Transcript

Okay, so we're going to start. Good morning and welcome. We are conducting the planning committee as a multi-location meeting. We are live streaming the meeting today and it will be recorded and uploaded onto the council's website within 48 hours in accordance with the county's multi-location meeting policy except where there are confidential and exempt items. A copy of the wording will also be retained in accordance with the council's data retention policy. The planning committee is a quasi-judicial cross-party committee. The planning reports and officer presentations enable the committee to make an objective decision in the wider public interest on the basis of the development plan and all relevant material planning considerations. If a member wishes to speak, could you please press the speak central button on your microphone and/or select speak on your device if attending remotely. Item 1, apologies for absence. Item 2, Declaration of Interest. Members are reminded of their responsibility under paragraph 1011 of part 3 of the Member's Code of Conduct to declare any interest at the start of the meeting and complete personal interest forms. Even if you have completed an annual form, there is a need to declare any disclosable interest in the meeting. This is especially important for recording the interest in the minutes. If you have any declarations of interest, please press your speak button now. Membership to note that council meeting of the 23rd of May 2024 council agreed the membership was outlined on the agenda and at this point I am slightly deviated from my script because I do want to welcome a new member of the committee, Councillor Helen Gunter, she came on the site visit but you are very, very welcome. Terms of reference, to note the planning committee terms of reference that was agreed at the council meeting on the 23rd of May 2024. All in agreement? Item 5a, to move on to the actual applications now, the application in relation to the Coach House Cathedral Court, planned after, I know we have a number of people here for this application but it is my understanding based on, we have had some late reps about that and as a precautionary measure we are going to defer this item while investigations take place. So I understand people have come along but we have to, as a precautionary measure, listen to late reps so we are going to do that. So that will be deferred until the next committee in July. Chair, excuse me, could you just tell us what the issue is? So that we had some late representations with regard in bats. I haven't got the full details but we take, we have to take a precautionary approach so what we are going to do is we are going to defer while investigations take place. Purely about bats? Yes. Just having a chat, how late in the day was the planning department aware? Today, this morning. So it is very difficult to react, it is very difficult to speak to the ecologist. I am not seeking to delay things when we shouldn't delay things. I would prefer it if things came in because then we could have a consultation. We have been unable to speak to the ecologist this morning and this is very unfortunate. Okay, so that brings us to the second, just to be clear, this is something I have been made aware of in the last few minutes. So it is not, that is just where we are. The second application is Clandalf Fields bowling pavilion, Cathedral Road, Pontcanna and we are going to hear from the planning officer. Thank you chair, good morning committee. This application proposes a conversion of an existing bowling green within Clandalf Fields to provide six paddle courts and refurbishment and alteration of the existing pavilion to provide a café, changing facilities and associated space. The application is before committee as a petition of 74 signatories has been received objecting to the proposal. A summary of the objections is included as section 8 of the report. The site, marked red on the plan on the left of the screen, comprises the existing bowling green and associated curtilage. The site boundary also includes the access path and part of the existing car park, however no works are proposed for these areas. Committee members are likely to know the site, however for clarity it is located centrally within Clandalf Fields to the border with Pontcanna Fields to the east. Tennis courts are sited to the north, a play area to the south and the recreation ground to the west. The nearest residential property is located at a significant distance to the south east on Fields Park Road, which can be seen in the top right of the image to the bottom left corner of the screen. The existing site is a mix of grass and concrete surfacing enclosed by fencing. The pavilion comprises a single story building with a tiled roof and brick walls. The proposed paddle courts would largely be sited upon the existing bowling green, measuring 50 metres in length and 45 metres in width, with green space retained around. Existing planting would be retained to the south and east sides and planting is proposed to the west. A glazed canopy would cover the paddle courts with three symmetrical barrel voltage roofs, the gables facing to the north east and south west to a height of less than 6 metres to Eves and approximately 8.5 metres to Ridge. The canopy would be formed by a metal frame to be black in colour and glass to be low reflective. On screen are renders of the proposal showing the scale and design of the proposed canopy in the context of the existing