology including the common toad. An amphibious mitigation and compensation strategy is required to address this. The proposed layout shows this addictively in the location recommended by the ecologist and therefore at this stage it's been adequately planned for but further detail would need to be secured at reserve matter stage and it would be expected that the toad corridor be fenced off during the construction phase. As set out in the report at 7.26 a number of trees will need to be removed for the development. These are shown in yellow on the slide. Prior to this meeting after the report we've been reassured that the hedge at the rows have may not want to be removed in full but rather quote the highway officer at this point needs to be given a significant haircut. The majority of the tree loss is for relatively low graded pore specimens that do not need the threshold for protection. Moreover and this is key these trees could be compensated for as there's space to do so and this again would need to be controlled by a condition stroke per section 106 agreement and just again for clarity there is no objection from the council's tree officer subject to appropriate measures to protect trees being retained and consideration of appropriate landscaping at reserve matter stage. Finally I need to draw your attention to some late items from essentially a discussion between the case officer and the applicant with respect to the wording of conditions and some suggestions have been made on amending the wording of some of the conditions and if members were minded to approve we would like those where the officer agrees to incorporate those into the conditions. I'll just go through those if that's okay chairman. The condition five has been suggested to add just a minor tweak to the condition and that is to add to the words between two meters and 0.6 meters and this is for the visibility display onto by the road and it just gives a bit of clarity on basically removal of upper branches from trees and the planning officer feels that that will give a bit of clarity and it is a sensible tweak to the condition. Condition six which concern the widely of a public footpath at the north west of the access is being proposed to delete this condition but add the wording to the section 106 agreement as officers we feel that that will give it a bit more strength and be better to deliver those improvements to the footpath. So that's an important one and then condition 13 the applicant sought to have felt that some of the tree conditions that we put on were slightly owners well you'll be pleased to know that we've disagreed with that and we've asked that no amendments are made to those strict conditions and then condition 14 which relates to activities in construction near trees we've suggested some word change very minor just again to give clarity and then condition 17 again slight tweak to the wording and we've added the words for clarity site clearance the installation of tree protection measures and matters such as soil sampling I'm not considered to constitute a start to the development so again I hope that will reassure members that there's some clarity there and then lastly on condition 19 which is the where we would control the housing mix and we've added the words or more after four by four bed dwellings to make sure that the condition aligns with the actual that scheme being proposed and that is there could be four four plus bed dwellings rather than just limited to four bed dwellings and that you'll be based on this is the conclusion of my report the recommendation is to grant as set out in section 10 on agenda page 33 subject to section 106 and conditions otherwise incorporating the suggested changes in late items recommended offices thanks those changes and tweaks to the conditions have been circulated just prior to this meeting they didn't include any new documents or anything there was just a phone conversation between the applicant and the case officer so apologies for the late circulation of those conditions but they have been emailed them and I did ask only but to go through them as well for for clarity of this meeting I to enter into debate as per our constitution I will approve subject to the conditions and the amended conditions at 5 6 14 17 and 19 those conditions so I'll move those I second it and I think we've got a speaker to this one and it's Lisa Geary council Geary okay thank you so I'm Lisa Geary I'm representing the new at town council and our planning committee objects to this development as has been addressed by your officer this development site is not allocated housing in the local development plan and in fact a large area of land to the north of the site is allocated for housing development can be another huge housing development and this might be one of the last wildlife sites left in that area because a large number of other sites have already been approved a long bombi road and so not only has there been an enormous depletion of trees and wildlife in that area there's also a big strain on traffic in that area and there was a lot of concern about a site slightly to the north of there a long bombi road that you might recall in recent months there was a lot of concern about traffic and this is nine large properties which again there's no evidence that we need four bedroom properties in Newark they're just about to build some four bedroom properties on a sports pitch on El Marvino so that's another green site that we're losing in Newark and there is an enormous pressure on green spaces in Newark we've lost the site by the leisure center that was in marked for a cemetery extension we now need a cemetery extension we've lost that land there is an enormous pressure on land in Newark and it's not fair on the people in Newark that they have no green sites left and their towed population has been decimated by development that's been allowed to continue a long bombi road and so I'm very disappointed that the chair and the deputy chair are marking this for approval and the officers too the presumption that development is good has got to change at some point you know when will we we have too much development and this is not going to be safe for the people on bombi road in terms of the traffic management there's no evidence that we need four bedroom houses there'll be too expensive for most local people they're not being built for public or social housing and they're just being built for profit and the totes population has suffered over the last 20 years it's got smaller and smaller and this is one of the last remaining sites of backland there where the totes can live in peace thank you. Thanks Lisa. Councilor. So Councilor Geary I'm just correct you there I haven't said I agree with this or well refuse it or whatever no you you sort of implied that the chair and myself already agreed yes and explain Councilor Geary is part of our constitution to enter into the debate we move the officers recommendation that doesn't indicate which way we're going to vote it's just it's just an administrative process as per our constitution which I tried to explain and obviously didn't explain particularly well when I did it but thanks okay all right. Okay anybody want to make comments or ask any questions? Councilor Melton then Councillor Harris. Thank you Chair and I'm concerned about the wildlife that may be displaced I am concerned that there seems to be disagreement between the our ecology officer and the applicants ecology officer as to whether it's traditional orchard or not and the fact of having an old traditional orchard that can be apparently made into a traditional orchard by planting new trees doesn't sit well with me I have to say I am also concerned that because it has been quote unquote neglected for a long time the wildlife is probably quite prevalent there and the suggestion that the original site was to have 10 houses and then reduced to nine seems to me to be one of these little tricks of the trade to bring it under a different heading to what it would be if it would 10 houses so I am left feeling uncomfortable like there may be other things I would like to say but that's my initial position I reserve the right to say a little more if I need to thank you Chair. Councillor Harris. Thank you Chair. I can't share that concern particularly with the degradation from 10 to 9 that seems very suspicious to me. I noticed that there's no condition to preclude any development on the other side of the development roads closer to the east coast main line and that may well be a subsequent development and I think that that should be automatically refused. I'd like to know why the section 106 with regards to the pavement extension has been suggested because the condition was prior to commencement of work not subsequent to the work and that seems to me to be an odd change of mind by the officer in terms of recommending section 106. I'm sorry I can't get hold of the up-to-date amendments because my outlook is preventing access so I don't have that in front of me I apologize. There's an oddity in terms of these were a form of allotments that haven't been used. I don't know the situation in Europe whether or not there's a demand for the Romans I'm surprised if there isn't and whether or not this land has been deliberately left to become wild with the anticipation of there being development in the near future or the long-term future and that does surprise me again so I hear what the town council have said and tend to support their view. Thank you Chair. Yeah this is one of those applications where I completely empathised with the town council's position on this however looking for material planning reasons to support that is difficult. It's outlined so only access and layout to be considered this evening. Of the five reasons raised by the town council the railway line is already there it's caveat emptor I think you you know today when you buy your house. There may be plans for more housing to the north but it's just potentially at the moment so it might never happen so we can't consider that as a material planning reason I don't think and the highway safety issues again I understand but highways haven't objected. I do share concerns about the loss of Greenland but our tree officers and biodiversity officers haven't objected to this either so the fact that it's not allocated for housing I think is worthy of discussion but we are in the sub-regional centre of Newark here which is where we are meant to focus housing and growth so on balance I understand the reasons why the town council are uncomfortable with it and I perhaps am myself but in terms of material planning reasons for refusal I'm not sure if there are any strong enough to refuse. Thank you chair. Oliver do you want to come back on the point that councilor how is raised? Thank you. Thank you. Yeah worth just discussing the section 106 with respect to the pre-commencement condition. The reason the condition was worded as a pre-commencement condition is because the land where the footpath lies is outside of the red line so essentially we'd be looking at a grandpa arrangement so as officers there were kind of two ways that we could look at this one would be to extend the red line to include the footpath land then that would require further consultation and engagement or we could deal with it through conditional the 106 and obviously if we can deal with issues by conditioning then we should try to do that and that's the approach we're taking here and we feel that this can be resolved through the 106. Okay I'm trying to find the bit about the traditional orchard that councilor felt and raised and I did have it up on my screen now I have it fairly early on isn't it? Noting the council dale said the ecology officer hasn't raised any concerns but did raise concerns initially about the traditional orchard that I just wondered what's changed that opinion. Yeah thank you chairman yeah the our lead ecologist was essentially believed that the should be defined as a specific type of orchard and the applicants ecological expert disagreed but since the proposal is to actually have an orchard and put a lot of biodiversity back into the skin I felt that this disagreement was irrelevant and actually this is one of those I appreciate this is an office of view but from our perspective that good management of the ecology of the site in this particular case is actually beneficial and although we recognize the concerns the reason our lead ecologist and our tree officer do not object to the scheme is that they see value going back into it and good management strategies so yes there was a disagreement about the labeling if you like but the fact that our lead ecologist was happy with the proposals and the fact that the applicant was putting value back into the skin and I should draw attention to that 30 year plan that that is something that's measurable and deliverable and you should be able to give some weight to that in your thinking. Councillor LAMOR. Mr Chair can you tell me how many trees will be cut down and is there a cast iron guaranteed that they will be replaced and with more? Councillor interjecting. Is that figure available on there? Councillor interjecting. Yes. So it's summarised even how it will be to the 70th August? Councillor interjecting. I'm looking for it again, sorry. Councillor interjecting. Well, hold on. Yes, 7.26 if you refer to the report there is a specific list of the trees to be removed. Councillor interjecting. I can. There are a few seconds. Councillor interjecting. It's eight individual trees. So that's two common ash, a common hazel, an orchard apple. In fact, there's four of those in total. In total, six groups of trees which comprise semi-mature or young ash, blackthorn, elder, and horses, aren't first and further semi-mature groups of trees. Again, hawthorn, elder, blackthorn, etc. And then obviously I've already mentioned the hedgerow on the roadside, which as already mentioned may not need to have as much removed of it as originally envisaged. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. And can you tell me, is there a cast-iron guarantee that they will be replaced? And by what? And how many? Councillor interjecting. So the information is indeed to put trees back onto the site at the precise numbers and the extent of that is to be agreed at a reserve matter stage. Councillor interjecting. Yeah, this is outline application. Those details will be available reserve matters. You can't hold them and then cancel them out and again. Thanks, Chair. Please bear with me. I've got such a migraine coming on. I'm trying so hard to fight it. So I might be a bit rambling. First of all, I just wanted to say in a positive way how much more detailed this report is from an ecology perspective. I think it was at the last planning committee we were saying. It was like a really short paragraph saying a significant amount of trees but then there was no detail on the species. So I found this incredibly detailed and so much more thorough which really helps us make a much more data-driven informed decision. So I wanted to thank you on that. I'm finding this so hard, so conflicting, for the same reasons that Councillor Dales has said. But a few things, you know, I think every time I was going through the report was like, oh, that's concerning. But then later in the report, it was this is going to be compensated by and then this is in a condition and this is in a condition. So again, I just want to congratulate the officer because I think they have, I feel like not for a change, but I feel like this has been done really well in that you can tell they've worked really well with the applicant to try and get the ultimate best balance for biodiversity. However, I still do have concerns about biodiversity on this site. You know, we just heard from Councillor Geary about the housing developments are going to be going on very, very close to that site and with this in addition, because this is a hotspot, four toads, four grass snakes, it does make me worry about the impact overall of more roads, more cars, more cats and what impact this is going to have on those species. For example, you know, the common toad is now a priority species in the UK and it is part of our National UK Biodiversity Action Plan. So to me, this is screaming out for a site for nature restoration and to protect that common toad, not to put it at risk even more. And you know, just this year, Knox County Council are going to be putting out a local nature recovery strategy after consultation. And again, we're going to be really needing sites like this that have got successful breeding populations of these species. And it has got a confirmed population of grass snakes as well, which is fully protected by British law, making it illegal to deliberately harm or kill a snake. And again, I just worry about snakes getting caught in road traffic accidents and being picked up by cats as they're becoming in more contact with people with houses put there. So that also concerns me. I think what I've learned is it's far harder to refuse an application that is already in, you know, in an area that's in our local development plan, but this site isn't. And I just can't see strong enough evidence for the demand for houses against the potential impact of these key species in this area. And I just had a question. You said about the allotments haven't been used for a while, but I would like a bit more detail. So how many years is a while? And do you know the reasons why it's not an allotment anymore would just help? Thank you. I've been Councillor Malton in first and then we can answer those questions. Councillor Malton. Thank you, Chair. That's useful because I have a question as well. My question, let me start with the question. If it hasn't been allocated to housing, does that provide the kind of material planning consideration that Councillor Dales was talking about? In other words, does it allow us to say it's not in scrappy? That's my first question. How clear is that allocation request? Secondly, while I share a lot of the concerns that Councillor Oldham has indicated, I wanted to ask the question as well about the 30-year management plan. How much confidence have we got? Who is responsible for that 30-year plan in delivering it? And how much confidence do we have that it will be delivered? Is it one of these, oh yes, we'll deliver it and then it never does happen. That's a concern that I have. Thanks, Councillor Malton. That question about the fact that it's not allocated, I mean I'll leave it, come back on it obviously, but it's a question I had as well. Oliver. Thank you, Chairman. So I've tried to deal with these in order. So, Councillor Oldham's career about the allotments, it's privately owned, so that's an important distinction. As best we can tell, it's not been used for 10 years or so. That image, I was back to it. There we go, the top right there. I found that on the Google Street view, gives you a sense of what was there, but that was 2009. Between then and now it's fallen into disuse. I couldn't tell you why, but nobody has come forward to disagree with the fact that it appears to have been about 10 years since it was last year. In terms of the, obviously the biodiversity 106, this would be seen as a really robust strategy, and I should reassure members, because they reassured officers, the really significant impact of our own lead ecological practitioner has really got involved in this, and he's happy with what's being proposed and that it can be controlled properly. And actually, as a legal agreement, that does carry a bit more weight to it. Dr Scott, I just want to draw your attention to condition eight, which is about drainage and flooding, notwithstanding the emotion that was passed at this council and the fact that we are engaging in lobbying the LGA County Council and government, whichever government comes on the 5th of July. The condition on flooding is as far as we can go at the moment. We, as this authority has said, in council, would like to go further. But the conditions that have been put there particularly on surface water drainage is in line with our policies and our core policies. But as I said, we'd like to go further to ensure that there are costings there and the fact that we would like surface water drainage to be put up front. I mean, this is outline planning application anyway, so those details would come. But it's just a point I wanted to make. I bring Council, I've got a stim, but I just wanted to ask a question as well, which I think I'll go to Tim after I've asked the question to give you time to think about the answer, because if you look at point nine, point three, Council Geary was making the point that there wasn't an identified need for this type of housing, whereas at nine point three, it says the proposal offers a housing mix that would help meet the identified needs of the area, the provision of nine, two hundred and make a modest contribution to the housing stock. So obviously, there's a difference of opinion there, and I'd just like to examine the identified need that it's meeting, but I'll bring Councilor Wildhust in first. Thank you, Chair. Firstly, I'd like to agree with Councilor Dao some of the points there. I'm looking for material reasons why we can't let this go through. And there's a couple of things that stick in my mind here, and one is that we have got a really good biodiversity and lead ecologist in the camp. We're very lucky to have that, and I think we have to trust that opinion that he's had. He's looked at that, he's looked at the species, he's looked at everything involved, and he believes this can be mitigated and can be built without damaging that, and I think that's one of the key things to me. The other thing is, if you think about this work, these were allotments. Now, I guess they could be used as allotments tomorrow, and if you went and stripped and planted potatoes in there, which they could do, you potentially destroy all the ecology that's built up over the last ten years in there anyway, with no mitigation at all. So I think you have to remember what it was actually useful, in fact, by allowing it to go into follow effectively, you probably increase the biodiversity. So I have to have some faith in our own lead ecologists on this, and I cannot, with any, I do understand the new town council's view of it, but I can't see any reason why I could refuse this. Thank you too. This council, I guess, I think as well agreeing with Councilor Oldham's initial points, where the amount of detail we're up here, which in, for an outline application, the amount of detail we've had on biodiversity, does enable us to consider what the professional officers have said, and have trust in their opinion, that the biodiversity can be enhanced or maintained as part of this development. Although Councilor Oldham did ask questions and ask concerns, as does Councilor Melbourne. I think a lot of those concerns that I had when I first read this, similar to Councilor I had a concern, it was addressed, I had a concern, it was addressed, and I think on that basis, it's a very good report, but Oliver, I'll bring you back in. Thank you Chairman. Yeah, so the question you asked me about the housing mix, I'll draw your attention to the table at 7.21, which refers to the District Council's own housing needs survey, which dates back to 2020, and represents our most up-to-date housing needs, and if you look at that table for what is required for the Newark sub-area housing need, and then what's being proposed, you'll see as the officer points out in 7.22 that the housing mix closely resembles the housing need. I hope that gives some clarity on that particular question. The other one is I'm afraid I forgot to answer the very important question about the principle of development, so apologies there. Clearly, this site falls within the area identified within the amended course strategy, it's the sub-regional centre, so it's a sustainable settlement, Councilor Dales picked up on this, this is where, in policy terms, we're supposed to focus the large area of new development, and importantly, it's part of the built-up area of Newark, and policy DM1, if we go back to basics, you know, states that within the urban area of the sub-regional centre, development will be supported for housing appropriate to the size and location of the settlement. Thank you, Chair, and if I can add to that, it's probably worth me rolling back slightly to understand what the allocations document actually is, what the course strategy actually is, so what that is, is identifying where there may be changes to the urban boundary, so you might know that most of the site allocations that are shown in the allocations document are ones where the boundary was then extended, so we're going back to 2011 and 2013 now, but they were the two iterations of the plan. Within the urban boundaries, so if you like, within the Newark urban area as it's called, development can still take place particularly housing development without that allocation, so the principle being that is acceptable, however, still subject to the other matters that you would look at, that you've mentioned a little bit tonight, so designing ecology highways and all the other technical matters, so hopefully that helps that another case you normally, it's about where additional boundaries might be extended, it doesn't apply to something like this. Any further comments, questions, Council? I wasn't sure if I was allowed to come back in. I know this probably isn't a material consideration, I was just saying to Councillor Amour, it's almost frustrating when you only see one side of the corn coin, so we had that table which was there housing demands for us, for people, but I was like saying to Adrian, well what about the habitat demands for totes to weigh up against, to balance it out. You know, there's a saying here that, you know, this species has declined in the UK by 68% in the last 30 years, and if it continues at this rate, we will lose this species from the great, from Great Britain by 2030, so just wanted to put that into perspective because that balance wasn't in the report, thank you. Thank you, if there are no further comments, I mean, I have my own view on this one, is that similar to Councillor Wargos, and similar to Councillor Oldham's initial contribution, I feel that the officers have worked with the applicant to make, by even though he came in before by reversing net gain, I think what the officers have achieved and could achieve, as long as there is that 30-year management plan which, and we'll get the details from that as part of the reserve matters and further conditions, I would imagine. I'm happy to move approval, and I will move approval as per the Office of Recommendations with the changes that Oliver outlined to various conditions as he gave earlier. Do I have a seconder? Councillor lower second. All those in favour of approval? 1-2-3-4-5. All those against? 