park. The refurbishment of the pavilion would consist of changes to provide temporary window and door openings and re-cladding. The accommodation would comprise a cafe to the centre of the pavilion, changing rooms to the south west side and toilets and office and storage to the north east side, all of which could be separately accessed. The proposal is considered to be an appropriate form of development which would enhance existing sporting facilities within the park and which would have a positive impact with no detrimental effect. It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions referenced in section 12 of the report. Thank you. So there is a petition attached to this application. The petitioner I believe is with us. So do you want to take a seat? So you will have three minutes to address the committee. Thank you for hearing this petition presented by Cardiff Civic Society. Paddle is a growing sport and we have no wish to stop people enjoying it. But this proposal is deeply inappropriate for Clandiff Fields, a tranquil area of public green space providing a refuge for the people of Cardiff and our much loved wildlife. Clandiff Fields is a grey two star listed historic park. As the Welsh Historic Garden Trust comments, this application mocks that status. Local Development Plan Key Policy 17 requires you to protect registered historic landscapes, parks and gardens, as does Policy EN 9. Clandiff Fields is a natural leisure space with only low impact recreational facilities. It was hard won by the citizens of Cardiff, given by the Thompson family for everyone to enjoy freely. This proposal would commercialise open parkland and privatise public space. Six covered glass courts, as high as a two storey house and taller than many adjacent trees, will blight this beautiful park forever. Illumination to extend playtime will make them highly visible despite the proposed colour changes. Waste and litter will likely increase. Cardiff Council has declared a nature emergency. Parks like Clandiff Fields are vital for urban wildlife in this age of nature depletion. Artificial lighting is hugely damaging to nocturnal species. The Bat Conservation Society reports that bats avoid illumination and lose foraging grounds, compromising their survival. LED lighting is particularly harmful given its intensity. This application would increase traffic in an already congested area. The car park today overspills into nearby streets. Air pollution is a proven threat to public health, leading to many premature deaths. If Cardiff is serious about its modal shift to public and active travel, proposals dependent on private car access should be rejected. If you approve this application, it will destroy the open quality of Clandiff Fields and the wellbeing of the people and the environment you have a duty to protect. If there is demand for paddling in Cardiff, there are many more suitable sites. The applicant should find one of those instead. I believe the agent for the applicant is joining us remotely. Is he with us? Brilliant. Yes, I'm with you. Excellent. You also have three minutes to respond. Thank you, members. I hope you can hear me loud and clear. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address you today. My name is Babash Vashie and I'm the agent for the project. Given the limited time, I wish to make five key points for your consideration. The first is that the bowling green is unused and is deteriorating, along with the pavilion building which has been vandalised several times. Secondly, we have worked closely with Tennis Wales to bring this exciting new sport to Cardiff, which is truly accessible sport for all ages and groups in the local area and which fully complies with encouraging sporting activity in line with national and your own local parent policies. Point three, we have worked closely with your offices over the past eight months or so and have amended the application on several occasions. Some of these amendments include reducing the number of courts from eight to six, reducing the height of the canopy to the lowest possible height that they can be, and agreeing to the use of certain colours so that it is more sympathetic to the surrounding development and the park. We have also incorporated greater levels of landscaping within the scheme before you now. Point four, the proposal will complement the already upgraded adjacent tennis courts and offer a new destination for people to get fit and active. Point five, in our opinion and that of your own officers, the proposal will be a positive addition to the area. Through the restriction of opening hours, the use of low-level lighting will ensure that there is no discernible negative impact upon existing residents or local wildlife. Members, I would draw your attention to the detailed report prepared by the case officer which recommends approval and which sets out how the proposal has been shaped and takes into consideration the significant benefits of the proposal versus its impact upon Grade 2 star listed park and garden. I would also draw your attention to your own heritage officer and cadre who agreed that the significance of the Washington Park plan would be unharmed. Members, I respectfully ask that you endorse your officer's report and approve this exciting new facility for Cardiff. Thank you and I am happy to take any questions. Thank you. Okay, I am going to go back to the planning officer. Do you wish to respond to any of the points? Thank you, Chair. With regards to the petitioner's comments, I would just add as referred to in the report and as referred to by the agent that Cardiff's own heritage officer and the ecologist have all reviewed the scheme and they are satisfied that subject to conditions there would be no harm in respect of the registered historic park or upon ecology and biodiversity. Thank you. Thank you. I am now going to open up the debate for members to make contributions and ask questions. Can those that wish to speak please indicate now. Okay. I will take the first two. Councillor Michael and then I will come to Councillor Robson. Councillor Michael. Thanks, Chair. I think this is an excellent application. I used to use Lander Fields for football and rugby when I was in school there a long, long time ago back in the dark days. I think the facilities were better then than they have now. The swimming pool is gone. The bowling green is gone. Virtually everything has been left to rot there, frankly. To actually see an application that takes a disused bowling green and actually makes better use for it for the public is to be welcomed. I don't share the apocalyptic version of Lynn over there, my good, young friend. I don't think the world is going to finish because we have a low level LED allowing people to take part in paddle tennis, frankly. I also don't share your concern that this is privatisation of the park. Partnerships are in place all over this city and they benefit the residents and this is one such partnership with tennis Wales that we should actually be supporting. I note the comments by the heritage officer Kaju and everybody else, the ecologists included. I think this is an excellent application and I will be supporting it. Councillor Robson. Thank you, Chair. Yes, this application has got a lot going for it, to be honest. I understand the objective concerns about the impact on a listed heritage park like this. I really understand that and that whole sway of Butte Park right from the city centre up to the top end of Landerfield is something that this city really values. So I get why there's some concern about this. But looking at how it's been mitigated, I think I'm quite happy with it. It brings it back into use, as Councillor Michael said, a bowling green. This is an area of recreation space, in essence, into a useful sport facility. It is quite substantially some distance away from the nearest housing, so it won't have too much impact on that. And I look at the, I appreciate it's a computer generated image in our papers, but the image of the structure that's proposed, the sort of the domed glass over the courts and it doesn't look out of place in the park, in my opinion. You know, I've seen far worse being built in parks and have more impact than what I see before me in the papers here. So yes, I too will be supporting it, Chair. Okay, we'll have quite short comments, so I'll bring in a third and then I'll go back to the officer. Councillor Gunter. Thank you, Chair. So looking at the report and noting Caddo's comments, obviously they're raising no objection, subject to mitigation and have suggested a maintenance plan. So is there any more information about that? And in relation to the lighting, there's obviously lots of different options in regards to floodlighting height and things like that. Do you have any information about how that will be done? Thank you. Okay, do you want to respond? If you referred to Section 12, the conditions of the report, the maintenance plan is required subsequently by condition. There's also controls in regards to lighting with the proposed lighting having been considered and considered acceptable by our consultees, especially in that area. Okay, next we get Councillor Hunt. Yeah, I was going to inquire about the light, but I think that seems covered by all the comments made. The only thing I would say is that if we were to adopt the sort of slightly draconian view that objectors are asking us to adopt, then, you know, there'd be nothing in parks other than just grass and trees, you know, and the fact is, it's not unusual for parks to have activities within them. I think it's positive and useful and should be encouraged. And I think that I agree with others. I think this is a very good use of this particular park area. It involves activity and attracting people and I've got no difficulty with it at all. Thanks. I'll bring in the next two and then I'll go back to Councillor Shimon first. Thank you, Chair. I've got a comment and then a question. The comment is I welcome parts of the proposal for the canopy because a lot of park activity is weather dependent and this will help ensure it's all year round use and active use in the park all year round. But my question, the looking at the plans for the pavilion, you've got the cafe and you've got the toilets. Will these be publicly accessible whilst when open just to general public, especially the toilets in a park, which is often needed but also there doesn't seem to be any disabled toilet proposed. So what I'll do is I'll bring in Councillor Wong and then I'll go to the office. Councillor Wong. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to pick up on a couple of things the objective said around the use of natural leisure space for everyone to enjoy the impact on urban wildlife. But the site is a bowling club that was never open to general public. It was open to bowling club members. Is that correct or is that? My understanding is that the KCA was a managed facility. It wasn't generally open to the public but was a public facility that could be used. Yes. So effectively it's been no different since 1932 as a managed space. So the introduction of paddle cores is actually the same continuation of that kind of usage. Yes, a different iteration but yes, similar in nature. Have you got any more points, Councillor? OK. Do you want to respond to the other Councillor's comments? The facility, the cafe facility will be open to the general public, not just users of the paddle courts. We're not able to control that as such. Well, we could control it. It could only be used by the paddle courts but we're not seeking to do so and it would be open to the general public. I can't answer the questions as to whether the toilets would be open to nonpatrons unfortunately and that's not a matter we could realistically seek to control. I note your comments about the disabled toilet facility. I'm sure that's down to the size and the accommodation and what's able to be provided and I can't really add anything further on that. Could we just make sure that those points are raised with the applicant and that they're doing them? Because I do think that the toilet point is there. It's a good point, isn't it? Additional informative to the consent as well. Do you want to give us, it's quite a technical term, do you want to give us three notes just requesting and advising that it would be beneficial for the facilities to be open to the general public. You content with that? Yes. Okay, I don't have any more speaking requests so I'm going to go for the votes. Michelle. We will now move on to the vote. We will now vote on the recommendation as outlined in the report which is to grant the applications subject to the conditions listed. Please press the button on your microphone or on your screen if attending remotely. Yes if you are in favour of the application, no if you are against the application or alternatively you can abstain. We will start the vote now. The application is granted. Okay, we're slightly ahead of schedule so we're going to take a very short comfort break. The third application on the agenda is the Medina Mosque, Lucas Street Cotez. We will go straight to the planning officer to hear the presentation. Good morning committee. This is an application for Medina Mosque, Lucas Street Cotez which is for our proposed mosque and community centre as application number 2302402. So this is a site plan, an aerial view of the site. So the yellow highlighted marker is the site. You can see here, this is Lucas Street, sorry that's Robert Street, sorry, that's Lucas Street. Across there we've got the railway line intersecting to the rear of the site. At the bottom of the screen we can see Crewis Road, kind of running along the bottom there and then Heath Park kind of further over into the north. This is another view showing the site in a bit more of a closer detail. We can see the site is kind of roughly triangular in shape. It currently contains a temporary mosque building which is two storey. The levels are kind of below the level of the site, it's below the level of the existing roadway so they've kind of dug down currently and that's part of previous planning permissions on the site. We can see kind of, again yes, kind of residential properties towards Robert Street and Lucas Street and further afield. So this is a view of what's currently on the site. We can see kind of the temporary mosque buildings there with kind of the existing hoarding to the site as we look from across from Lucas Street. This is a different view of the temporary building. We can kind of see that the ramp leading to kind of the basement level of the site there in the foreground, again with kind of the existing kind of temporary hoarding there. Again we're looking kind of from Robert Street into the site. Again we can kind of see that the basement level below the level of the existing highway and then the footway there across with the existing kind of temporary mosque building. This is a site plan of what's being proposed. We can see the building is kind of a roughly triangular in shape. So across through there and this site we can see kind of to the frontage there are kind of planting beds proposed, landscaping. There's kind of an access for a drop-off zone which is accessed off Robert Street which kind of leads round the back past the railway line there and exits out onto Lucas Street there as a drop-off area. Then joining it is the access into the basement level which I'll kind of discuss next. This is a plan shown at the basement level which is proposed for parking area. There's approximately 32 car parking spaces and clues disabled and EV charging spaces in there. There's also a hall, kitchen, lift stairways as well as well as kind of other ancillary rooms within the building. This is kind of the ground floor plan so it shows kind of the access from the ground floor level. It contains a coffee shop, halls, classrooms, a gymnasium and meeting rooms within this level as well. This is the first floor plan so it kind of shows kind of yeah halls again to it as a male or female hall. Also includes a mirab which is on the rear which is a niche which points towards Mecca. Also includes kind of a bereavement suite and also kind of washroom areas as well for worshippers. The roof plan of the proposal includes two domes which we will see in a minute, also green and blue roofs with planting areas, landscaping as well on the roof as well. So this is an elevation plan of what's being proposed, a two storey