1-2-3-2-3. Ofcentions? Okay, that's carried, thank you. Agenda item 6, land at Greenaway-Rogestone, Laura. Thank you, Chair. So we're on page 47 of your agendas, and this application is before members because the Council is the applicant. So some of us went on site earlier. The site includes two existing bungalows that are sort of towards the south of the site, and then the rest of the land, which is predominantly green space, just to the south of the village hall. So the application site is separated by the village hall by an existing area of green space, and there's the play area beyond. It's to the edge of the village of Rolliston, with the open countryside beyond the east. There's also a public right of way that runs alongside the main access and up the north eastern boundary of the site. There's neighbouring residential properties on either side of the site, and also some development towards a call to the south there. So it's just some existing photographs of the site. These are the existing bungalows that are on site, neighbouring developments. This is looking out towards the agricultural fields to the east, with the existing trees, and the hedgerow that forms the boundary. I think that was, yeah, looking towards the village hall just at the north of the site there. So the post-application is for five dwellings in total, including demolition of the existing two bungalows. The schedule of accommodation is set out on page 49 of the agenda. There will be one true bungalow, two door bungalows, and two semi-detached houses. The area to the north eastern site, so shown in the blue line here, would be retained and kept open as green space. There's been a few revisions throughout the life application, including changes to the house types, so the door bungalows have been changed to move their windows towards the front, and also there's been a change to the plot that's on the corner to give it more of a dual aspect as you're coming into the site. And also just worth mentioning that the boundary treatments of the rear of these gardens have been softened slightly given that they're going to be adjacent to the open space. So members may recall that there was a previously refuse scheme on this site for eight dwellings, which was at committee in April last year. The full reason for a refusal on that scheme is at page 48 of the agenda, but essentially it was a accumulation of harm, a number of issues. The main changes proposed now are there's less dwellings, so there's three less dwellings. The development will be further away from the village halls on the previously refuse scheme. The presidential courtage was putting the village hall boundary, and there's been some reorientation of the dwellings in this area here. So this is the scheme that's before you this evening. The parish council objection is set out towards the end of page 51. They still have concerns over the impact of the village hall, which I'll come on to shortly, and the problems of parking and drainage, which has also been mirrored in the neighbour comments, which have been summarised from page 52. There's no other statute of objections to the application. In terms of the Council of Development, the Morrison is a spatial policy three village. It's a rural village. The officers have accepted that this site is within the village, rather than being the open crunch side, and that wasn't disputed in the consideration of the last application, and this village just has access to facilities. This scheme has also for five affordable housing units, which would meet local needs, and that weighs positively in the overall planning balance. So as I've mentioned, the parish council and neighbouring comments have raised concerns in terms of the impact of the village hall, which was also part of the reason for refusal in the previous application. As I've already said, the dwellings have now been moved further away from the hall, and the environmental health officers not raise issues in terms of noise, with the ability to control details of the sound installation by conditions which is set out, suggested at condition 13, which is page 74 of the agenda. It's worth also noting that the site was never intended for over fill parking for the village hall. It's understood that that's how it's been used, but this is an informal arrangement, and it wouldn't be reasonable to resist this application, based on a lot of ability to use it for over fill parking when that's not a formal arrangement or required for the purpose of the village hall application. It's also worth noting that that element wasn't in the previous reason for refusal, and obviously this application retains more space than the previous application. You can see on this plan that the access, so there's a blue squiggly line, which shows the flood zone, and shows that the site's access is at risk of flooding. The actual houses themselves would be in flood zone one. As with the previous application, officers agree that it's reasonable to limit the sequential test area due to the housing needs of the village, given that there are no other reasonable sites available that would be at lesser risk of flooding in terms of having access not at risk of flooding, then it is considered that the sequential test has been passed, and also it's worth noting that the right of way which would be retained would offer a safe pedestrian refuge in flood zone one. It's noted that there's drainage concerns locally, but as with the previous application, officers are content that the applicant has done enough to demonstrate how the new houses could be catered for in the network, and the drainage approval would be controlled outside the planning process. In terms of treatment ecology, the previous refusal cited a lack of response to the rural edge of the settlement, which the applicant is sought to address by reducing numbers of dwellings on site and retaining this area of open space to the north of the site. They are somewhat constrained by full redesign, given they need to retain this access to the field to the east, but they've done what they can in terms of reducing the numbers. A less dense scheme obviously means more open space and more trees that will be retained. To clarify, the application was submitted prior to the next game legislation coming to force, so it isn't required to provide a 10% increase, albeit there are conditions recommended for additional landscaping, and there would be some space for additional landscaping along this access road. We note the content of the tree offset in respect to the nearby TPO tree, which actually isn't shown on this plan, but it's sort of just in this neighbouring garden here, so it's outside the application site. However, it wouldn't be a dissimilar relationship to the existing bungalow, and it's unlikely that the shading on this garden would necessitate the full removal of the tree. It may require some trimming, but again, that could have been the case for the occupation of the existing bungalow on site. They've submitted a bat survey given the demolition of the existing bungalows. Only one of the properties was accessed internally, but the ecology officer is satisfied that the conclusions are reasonable, and conditions are suggested for construction environmental management plan via the risk management plan, tree prediction protection, and additional landscaping. Amendments have been made throughout the application to satisfy the highways, including changing this access area into the village hall to give that a more formalised access to the village hall. The parking requirements would meet their supplementary planning document, and the existing parking along Greenway would be retained. There's still no specific visitor parking, but for a screen of this size and noting the nearby existing spaces, this isn't considered fundamental enough to refuse the application, and as I've already mentioned, the right of way would be if it retained this existing alignment with a wired pack, so it would feel safe to users. Concerns have been raised to join the application in relation to neighbouring immunity impacts in terms of overbearing and loss of privacy, but as I've said, the scheme has been amended to try and improve these relationships in that the bungalows to the south side now have their dormer windows facing into the site, so this relationship given the distances and the lack of first-floor windows given their bungalows is considered to be acceptable. Officers consider the lower density scheme has been done enough to overcome the previously identified harm, and it would not be reasonable to add in new areas of harm compared to previous reviews or given this as for a less dense scheme. A wholly affordable housing scheme which must be afforded appropriate positive weight in the leads to a recommendation of approval subject to the detailed conditions on page 69 of the agenda. Thanks, Jack. Thanks, Laura. As about the protocol, I'll move the recommendations to approve subject conditions in section 10. I second. We have two speakers on this one. First, Chris Benlon Saunders, who is an objecter. Yeah, thank you very much. I'll be as fast as I can. As time's limited, I'll focus on drainage and sewage impacts, which I believe to be the most harmful consequence of developments allowed. All found in surface water for Abraham, Statham, and Ralston are discharged into a shared system arriving at the pumping station adjacent to the site, which then pumps everything through an inadequate six-inch pipe out of the village. This infrastructure regularly fails, attested to by Councillor Salinson's testimony at the committee meeting for the prior application, although inexplicably overlooked in the wording of the reason for refusal at the time. Regular disruption occurs when the pumping station fails and has to continue to be pumped by tankers. Failure is increasing in regularity with two significant events this year, the longest requiring 10 days of tanker attendants running 24 hours a day. When it fails, residents north of the pumping station have sewage backfilling into their homes. It appears to require far more significant action to improve the network than is currently known to be taking place. And there are similar cases elsewhere where communities highlight local issues with found networks, overlooked on minor development by the statutory undertaker and planning authority, which has led to moratoriums being issued to prevent new developments and improvements have been made. Tankers are further disruptive as they block vehicle access to the village hall as it's insufficiently wide to allow two vehicles side by side. This led to my own regrettable confrontation with tanker operators in January, my daughter's fourth birthday party was interrupted with guests unable to gain access. Tankers would certainly block vehicle access for future occupants of this development. Tankers allowed and necessarily run 24/7. It's disruptive to my property and be further disruptive to those in the era, affecting immunity of future occupants of this development. I would advise that a single day of heavy rainfalls enough to cause a pumping station to fail. Additional loadings increase risk of failure and worsening impacts to the village. I note in paragraph 712 of the officer's report that seven trend didn't respond to the consultation process. Whilst not unusual on minor development proposals it would surely be reasonable to pursue them further to establish crucial facts before a decision is made. As a minimum, I request the committee vote on deferring the decision until a full assessment can be obtained from seven trend to demonstrate that there is capacity for additional development without risking further failure. Regarding personal immunity impacts, paragraph 766 of the officer report incorrectly states my property has a blank gable face in the site. It actually has a large window to the dining room facing the site. A photo demonstrating that existing development is barely glimpsed over the fence which provides the officer in April. Replacement properties broadly double rich heights than their six metres at the lowest point and reduced separation distance from 20 metres to just 12. This results in overbearing impacts which will be intrusive from our dining room. To substantiate this I refer to a prior application reference 190848 for a two metre side extension of similar height at a property in court. This had a similar separation distance to its neighbour which also had ground floor windows to habitable rooms on the relevant elevation. This committee upheld officer concerns and the application was refused solely as a result of overbearing impacts were imbued from within the windows serving those main habitable rooms conflicting with policy DM5. The similarities in scan and separation distance leave me to think it's unreasonable for you to conclude any differently in this case. That alone should be sufficient to refuse the application. Notwithstanding immunity concerns impacts the drainage and sewage are more significant but one more sentence. Given the council can demonstrate housing land supply 44% above requirements with court policy 1 securing more than sufficient affordable housing provision and noting there's at least three vacant social housing properties in Ralston right now. What reasonable reason exists for you to go against policy and risk clear and unequivocal failure of worsening existing drainage and sewage problems that affect so many local residents. Why would you? Thank you. We also have Robert Steele from Ralston Parish Council. Robert is it Councillor Steele by the way? Yeah, Councillor Steele. Thank you Chair. I'm Chair of Parish Council in Ralston above here to present the views of the Council and those of the Village Hall particularly Village Hall Management Committee. A major objection to development based on the following points. One, amenity. The hall is very important facility for the village. The