flat roof building which is approximately 10 metres high, 43 metres wide and 41 metres deep with a rooftop containing two fibreglass domes which are approximately three to four and a half metres in height. You can see the building contains cladding to the elevations, also is currently proposed to be clad in white render but there are ongoing discussions in regards to materials which are conditioned as you will see in the report for officers to agree. There's a CGI of what's being proposed, we can kind of see what's being proposed within the context of the adjoining streets called Robert Street and Lucas Street. You can see proposed domes onto the roof and a rooftop area as well as surrounding planting and landscaping that's being proposed. Again kind of a close up view of the site showing what's being proposed, elevations looking towards Robert Street there as well as kind of the landscaping being proposed, cycle parking being proposed, kind of sitting out and bench areas to the outside of the proposed as well. As well as the rooftop area you can see within that drawing as well. So the building would have capacity for approximately 300 worshippers. The building is approximately 20 to 23 metres from adjoining residential properties and should be native to the first floor windows facing Robert Street which are approximately 20 metres away to be obscurely glazed and on opening, with a 1.7 metre high obscure screen balustrade also conditioned for the flat roof element on the proposal facing Lucas Street and Robert Street as well. The roof area contains some ecological enhancements as well and they are proposed also within the site. This office's opinion that a proposal is a great scheme which would greatly improve provision for worshippers of the Islamic faith within the local area and is a long term project that the community have been involved with for many many years through fundraising and planning. The site is within a sustainable location cited within its own on street parking provision, a drop off lane, cycle parking provision and is cited in close proximity to public transport routes, bus stops and a future provision of a railway station at Creweis Road. Applicants have also agreed to enter into a section 106 agreement with the council to provide £15,000 towards the cost of implementing enhanced residential parking permit traffic orders in the vicinity. The proposal is a highly sustainable development with the developers wishing to ensure the proposal meets the government's commitment to net zero, the building able to provide the majority of its own energy needs through the provision of PV panels, air source heat pumps and rainwater harvesting. It is not considered a proposal would prejudice the privacy and amenities of adjoining neighbours and increase conditions to protect those adjoining neighbours from overlooking a noise impact through the control of opening hours and plant noise. The proposal also includes a number of green infrastructure and ecological enhancements including new planting, landscaping to the site and through the provision of a blue and green roof to the flat roof area. The landscaping scheme to the frontage would have a Mediterranean theme with palms, olive trees and other similar species to complement the proposal and provide interest to the site. Officer recommendation is to approve subject to the applicant entering into a section 106 agreement with the council and subsequent appropriate conditions. Thank you. Okay, so thanks for that. We don't have any requests from all councillors to speak and I don't believe there's no petition attached to this application. I'll go out on a limb and say it probably is a betterment, the current mosque. I am pleased so that we're still in conversations about the final render because there is always a slight risk with white render on buildings in a city that has quite a lot of rain. So I'm pleased we're continuing that conversation but I will open it up to members. So anyone who wishes to speak. I'll bring in the first three. Councillor Schimins first. Thank you and it's a very good comprehensive report. I was just wondering the overall height. How much higher is that of surrounding buildings? And I'm very sorry, I couldn't quite hear. I know the windows are going to be obscured. There's going to be no overlooking, is that correct, into neighbours on either side, both Lucas and Robert Street. Thank you. So I'll bring in Councillor Robson next. Thank you chair. There's a lot going for this application. My only question is around the traffic and transportation comments. Obviously I note in 5.1 that there's a survey being done, which and the figures there. I also note from either the representation, I think it's in the reps that that's been questioned around that. So I just want clarity really as to where traffic and transportation are on this in terms of balancing what the survey has shown against what the objections have shown, representations I should say, have shown that have come in. That's my only concern. And Councillor Wong. Yeah, I actually think it's a really, really great design in terms of the building, but my concerns are the same as Adrian's, particularly around the impact of parking on the local area. I've obviously read through the transport impact statements, but it doesn't one doesn't take account of the potential for the expected zonal parking at a later stage that a significant part of a cotaze is already covered by when it talks about the access to free parking on there. And I would also like to see conditioned traffic management plan that looks to support modal shift. You can see from the from the numbers there at peak times that that's a significant level of influx of vehicles into that area. And while we kind of understand that's the here and now that there needs to be a push for modal shift from from the from the mosque itself. Okay. I'll bring in I'll bring in bring back the planning officer and we also have transportation officers just to answer some of those questions as well. So over to the officers to answer those. Thank you Councillors. Yeah, I think I'll answer Councillor shimmons questions first in regards to regards to the height. It's approximately 14 and a half metres high to the top of the domes. The biggest dome is shown on the the plan. Existing terrace houses approximately kind of eight to nine metres high. They'd be around about so it will be slightly taller. The building itself is approximately kind of nine to 10 metres in height. So it'd be similar in height, the existing building to the existing to adjoining terrace houses. The domes will be slightly higher than the surrounding area but they are set back within the site on it a lot kind of right on the the edge of the the area there and they are conditioned to be kind of agreed and kind of what they're going to what they're going to look like in regards to that. In terms of in terms of the overlooking from Robert Street, which is kind of the closest part that's approximately 20 metres from the the edge of the first floor element, which is kind of set back slightly to those adjoining residential properties. So that's where we've put the condition on saying there should be no the schoolie glazed windows to the elevation and the screen as well on there and also kind of from the from Lucas Street slightly different. It's slightly further further back. So I think our view is that it's acceptable in terms of its proximity away 23 metres where generally we use a figure of 21 metres between windows to windows for those. So we're happy for it in regards to Lucas Street, Robert Street slightly different scenario and it is a little bit closer but there aren't as many properties on Lucas Street that would directly look towards like this. There's more on Robert Street and where how long Lucas Street goes. It's not quite that kind of more side-facing. You can kind of see from that photo, can't you? It's kind of more side-facing of the houses rather than direct frontages onto it. I think I'll defer to my colleague in regards to the transport comments. There we go. I'm now. Right. Sorry about that. Yes. Right. Okay. Yeah. On the transportation side, I take your comments. I fully understand the queries relating to the availability of space. I know the transport consultants provided a survey of what is theoretically potential space on the street. Although to supplement that, I have been out and had a look myself in the afternoon to see how much actual space there is sitting on the streets that would be available for visitors in the immediate surrounds of the mosque. And I've counted generally about 16 spaces are available for users coming in at the moment. So I think there is potential space there with the 32 in the site itself to accommodate users of the mosque. They're getting back at the moment, as you said, they're getting about 250, 260 people attending of a Friday. They've got the potential for 300. So we have a potential on current arrival patterns, potentially attracting 56 vehicles to the site itself, of which we've got 32 on site. And then potentially we'll be looking at about 20 looking to park on the street somewhere at the moment, of which there's almost enough space. As part of the development, obviously Robert Street and Lucas Street will lose the hoarding. And the roads will widen again, and the carriageway is potentially available for extra parking bays to be put in short stay bays or shared use bays, which have seemed most appropriate, probably on Lucas Street, given the dead end nature of Robert Street, we probably don't want to be attracting additional vehicles in there is something we will obviously look at in detail when we look at what what what would be the most suitable parking spaces to put in around that area and using the one or six money that's available to us to supplement the money going towards the forthcoming CPZ or controlled parking zone, sorry, in that area. So it all needs to tie together and we make sure we protect the residents and provide some on street space for users of the mosque, you know, who are popping in and late etc. The vast majority of them, well, 68% of the attendees at the moment walk, which is quite common for mosque isn't it, because of their local hub nature. The vast majority of people attending generally walk with so again, 68% here, which is pretty good at the moment. The applicants have provided a travel plan. So that's the base level. So obviously, looking forward, we'll be looking to increase the number of pedestrians, the number of people using public transport, that's very low at the moment, obviously, because it's localized people who are coming and reduced the number of car born journeys to use the site. So that's the objective, and that will carry on. I don't think the travel plan was conditioned because they provided it anyway. But that's something we can mark and consider as to whether we need to add that in as a condition to make sure it's pursued in the future. I've also