modern building with capacity of 120 people in this main hall. This makes it attractive as a venue for people from our village and surrounding villages for large events such as wedding receptions, parties, funeral gatherings, etc. And even smaller regular bookings for exercise classes, training events require additional parking. The hall attracts 350 bookings around 350 per year, but it requires parking for a substantial number of cars. Two, construction, albeit in the relative short term the actual construction process if agreed, will have negative impact on the Village Hall which it will threaten the continuation of the Village Hall as a viable commercial enterprise and therefore more significantly will risk its future as one of the only two amenities in the Village. Three, safety. This proposal which relies on additional parking on the hard surface currently set aside for basketball practice, children willing to ride bikes, etc., pose a significant risk to children using the play area by mixing moving traffic with children play at play. This area is regularly used by children from the Village and from Southwell and surrounding villages as well as children who attend events mentioned earlier. In their excitement to the facilities available children run from one area to another without looking and the risk to life and limits self-evident the access to the hard standing is between two areas. Four, need. We do not accept that there is an identified need for social housing in Mollaston. There are three social housing properties in the Village which have been vacant for a number of years, one which forms part of the property to be demolished in this proposal. The Village is poorly served by public transport links and there are no medical or shopping facilities in the Village on which basis it was rejected as suitable for refugee housing. Surely these are important things to consider when proposing to build social housing anywhere. Five, consultation. Originally we have promised consultation on this extremely important development proposal. This has never occurred and many residents in the Village are upset by the feeling that the development is being imposed upon us. Finally, we think it is important to say that these comments are presented in the spirit of a positive and constructive contribution to the planning process and it is hope that the Councillors view our contributions in this way. Thank you. Questions, comments? Councillor MELM. Thank you Chair. I do apologise. I probably should have declared an interest in this as the ward Councillor at the beginning. So I am familiar having been to a number of parish Councillors. I am familiar with the angst that this has caused and I think Councillor STEEL has indicated one of the problems and that is that the proposed discussions with the parish council and people of Rolston has never happened in relation to putting this development forward. My environmental concerns a little bit concerned about the big tree that would have to come down plus another tree that is going to be demolished and I am particularly concerned that there has been absolutely no comment from Seven Trent. Rolston has suffered in recent months from Pluvial episodes of flooding relating to the amount of water getting into the sewage system which shouldn't have got into the sewage system and it may well be because the sewage system is relatively old and therefore the pipes of the foul drainage are cracked and therefore the water is coming up through the water table. But sewage has been on the roads and in people's gardens and I don't think the new system, the new houses will actually be able to be cared for in terms of foul drainage without adding to the problems. The objector who first spoke Chris has indicated the problems with pumping and the foul drainage in the flooding and I think this is something that we do need to take into account. It may be that replacement of the two bungalows might be considered by local residents is acceptable but the additional houses on the other side of the road do throw into relief the problems with parking that we looked at when on the site visit. So I am minded to not approve of the existing plan as it's put forward. Thanks Councilmen, I've got Council, Wild Ghost Harris and then Dales. Thank you Chair. I think the site visit was really useful this morning for a number of reasons but just sort of taking a few bits to time. Firstly, obviously the village hall used the green area as a parking area but we have to bear that in mind that they do that with their authority. The hall was originally designed with a number of parking out parking spaces in it and it was interesting to walk around the hall and you find that actually towards the back of the hall there were two spaces and they were partially covered with growth so effectively half of those were already being used up so there could be a little bit of management within the hall to improve things from my point of view. That said, you have to remember that that area is being part-time and it is not authorized. I know there is a player here at the back we looked at as well and you could argue that properly managed and it would have to be managed in an event. You could potentially open that up or part of that up for the parking. I don't know but it's something that you could consider. When I looked at the new design, I thought the new design had covered most of the concerns of the last planning application particularly regarding noise and proximity to the hall. It also potentially leaves that green area in there that if we could formalise something with the parish council to get some parking on there then that would be better and to be a formal agreement for it. All things were looking for me to be quite supportive of this and then I hear the issues with the drainage and that really does give me some concern. This isn't something from what I understand. This is something which is happening. They're bringing tankers in there to deal with a problem that is there and putting more property there isn't going to help that. I have a problem in Wales being with drainage and I know what it's like when people are living with sewers that are backing up. That can happen if a new property is even with one-way valves or whatever it can still be an issue. They can't use the toilets. So we could be putting property on there. It's not sustainable and I think the least we can do as one of the speakers suggested is the potential deferral to get some real conclusion on what the position on the drainage is. Thank you. One of the questions I was going to raise is certain trends lack of response and whether we would expect a response for an application so I share that concern. Councillor Harris. Joan I'm proposing that we do defer this because for that very reason I'm also very disappointed frankly just because of the law and the district council didn't applied before the law was implemented. We should share for the example. We should actually have 20% B.D.G. on all our sites before the law or after the law. This is not, you know, other developers get around the system. We shouldn't be setting that example. We should actually engage with the parish council. We should engage with the community and require seven trends to actually sort this problem out before any further development happens. I'm proposing deferral until we get an answer from seven trends and hopefully district council will hear what I have said with regards to the two other issues. That's a proposal. We shall ask for a second during a minute. But, Laura, do you want to come back on the on the lack of, I know you're not responsible for seven trend responding but what would seven trends respond enable the applicant or the application to do basically? I mean, ultimately they would be confirming whether the capacity in the network for the drainage of the new houses which would be separate to the planning process anyway. So it could be that if you were going to the planning commission tonight and it came to discharge and whether there is the capacity in the network and seven trends said there isn't. It's for them to then fix existing drainage problems rather than this application. Okay, thanks Matt. Sorry, Chair, through you. It seems to me there's two issues here. So the first one is the one that Laura's described which is do we need to hold the relevant authorities to account for an existing issue. So I think that's absolutely something that we should take forward and deal with. And the second issue is what does that mean for this development? There is a note of caution but you are entitled to come to your view on this. So the previous reason for refusal didn't cite drainage and as Laura's described there is a right to connect if you like once a consent has been granted. That said, I think what I've heard tonight is that this is a situation that may well have occurred or got worse in the intervening period. So that is a new matter that we can take away and investigate and have the conversation with seven trends. The only additional word of caution I would give to the committee is if we go away and have that conversation, I would want them to go away and have several other issues to then debate. So you might want to just make sure you're clear on that in terms of deferring or deciding the application this evening. From my point of view, I like Council Wellgust, I'm concerned about the drainage issue and with the speaker that we had, I'm very concerned about the drainage issue and that would be, from my perspective, the only thing that would become today. I take Councillor Harris's point about BNG and I'm sure that's something that we could investigate, but I wouldn't want to hold back the application regarding that because this application came in. I understand the point you're making, Councillor Harris. I don't think our housing team or whoever has put the application in have factored that in, but maybe they should have, I understand that. Councillor Dales. Thank you, Chair. I was on the planning committee when we refused this previously and I have been to the site many times. In fact, the last time I was there, I needed a drive into your car. It was the drainage board meeting. It was my fault, my fault, where we're parking on the green area. But it was all a bit messy, yeah. But I just wanted to make a point, really. I'm horrified to hear that the drainage is still an issue because I distinctly remember a saying at that committee that it's a separate issue almost, it's not relevant to that application, it's an existing issue and hopefully the local members would get on and get that resolved. So I'm really disappointed that that hasn't been addressed yet. Whether or not I can attach sufficient weight to that in terms of this application, I'll have to take some guidance on. I just wanted to raise two points, really. The first is obviously about parking. It is a really important community asset and I know how many cars use that green area. But Councillor while August is right, it doesn't make that right because it's not allocated for parking. It was a serious concern I think when we were proposing buildings all the way up to the boundary and practically into the village car park itself. My concern has always been about overflow parking. There is nowhere adjacent to this site that you could park a car, you can't park a car on the main road. And that has always been my concern. Again, no objections from county council. It's difficult to know where to go with that. I think the other concern for me is that the access road is flood zone two and we have certainly refused applications not so far away repeatedly and consistently because the access road is in flood zone two. I take the point that there are two bungalows already there. So it's kind of precedent and those two bungalows certainly need to be rebuilt. So I'm on the fence really. I don't really like it but I can't see a reason to refuse this version. Thank you Chair. I think it has been moved that we differ. I'd be happy to second that move to defer solely to get seven trends response because although I do have some sympathy with Councillor Harris regarding the BNG position, we can't enforce this on the applicant because it's out with the law irrespective of us. But we as a responsible local authority, I wouldn't want to give this local authority, our local authority the permission to do something which could then exacerbate problems for our tenants in the future. And I think we have a responsibility to look at that. So that was coming back to me and Mark actually said this is new information. If he has got worse, I'll share your disappointment too. I remember the application as well. I didn't go on the side of it but yes I did avoid your car on that particular occasion which shows the danger of parking on the grass. He's not authorised and in second it I would also want the Council to have a look at that parcel of land that's left and whether there can be an agreement with Rolston Parish Council to utilise that land. Currently it's a buffer and it's open space. If it was a car park it wouldn't be open space, it would be a car park. So there is a balance there to be had but I think we could enter into negotiations regarding that. So I'm happy to second defer on that basis that I've just been Councillor MELTEN in. I'm sorry, I'm Councillor MORT. Thank you Chair. I would welcome Chair if you would withdraw your seconding of that deferment so that I can actually second the deferment. As the local Councillor, I'm just responding to Councillor DAO's comment that the local members ought to sort it out. We have a word of explanation. The local Councillor has tried to sort this out and the Councillor, Sue Saddington, who is also on this committee and not able to be here today. We have both had discussions with Seven Trent and they seem to be blaming potential developers of conservatories for putting their rainwater into the foul drainage rather than accepting that this is actually quite an old pipeline and is below the water table when the rain falls. And the reason I'm wanting you to withdraw your seconding is because I think it is important as the local Councillor to make sure that Seven Trent actually responds properly and formally to something that has been going on for a very long time and it's not the only area in the district where foul water drains have been popping up sewage into people's gardens and people's houses. So I think it's something that this, I'm not sure the Planning Committee has the right to do it but I would like to make sure that the Council has some sway on this in order to make Seven Trent both respond in terms of a problem and also respond in terms of saying whether or not there is a problem in all sorts of planning applications. I think we ought to be a little bit firmer with the statutory authorities when they are asked for their opinion to actually give a proper opinion. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Councillor Moten and I will, I have no problem with you segmenting the deferral as they say age before beauty. Councillor MARA. Thank you for that, age before beauty. Yeah, until the chairman actually forgot that I asked to speak, I would ask you to second second, that because I was going to second the deferral. For me I look at this and the Councillor Steele saying that this community hall takes up to 350 bookings a year which I think for a local community hall is quite something and that I would not like to see interrupted in any way possible. Yes, Mr Balnesormda said, problems with tankers blocking the place when they had to sort out this drainage. Yeah, I don't think the fact that the drainage has been looked at before a number of years ago and it's still giving problems. The pump house is old or whatever it is or the infrastructure can't go. Yeah, our climates are not getting better. They're really not and we are going to get more rain, we're going to get more flooding. Yeah, I can't see us going ahead with this until the entire sewerage system, whatever it might be, the pump house is looked at properly. It's a shame because we need HRA housing, we really do. We enrolled in other communities. But, as I forgot to have said it, Andy said, we're actually putting potentially our new data tenants at risk, our sewage system, the existing draining system, not being able to cope with new housing. Until we got that sorted, I can't stand behind this. If I don't bring you in, Councillor, I am conscious that Laura, when presenting this, said that the drainage is a separate matter and even that we could permit this. I'm still taking it to the vote regarding deferral, but this could be permitted and would not go ahead until the drainage was salted. I just wanted to make that point for clarity, but, Councillor, I'll keep it brief because it looks like you're going to put it for a deferral vote. It's a difficult one, isn't it? It's a balance we have to make between parking for a well-used local facility and putting a roof over people's heads. We're knocking down two and having five, so really, that's only going to be an addition of three. However, it sounds like three is going to be a little bit too much going to overload the system. But, I seem to read somewhat, it was in this report now that, originally, the Playette Park area was going to be overflow parking. And I think that is still a possibility that that could be, I mean, it's obviously going to come at a little bit of cost because it will need tinkering about with. But, I think I am concerned, like other members of the committee, that we've had no response from Seven Trent and I would rather like to hear their response before we go ahead with the application we have in front of us with five houses. But, I'm also concerned that we've got three empty properties in most and now two of them are those bungalows for demolition. I can quite understand that, but that means we've got one other that has been vacant for some time. Given that we've got 3,000 people on our waiting list, I think we need to have a look into that as well. But, yeah, so if you want to go ahead we'll go ahead. Certainly, Councillor RAY, but that needs to be raised in other places, yeah, indeed. It has been moved by Councillors and Councillors and Councillor MELTON that it be, Councillor Oodham, do you want to speak? Yeah, I just had a point that's, of course, I'm sure I have to laugh at myself. I agree with everything everybody says, so I'm not going to go over that again. Just section 7.57, we talk about mitigation and additional planting. There are fair few trees coming down from this site, but I can't see any details in this report or any conditions about that additional tree planting. And with us being the applicant, I just wondered if we actually had some detail, are these trees going on that site or are they going to be nearby? I just felt that was really lacking and it would be good to have some clarity on that while we discussed it. Certainly, the site was made aware of the trees that were going to be lost. That was quite clear. Laura, do you want to come back? Yeah, we haven't got the exact detail in, but there is a proposed landscaping condition on there and you can see they've drawn some indicative areas of where there's would be space for additional landscaping, so it will be on site. That's an alternative. Is it anything new? It's partly in response to the Council and general interventions. I should have raised it earlier on and I apologise for getting to raise it. But one of the issues for me locally is that I have been, Rolston and Belizeby are two of the villages that I've been talking in great depth about planting new trees, so it's a disappointment for me that there's a tree coming down when we're actually trying to plant a lot more trees in the village. It has been moved and seconded to differ based on the fact that we haven't had a response from seven trends, but also I think to give space, although it's not our responsibility, the parking, I think it would be good naveliness to engage with Robston Parish Council regarding the parking issues and I'm looking at maps whether that is something that you could take forward if we were to defer, ma'am. I think that's fair, Jeff, in terms of the Council as applicants, not in terms of our regulator, but I hear loud and clear and I'll pick that up with the Council's applicant. Thank you. On that basis, we moved and seconded that we defer this application on those in favour. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, six, seven, eight, six, seven, eight. That's Councillor SHAFE wasn't in for the beginning of that presentation, he's hasn't voted, so that's fine. Just know that. Okay, so that's we move for deferral and agreed for deferral. So, a gender item, seven, shady oaks, Eagleman Spalford. Now, just one question, this is okay, I know Councillor HOWARD's got to go, I know Councillor RAINBOW has to go, surely as well. Councillor FARMour, unfortunately, wanted to speak at this, he's had to go, he's got the school room to sort out. He has emailed me, I'm looking at Brian here, he has emailed me with what he was going to say. I am quite happy to read that out on the basis that he's the world member, but I'm just looking at Brian to see whether that will be an order. I'll let you, we'll go into the report, you have a look and then come back to us, because obviously we've got to present the report. So, next January, we shall see the old Eagle Road, Spalford Laura. Thank you, Chair. So, on page 80 of your agendas. This site is a boardly rectangular site in Shape and it's to the east of Spalford, south of Eagle Road. It's adjacent to an existing gypsy and traveller site, which was allowed at a peal and the whole site is within flood zone 3A. So, just show some photos, these are the existing pictures of the site that was allowed at a peal, you can see my cursor. That's the access track, that's the looking back onto the access track, and then the access track running through the site. More of the existing pictures. This is an existing access that's on Eagle Road, on the north western corner of the site, I believe it is, and that's just looking down the main road there. This is the site itself, so you can see that it's sort of later partly grass and partly shingle and gravel. This is just to demonstrate that the site is quite well screened from the main road through hedges and the conifer trees. So, the application before this evening is for a change of use to form five gypsy and traveller pictures on a permanent basis. Each pitch would have one static and one tour of caravan. As I've said already, the adjacent site was allowed at a peal. It's material to this decision, given that the policy starting point is the same. We've noted the parish council comments and the objections which partly relate to the adjacent site breaching planning conditions, but this is not a matter for this application and just to clarify it is being investigated separately by our enforcement team. So, in terms of the principle of the development, the report sets out in detail the council's position in demonstrating a five year land supply for gypsy and traveller position. I don't intend to rehearse this in full other than to confirm that the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year land supply and the pitch provision presented through this application therefore weighs heavily in favour of the proposal, as it did with the adjacent site which was subject to the appeal. The site is within the open crunch side and core policy five sets out a range of criteria which proposals need to satisfy including being reasonably situated with access to utilities and basic and everyday community services and facilities. The inspector's decision on the adjacent site is extracted at page 90 and is still relevant to this assessment. This site is not considered suitably located given the facilities within smallford which weighs negatively against the proposal. However, given the size of a number of pictures proposed, this would have no more than a moderate adverse negative effect which has to be balanced against a significant unmet need for gypsy and traveller pictures in the district. This site isn't risk-good brooding according to the Environment Agency maps as set out in the report and it would technically fail the sequential test. However, in reality there are flood defences protected in the site which would mean that the actual flood depths are likely to be shallow and therefore not considered hazardous and you will note that the Environment Agency raised no objections to this application subject to the mitigation measures which could be secured by condition. In terms of landscape impacts, the site is well screened and as acknowledged by the inspector in the assessment of the adjacent site. Although the development would further erode the raw character of the site, the screening and the grass areas would help to soften the overall appearance. No harm has been identified in terms of residential immunity and highways issues have been resolved throughout the application confirming that the existing access to the northwest corner of the site, which was shown here, will be closed and reinstated with hedgerow. County Council highways have raised no objections subject to conditions. To conclude, there is a significant unmet need for gypsy and traveller pictures and this development would contribute five pictures and contours the five-year land supply which weighs heavily in favour of the proposal given the current level of need. In contrast, the proposal would fail to accord with numerous development plan policies by virtually unsustainable location and access to services and harms the character of the appearance of the area as set out in detail in the agenda papers. If I could draw your attention to the concluding paragraph at the bottom of page 101, the harm identified is considered to be clearly outweighed by the significant benefits associated provided by the additional pictures where there is a significant unmet need and therefore, the record approval is outlined at page 102 subject to the conditions within the report. Thanks Laura. Again, as bad for our protocol, I'll move the officer's recommendation that the permission is approved subject to the conditions detailed in section 10. My second. We have one speaker. Just coming back to Councillor FELFAM. I've been informed that well, previously a member of the committee wrote in and wanted something raised and we did decide that that person needed to be here and I think Brian has mentioned to me that this particular method wouldn't be offered to a member of the public who was coming to object. So on that basis, I think the advice is not to read out Councillor FELFAM. This is pretty clear in relation to any text summarising a speech or if somebody isn't present at the committee, it just continues with the consideration of the application. So with that decision, I'm happy with that. I did try and do Councillor FELFAM. But on this occasion, I'm not able to or fortunately. So we have John McArthur. John right. Thank you very much. I'm representing Spalford as the Paris meeting chairman. I'm reacting in that moment. Thank you for allowing me to come to talk to the committee. I'd like to start by having a bit of context to help you, given that there's no site visit deemed necessary. Spalford is a very small handler that most people have never heard of. We have 46 brick built homes and three years ago at the time of the last census, only 91 residents. Just moving on to the report from the senior planner seems to focus very much on the arbitrary use of the word proportioner. I'm hoping that a few points might clarify matters are far from proportioner. The proposal, as you've seen, creates five additional dwellings, fine in total, which is a 55% increase in housing allocation within a site somewhere in the region about half an acre, although the photograph's taken to sort of enhance that perspective. This, in essence, makes a site overburdened high density dwelling with no amenity. There's no amenity at all in Spalford. We benefit from a Georgian letterbox, and that is it. There's 46 homes in Spalford, nine of which would potentially be GRT dwellings constitute 17% the total dwelling stock in this tiny handler. Therefore, I believe that's disproportionate. Going back to the census, 91 residents against an estimated, I say, 36 occupants in nine dwellings. That equates to 29% of the overall population. Once again, I believe that's disproportionate. Flood risk has been some talk about flood risk. I mean, there's much reliance on the flood bank near the A1133, which failed spectacularly this year with local land flooding. The fat local land was still flooding up until mid-May. I'm sorry, it's surprising that there's no sequential tests deemed necessary. I'm going back to the mention of the great benefit of the conifers providing screening. Conifers actually create fire hazard. They're highly combustible, and there are case studies elsewhere in the UK where they've been prone to self-ignition with dire consequences and total sites of a similar nature of this type were totally wiped out. There's no risk assessment covering that, and there's no mention of how anybody would even manage to get out of there, quite frankly, if the worst were to happen. Let me move on to the environmental facts. I'm conscious I've only got three minutes, because I could spend half an hour here. First of all, an average of two vehicles per two hour, that's 16 vehicles in total, could properly be more. It works out to about in half additional vehicle movements on crumbling roads. In the first place, the site was deemed as unsuitable as a location, and that was even mentioned at appeal. Basically, around the services or lack of services are meaner to you, and that still remains the case. GRT plans to be mentioned, that's 125, sorry, 127 spaces that need to be found by 2033, which doesn't take too much working out. It's rather about a decade to find 127 spaces. 30 seconds, and they're likely to be alternative sites. The proposal equates to about 8% of the overall requirement sitting in Spalford in a place with 46,091 occupants, and the ham looks already absorbed too much. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I won't go over what Council MacArthur has already covered too much. I just wanted to start with respect, just by pointing out that we weren't able to site visit this site, and I do think that this particular site is really necessary to do that, because I think it is one of the most sensitive sites we've ever reviewed. In terms of size and scale, I think this proposal could be considered to be high density in a small space now with this application. Council MacArthur has already said Spalford to Hamlet, 46 houses, 90 odd residents, but those pictures don't give you the context of this development. There are two adjacent caravan parts to this on Eagle Road, and they are large. They're not gypsy and traveler, but it's all caravans as you move down Eagle Road on Four Seasons and Windmill Farm, and I think it's important to see that alongside a few houses. This is a Hamlet with absolutely no facilities at all, and I know that the development plan arguments are well rehearsed, but it does remain in a sustainable village for Hamlet in the planning hierarchy terms, and because it's difficult to visualize, and I think the committee needs to see it. We often sit here and say we're really glad we went to see an application site because it's important, and I think it's also important that the community, and in using the term community, I include the applicant and the families which hopefully one day will be living there because they're certainly not living there at the moment. I think it's important that the whole community feels that this committee has done this decision justice, has fully considered all the implications, and I do think without a site visit we haven't been able to do that. I don't want anybody feeling that it's just been waved through as just an extension, so I was going to ask, and I know we've just had along the previous application, whether we could defer this until the next planning committee said that the site visit can be undertaken. The second point I want to cover is about the development plan. The current permission for the four pitches there, and actually it's not configured like that, I think you'll be aware you would have seen that if you've been on the site this morning. It doesn't look like that at the moment, and I understand the reasons why that might be, but it doesn't look like that at the moment. The current permission was granted in December 22, and at the appeal, I was there, I was part of that appeal process, planning inspector granted that all of the reasons that we had put forward for refusal were right. I think it upheld the chi, upheld more, as material valid planning reasons, obviously it was overridden at the end, because at that point we had no alternative plan in place, we had good intent, but nothing specific or material to demonstrate that, but I think we're in a different position now with the development plan before the inspector, and we are assured, in other forums, that an emerging plan does carry some weight, it never says that in a planning application, but we are updated at planning policy board, in other forums, an emerging plan carries some weight, and since this application was first submitted in the previous application, we've acquired Beaver Ironworks, we've granted permissions at Shady Oaks, at Bess Thorpe, at Chestnut Lodge, up would be Lodge, and we are investing in flood defences at Tony Lane, I think it's 30 odd more gypsy and traveller pictures, now I think that we can demonstrate that it's not just intent, it's a plan and it's happening, and I think that that does carry some weight. I note that there are unresolved objections, but there could be about the housing or the employment aspects of that plan, and no way of knowing that it's got anything to do with gypsy and traveller applications such as this, and I do want to emphasise that I have been consistent in my approach to gypsy and traveller applications, I have always supported those that are in plan, either the existing plan or the emerging plan, I have, I've only ever refused where there were good material planning considerations in accordance with our policy for application sites that were outside the plan, and this one still is. So four pictures, arguably portionate, the contained site as yet is not commissioned, I don't think there's anybody actually living here, but it may well be that the applicant is waiting for this permission before configuring the site as per that plan, but we have to remember that there's potentially nine families here, there's no room now for any amenity for the children that might be living on that site, you know, because the green bit at the end will be gone, there are no footpaths in Spolford, there's, I don't know, that street lighting you've got, can't remember any unequal road, Eagle Road is really busy, the segler is thundering up and down there all day, every day, and I ask would we allow this configuration and this level of intensity, if this was a housing development, now I've always recognised and respected and supported that the GRT community has a right to save in decent places to live, but is this one of them? I think the four has been and would be accommodated and would work, but I'm not sure that I can support that for nine pictures, and at full council, you know, we were sat in this council chamber just recently, all recognising that we're in a very different position since Bobet and Hank, we're in flood zone 3a for these additional pictures, and these are the most vulnerable of dwellings, and planning history in this village, consistently sees bricks and mortar dwellings refuse because of open countryside and flooding, in fact there is one currently appeal, so are we supportive of flood zone 3a pictures, remembering that we can't fly up permission on Tony Lane under 3a, so I can speak extensively about the effect on the character and appearance of the area, I think you know what I'm saying, we need to respect the scope of an impact on such a small rural hamlet, and is increasing the number of caravans here, meaning that we're becoming dominant as a caravan site rather than a hamlet with bricks and mortar houses in them, so are we potentially about substantially alter the native, I'll say that again, are we potentially about substantially alter the nature of this hamlet, it's an unsustainable village in every planning term, apart from the considerations with regards to the development plan, so first, I'm respectfully asking if we could defer for a site visit, I know that we've had this conversation, but I'm asking the committee if we can do that, just so that we all feel that the committee has fully weighed in the balance that the scale and context that this application site sits in, sorry if that was a bit lengthy for me, but thank you. - Councilor McMahon, do you want to re-take your seat?

• Yes, thank you, thanks. - Council Wildust, thank you Chair. - Excuse me, a lot of concern, obviously when this first came through, I think I've improved views off, and obviously it's gone to appeal, and obviously we know where we are with that stage, so that is a material consideration we've got to take into account when we're trying to make a decision on this, but I think one point there was raised, which I'm not clear on, so maybe the officer could help me here, and that is this disproportionate, when you're looking at bringing in a community into an existing community, at some stage there has to be a level of too much, you know, it's going to be too big for the existing community, and I want to know how we actually quite measure that, because, you know, if I turn around and say, well actually they've got a bit more land, and they've got an application for 100, yeah, you're now creating an issue as far as, you know, with the existing community, as far as that balance is concerned, which I'm guessing is important, but the question is, I don't know what that is, or what that level is, and I'd like some confirmation, please, that what that level of change can be, without it being a, you know, planning issue, thank you. I'll bring the officers in a minute, Councilor Wagner, just to address Councilor Dale's point about the site visit, I know you want to defer, as you know, being the vice chair of planning previously, the chair and vice chair meet with the officers to look at the criteria for site visits, both myself and Councilor Moore didn't think this merit to decide visit, because there were no specific site factors that we deemed could not be judged by other than photographs, if you like. What you're raising about concentration and over the population increase, if you like, and the impact on a small hamlet is not a site factor for us, because we can see how small the hamlet is, by what Councilor Mann mentioned, the number of houses, the number of residents, and we can actually see from the photos, so I'm sorry if you disagree with that, and I can understand the reasons why you disagree with that, but I still think myself and Councilor Moore, unless he wants to correct me, would take the same decision again, based on office advice, but we also, we also sometimes feel that privacy is necessary, because there possibly are site factors. On this one, we didn't think there were site factors, because the photos that the officers showed us sufficed for, we thought sufficed for the decision that we were, that we have to make today, and the arguments about the fact that it's disproportionate can be, and not necessarily site factors, although, like you said, I tried to get to sport for the other day and got lost, so I understand it's a small hamlet, we can see it's a small hamlet, so I take your point, but if anybody wants to second deferral, I mean, I will put it only if anybody wants to second, and we'll take a vote on it, but I know I have other speakers to commit, do you want to come back? But it's point of clarification, and so I'm not misunderstood, I think what photos don't show you, are the two quite significant caravan parks, that are just not neighbouring, there's about three, four houses in between, and then you've got four seasons, and you've got windmill farm, and I think that when we're talking about the total number of caravans in a hamlet this size, I think that that was where they are seeing it, and the last site visit did take a drive past, so that you understood the impact of a few more caravans in an already caravani area. Now, I understand the context argument, I understood that, and that's been put to me since we took my decision by understanding that. Anybody else? Nobody wants to second deferral? Councilor wants me. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, initially I did start off, I thought photos would do this listening to you now, and listening to John MacArthur, I think I would like, I mean, I wouldn't like Spalford to become the New Englandals, because of Nottingham shit, you know, full of caravans. I didn't know about the other two sites, I know that's not material, but it is to the people that live there. This also being, the corner of it being flood zone 3a, as you said, it's only like we can't build on that, because of that. There's a lot more involved here than just a few more caravans going into a field, and I think for my own peace of mind, as Vice Chair, I would like to go and see it, and look at it further. Thank you. I'll just bring the officers back in on your question, Tim, regarding the criteria that you used to regard in the increase in a population fall to another word on the Hamlet floor. Yeah, thanks, Chair. So it's a matter of judgment, really, to give an example of whether something would be overbearing or not, it would be quite clear that a brick wall right by window would be overbearing, a brick wall 100 meters away wouldn't be overbearing, but where's the point in between where it becomes overbearing? The officers have dealt with it at page 91, 7.25 in terms of the increase in the cumulative level of development, but it is considered that it would still be appropriate for the size of the settlement, and I know that I think the inspector referred to the existing caravan parks, but made that differentiation between them not being just in travel to pictures, but being for tourism, transient nature. Has she been calling her, and did you? Matt, sorry, sorry. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I just want to try and pick up a number of matters that we've heard. So you certainly are entitled to defer the application, should you wish. There is a risk of cost that obviously the applicant could appeal against non-determination and advise accordingly with that some unreasonable. That would be for us to defend as part of that. What I've also heard however is some arguments around the different material considerations and the waiting that they should have, so it's certainly true, Councillor Dales, that we have not yet tested, if you like it to appeal, the issue of proportion that you've mentioned, and also the issue of the relative waiting of the current development plan. I think the office of you is clear in both of those regards, so that's what we're giving you as relevant professionals, but it's certainly true they haven't yet been tested. If they are tested, it might well be that the appeal is allowed as it was previously, but that is the risk that you take if you make that decision, so hopefully that's helpful in around you. It is, Matt, and for those who don't think this planning committee is open and transparent, my vice, do you have any just to apologise for disagreeing with me? I say no need to apologise, that's the reason you're with part of this planning committee. Regarding the side visit, for example, Davis changes mine, which is perfectly untyped to do, I've got no problem in that. I am minded that if we do differ for the side visit, I still have a big opinion that we don't need to side visit, but that's my own view. We are at the limit of the time and we are for this, but it has been moved, are you seconded, if I look, David? Okay, let's just stop with it. It wouldn't go through, the applicant could say we've been unreasonable in non-determination. The risk that we've got is the extension of time is until the 14th of June, so next week, if we differ, and the applicant says that we've been unreasonable in contrary to our protocol, we could be at risk of costs for an appeal for non-determination. So, could I ask, as a straw poll, how many people have visited that site in the past, because if we know a good reason would be that none of the current committee or very few of the committee have actually seen that site, would that be a reasonable reason to have it differ? I'll apologize to the committee, maybe this one should have been a side visit, to be perfectly honest. We all have judgment calls to make. I think on this occasion, I could possibly support deferral, but we've got a planning committee next week, which we go to have a side visit. We could factor that in this side visit, next week, possibly. That could be a possibility, but obviously we wouldn't be then determining it, because it's not on the agenda. We couldn't then determine it until the following planning committee on the 4th of July, which my nice German will be chairing as I'm on holiday, but not necessarily a material consideration. Is that possible to have the side visit much? I'm just trying to sort that out. The site visit certainly is. We've got the five working day rule for the publication of the agenda, but my view is, unless it's been published while we've been sat in here, and I don't know if you've set check your paper, shall I? I've not seen it. Have they? I would need to speak with committee services to get that on the agenda and republish this evening, but as long as it's on the agenda, as in an itemised on the agenda, I've seen no reason for that, and then we'll give you late papers that will be a repeat of what we've done. Sorry, Chairman, we just check it. I need to make sure we follow protocol. We have five minutes. It's important to get things right, and so apologies for this, but I'm sure council days won't mind, so if we take five minutes. Hopefully there isn't a queue for the cup of coffee council, so five minutes, lots of ice. Thank you. We'll come back just after six o'clock, just after six. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Just give another couple of minutes for the legal team to come back after their concentrations. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] The reason just for the benefit of the members of public and I was listening at home is any agenda that the council publishes must be done five clear working days of that meeting and we're not able to meet that hence why we've had to do it slightly differently in this case. What I'm going to suggest chairman and this will be for colleagues to my left to make sure it happens is for an abundance of caution, we write to all those that we consulted on the scheme and that have made representations to let them know that this will become a question. That this will be coming back next week because clearly they won't get the usual letters that go when the agenda goes to print even though it's already gone to print. I would like to think those here are aware that this is coming back and any listening online will be aware of that as well. So we will do all we can to make sure we communicate as widely as possible that this item will be coming back next week. Thank you much. I said it's a my discretion. So that's what I'm proposing to do. Don't necessarily need your agreement, but it would be nice if I did have the committee's agreement to do that. So is that okay with everybody? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] It's something to do. Okay. So it has been moved and seconded with the we defer this to next week committee. So we need to still need to take that vote. All those in favor? [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you very much committee. Right agenda item eight, nationally significant infrastructure projects and development consent orders, Oliver. Thank you chairman. The purpose of this report is to set out a proposal for managing the council's involvement in two nationally significant infrastructure projects and tips. And give you a summary of the development consent or the process. The framework that we're proposing for dealing with end tips is set out in the appendix. I shall apologize in advance for the overuse of acronyms in my report. I'm afraid as you will all now be very familiar end tips or projects of certain types over a certain size, which are considered by the government to be so big and nationally important that commission to build them needs to be given at a national level. You will also be aware that there are several relevant projects affecting this district, including two energy end tips known as one earth solar farm and great north road solar park. The A 46, which is a transport and is much more advanced recently been accepted for examination. Although not an end tip, the report draws attention to a fourth project, the stay forth carbon capture project, which is a special type of decision under the electricity act. As you will also know that the planning and spectrum pins is responsible for administering and sit applications. And in this process, Newer can show it is a statutory consultee for all of these projects, which means we can make comments, but do not make the final decision on whether they are approved or not. Nevertheless, if the DCO is made, there will be monitoring, Newer can show it will be responsible for discharging and monitoring and requirements of the DCO, which is a little bit like dealing with plumbing conditions. And also know that some of these massive projects can be cross-boundary and that is relevant in the update I am going to give a bit further down. I am not going to explain the DCO process in great detail. There is a useful diagram in paragraph 1.6 of the report, which gives you a broad summary of the key milestones. The key points are the council has statutory obligations within the DCO process is expected to work collaboratively with partners, including the applicant and other relevant councils. This will initially be through planning performance agreements, PPAs, and will follow on to the formal pre-application stage before the submission and examination of the application by the Secretary of State. The council is expected to provide an important, local perspective during the pre-application examination and determination stages and will produce documents not limited to relevant representations, written representations, local impact reports, in addition to contributing to statement of common grounds, responding to written questions from the Secretary of State and making representations on the content of the DCOs and other material that forms part of the application process. At this stage we give useful to have a bit of an update on current energy n-ships. There is a useful summary in the report of each of the n-ships from paragraph 2.2 of the report and that I draw your attention to the useful links for the projects, which I suspect many of you have already had a look at, where you can find it useful information on each of the proposals. You can also follow the links to the relevant scoping reports and the council's response to those reports. As a reminder, one earth falls across two county boundaries and three local authorities. Approximately one-third of the site is within your insured, which is an area within the Trent Valley to the northeast of the district. The one earth scheme comprises the construction installation of solar PV panels, battery energy storage systems, Bess, which I know we will be discussing at the extraordinary committee next week as well. Just to give some context to the size of this scheme, it's anticipated it will generate 740 megawatts of electricity across approximately 1,500 hectares in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. The time on and will provide the connection to the grid and that there is a handy copy of the map of that site in figure 2. Based on the table at paragraph 2.9, the application is expected to be formally submitted to pins between January and March in 2025. For awareness, the case officer leading on our advice on these N6 Simon is a dry attention to some briefings aimed at members for the one earth scheme to be held on the 18th and 25th of June. And if you are interested in finding out more about these, please let us know and we'll direct you accordingly. Great North Road solar park, again, comprising installation of solar panels, onsite energy storage facility and infrastructure needed to connect the scheme to the national grid, which would be at the state of the state of substation. A lot of the numbers, approximately 2,800 hectares of land to the northwest of Newark and will be connected to the grid underground cables. The applicant has secured a connection agreement already with national grid that would export and import up to 800 megawatts of electricity. Based on the projected timetable in paragraph 2.20, the application is expected to be formally submitted to pins in spring 2025. There is PPA, that's the performance agreement is currently being drafted. So what are we asking members to agree to and why? We are asking that members of planning committee be provided with quarterly updates on the projects or earlier for quiet in the opinion of a director for planning of growth and the council's input, where there are substantive updates to be reported. With the exception of local impact reports, all the council's representations will be delegated to the director for planning of growth in consultation with the chair and vice chair of planning committee. And that the protocol, which as I mentioned earlier, is enclosed in the appendix, the report will be adopted and it forms part of the agreed delegation for exit projects going forward. Just lastly, finish with the section 3 of the report sets out the substantive reasons for this request. Our key observations are responding to consultations is considered the best time to influence a project. Whether you agree with it, disagree with it or believe it can be improved. Once an application has been formally submitted to pins, it cannot be changed the extent that it would be a materially different application, so as to constitute a new application. The planning inspector advises local authorities to seek their members approval for examination documents to be submitted to pins under delegated authority and confirms that there is unlikely to be time to seek committee approval for representations made during the examination. In general terms, local authority must assume that it won't be possible for the examination time to be structured around its committee cycle. The recommendation is set out on the front of the report to agenda page 108. Thanks Oliver. I think both myself and the vice chair were very keen that the committee got regular updates within the constraints that we are working in, that the committee got regular updates. As far as the council's representations that they, hopefully you have trust in the chair and vice chair in order to look at the representations that are going in, apart from the local impact reports, which officers will do. So it is those recommendations on page 108 to A, B and C and any questions or comments, Council met them. Thank you chair. Again, I probably need to declare an interest as the portfolio holder for change in net zero. And it is quite clear from the nature of the NISP that these decisions are going to be taken elsewhere than in New York and Sherwood. I just wanted to ask the officers a little bit more about the planning performance agreement. Part of the pre-application process which provides a framework within which the council will engage with the developers to provide a device on the proposal. I'm just wondering how strongly we can advise the developers about what we think they should be doing and the degree to which they are obliged to follow our advice. Is there a national view as to how advisory we can be, because I think we need to be giving them what I would like to give them a lot more advice in their crops prepared to accept. I think the answer to that could be similar to how long is a piece of string Keith, but I don't know whether they're on that one to come back or both. I'll try. So there's a couple of parts to what you propose, so planning performance agreement is basically an agreement between both sides on what we will give advice on. So effectively, that means the highway authority will give advice on highway matters and we will give advice on district matters in really simple time. That depends on what it is and it is also asking them to pay for that advice, because as you're aware, we have the three end sips that have been referred to here. In terms of the advice we would give, I'd like to think we're robust in our advice anyway, Councillor, in terms of what we will say professionally on it. That still doesn't stop members being able to give their view, either as a portfolio holder, as a local ward member, or indeed as a member of this committee, you'll still do that. In terms of whether they need to follow that advice, that is entirely down to the planning inspector, sadly. So it will be for the planning inspector to determine, if you like, where that balance of approval or not lies ultimately. It's probably worth mentioning a secondary impact for this, and it has come up elsewhere and it will come on the cabinet agenda, hopefully in July. And this is where it's important we separate ourselves out, so we are a regulatory decision-making body on behalf of the Council, so we are the Council as local planning operator. And therefore, we will be seeking appropriate mitigation as required, so it might be a 106 for planting, for example, or for certain highway junctions off and traffic management plans, or every it might be, we will be seeking things with that hat on. NCIP's particularly solar NCIP's also come with a community benefit, which I'm sure you've heard about, so that is where there is a community pot for one to withdraw expression, a community set of money, that is available for x-years as part of a developer's submission. So what we're recommending is that we need as a Council a way to respond to that, so it won't be us as a committer, but it will be a Council to be able to set out ourselves what the priorities are, because I'm sure you can imagine there are plentiful, whether it be flood defences, whether it be climate change, whether it be solar PV panels, whether it be community benefits, community groups, the list is endless as to what that could be spent on. So that's something else that we're going to bring to the Council separately, but it's still useful for you to be aware of. Councillor SHATCHAP. Two small items, please. We, as the New University Council Planning Committee, will provide input to the process. Is input being provided by other parties such as Nottingham County Council, is the coordination between us and Nottingham County Council and others? And how do we, how do we come brief on that coordination? What, how do we get involved in that? How do you get involved in that for our behalf? I know that one of the applications is cross-border as well, isn't it? So don't really want to come back that? Sorry, Chair, I can, I can try and deal with most of that. So each, what's called Rule 6, I'm going to get to technicalities now, but each what's called Rule 6 Pat. So each, um, statutory part, and we have a statutory role as to as Nottingham County Council if you like. We have to enter into a statement of common ground in addition to the local impact report, which actually frames what we will consider and how we will consult. And indeed, the planning inspector would set the same out. So as part of the quarterly updates, we will bring into you that will include that wider consultation piece. There is a requirement within that if you like a duty to cooperate as part of that that runs through all of the authorities involved. So it won't just be necessarily us encounter, but it will be people like the, the college groups, the civic trust, um, organizations of that nature that will also feed into the process. So that will be part of one, the local impact report and two, our quarterly updates. The second item, the second item was just adjacent to Francefield. There's a big solar development going on, which obviously has not come through this committee. I anticipate it's not come through this committee because it's, I've seen it, I know nothing about it. It's gone up. There will be benefit derived from that. And, uh, officer, Officer Lam mentioned that there will be some contribution to local environments as a consequence of these developments. Do you first of all, do you know anything about this solar farm near us in Francefield? And how is that? How is the benefit derived from that can be provided to the community? I suspect that has gone to a previous committee quite some time ago. I would imagine that because I can't remember it obviously. No, I can't. I've been off the top of my head. So if you bear in mind that permissions left for three years, typically, it may well have been in any period. So we will find out for you, Councillor, and we will let you know. The short answer is every scheme should have a community benefit scheme with it. The complication is community benefit scheme isn't secure through the regulatory process. So some solar farm developers will go direct to community groups or to parishes to do that deal if you like. And they don't necessarily come through us. What I'm promoting is it does come through us through the why the solar farm and discussion that shouldn't preclude local community groups, but it should allow them to come through us to access that funding. I don't know in that circumstance whether that was one, but we can check for you. But we'll get back to you on that, Emma. Thanks, Chair. I just wanted to give an example of people talking about community benefits by diversity benefits. So there's portfolio holder for biodiversity. We had elements green that are the great North solar farm come to our last biodiversity shareholder meeting, which we have every other month. And so that was an opportunity for them to sit at the table and hear all about the challenges, the biodiversity challenges and opportunities in the district. And that's actually sparked some really pivotal conversations between local NGOs and themselves and they've picked up some really key things that they want to help fund, et cetera, should this project go ahead. So there's an example there where we've tried to help facilitate that and ensure that consultation, and they're doing an even more in-depth consultation next week with that biodiversity group. And I know you said we've been offered consultation with one earth farm, but great North, the great element screen got back to me again today to say they would like some help in facilitating a full Office of Councillor consultation with them. So I've passed it onto Offices today, so we should have, we've got that invite from them as well. I just wanted to give an example of how just trying to help other people see how we can try and help influence and get feed as much into that as possible because I see it as at the end of the day if it is going to happen and we want to feed as much local knowledge. And like you say, really prioritise those benefits and priorities of what we're going to get back. I think that, thanks for that, Councillor, and I think that also shows the value of having relevant portfolio elders involved in the planning process. Absolutely, because you will take the knowledge and you bring it back to this committee as well, which is excellent, so thanks. A chair, just for the benefit of members and members of public listening, that is without prejudice to whether that's supported. So again, we can really delve into those conversations and discussions and still defend a position should we choose to. Yeah, thanks, ma'am. So with those recommendations, A, B and C, I forgot what page they're on there, but do we all support them? I'll agree. Okay, thank you. A gender item, now on to a gender item 10, permitted development rights, implementation of various amendments. Have I missed number nine? Oh, sorry, yes, sorry, sorry, sorry. Yeah, it's not on my outline of the agenda. But yeah, a gender item, a nomination to the Planning Policy Board, three members of the Planning Committee to be nominated to Planning Policy Board. Currently, the nominations from this Planning Committee are Councillor Moore, Councillor Milton and Councillor Dales. I had the conversation with Councillor Dales to talk about the constitutional requirement for the chair of Planning Committee to be nominated, although I would still, and still want Councillor Dales to be on the Planning Policy Board, and that will come through PPIC. So I would like to move that myself as chair in accordance with the Constitution and David as Vice Chair and Councillor Milton, if he still feels. You still feel the need to be on, and excellent contributions you made too. So myself, Councillor Milton and Councillor Morgan, the nominations from this and the other three nominations will be sorted out by PPIC. That green? Okay, thank you. Right, we'll get to a gender item 10 eventually, permitted development rights, implementation of various amendments to existing classes. Oliver? Thank you, Chairman. Obviously, this report is for noting. May recall, we talked about this at Committee back in September last year. A raft of potential changes being considered by the Government to Committee Development Rights. Really, the purpose of this report is simply to advise you that two new statutory instruments have been issued concerning change of use to dwelling houses and further changes to agricultural sort of diversification and development on agricultural years. Not unless a specific queries and questions are intended to read all of these out, but they're set out and we did debate them back in September. And obviously, we did send a consultation report on those proposed changes. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Any questions, comments? Recommendation that we know the report is noted. Okay, thank you. A gender item 11 appeals lodged. Anything to add to this, Oliver? On simply to note that the Australian appeal, which is the first one on the list, was actually the decision for that was released this week, just to note that that was allowed by the planning inspector. What the appeal was allowed? Yes. Okay. Any questions or comments? Can we note the report? Okay. Agreed. Thanks. And a gender item 12 is appeals determined, and I know you want to make a couple of points on this one, Oliver. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah. Just a couple of points. Obviously, we have yet to hear the cost application on the best scheme, and we'll update you in due course. We also have helpful to point out the recent decision on the Tesco Express application and note that the inspector fully agreed with the committee's decision. And then lastly, I want to update members on a cost decision that was made by Inspector back in December for 11 station road in Collingham, but officers forgot to share this during our recent reporting on committee performance. We have apologized to Mr. Anthony Northko, who brought this matter to our attention, and we're happy to put the records straight. Thanks. Can we agree to note the report? All right. Okay. Thank you. That concludes today's business. It's been another interesting planning committee. The extraordinary committee next week will have that additional agenda item, but hopefully will not go until until too late. There's only two agenda items now. Okay. So thanks for your attendance and have a lovely evening. Thanks.