discussed it with my parking policy colleagues, and they haven't received any complaints about the existing mosque in letters. The churches locally are the only ones who have had complaints about the fact that they attract too many people, but I guess that's different days when all the residents are home. So it's less of an issue, obviously, since the article in Wales Online has been a bit more traction, I suspect, and people's concerns have been raised as to what this may mean or may not mean in the local area. But I think we've sort of covered off the concerns about transport. I think as a transportation group, we're quite, I'm going to say relaxed, but we're quite sure we can manage the on-street parking applications of the facility, which I suppose is basically it could accommodate 300 people now, and in the future it would accommodate 300 people. Thank you, Chris. I'm going to ask Chris a question while I'm talking. There isn't a travel plan condition imposed. If members felt that a travel plan condition or transport management plan condition was appropriate, that's quite happy to put it on. The question I would have to Chris would be, is the travel plan that's been submitted acceptable in demonstrating how they're going to encourage modal shift and ensure that the, what is actually already quite significant use of sustainable modes of transport continues, or would we need to put a condition that required them to update that travel plan? Yes, it would probably be useful to put the travel plan condition on. I think that was my fault for not, not requesting it because they'd already provided one, but I think we need the updates and to be assured we're going to get the updates. I think we've done that on at the mosques and establish similar establishments across the city. It's, it's, I'll let it slip unfortunately. That's okay. I'm looking at members. I'm getting some nods. So I think we should look to put that travel plan condition. Yeah. Okay. I've got Councillor Hunt. Yeah, thanks. I've got a huge amount to add. I was just looking at actually on Google where exactly it is a part of the taste. I don't know very well, but yeah, it's, it's, I, I was, I was a bit concerned about the proximity to, to, to residential, but, but I think the second that the last illustration you showed, I think, I think was, was much better on that because it was, I think the report made that, made that completely clear, but yeah, so, so it's, it's, it's far enough away, I think for there to be a, you know, for, for, for, for it to hopefully not make a huge difference. I think it's, the principle of development is, is accepted. I mean, there's no doubt about that. So I think that that's a sort of a, you know, a huge obstruction to, to, to overcome. I would, I would just say the design of course is interesting and it'll be, I don't think you ever really understand what these things are like until you see them up, you know, as, as they, as, as, as constructed. And we'll, we can see about that, but it's certainly an interesting design and whether it ties in with the area I'm concerned, I'm not sure, but certainly I'd, I'd, I'd, I'd accept it as far as it's, as the report states. Thanks. Councillor Ahmed. So, can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you. Yeah, I, I've got some technical problems here. I think because it's the internet access, I think it's the internet access. Yeah. Yeah. Can you hear me? I don't hear, there's a lot of other people as well, but it's not, not, not that I can hear you. Okay. Councillor. Yeah. Thank you. What it is, I just want to say, if you will, it's in my ward. I have, I have no direct involvement in this centre itself. I don't believe that every other mosque is one, which I normally say empty mosque is where I live. So I don't get to say that I do go to this mosque even sometimes, like I go to Bringsdown, U-Town and other places. Well, just to interrupt you, Councillor, obviously it's for you to decide whether you've got an interest or not. It's that is yours. I don't, I don't, I don't. I think I want to say, I know some of my colleagues set up a party. Of course, parties have made the problem, not only the thing, everyone has, but we are talking about the thing. There are some churches, but no party at all. Yellow line, outside, or they call a party, just gives you no choice. So Councillor, there's quite a lot of background noise behind you. I don't know if, I think we've got your main points. So I think that's okay. Thank you, Councillor. Okay. Do you want to respond to those points? Sorry. Yeah, thank you. I couldn't quite hear what Councillor Ahmed was, was entirely, slightly saying there. Sorry. I think in terms of the principle, Councillor Hunt, yeah, the, the, the sites had consent since 1990 on this, on this site. So I think the principle of a mosque, okay. I can quite quickly show you what's previously been approved on the site. If we can kind of go up. So that was what was approved back in 2005. So a much larger mosque building, which had capacity for, I think for 900 worshippers originally. So quite a, quite a large building that was, was approved by, by planning committee back in 2000 and 2005. This is much kind of more compact version of what's being proposed today. Thanks very much. Okay. I've got no more speaking requests, so I'm going to take it to the, to the vote over to you. So, so to be clear, this is including the condition on the travel plan. I will hand it over to the officer to speak us through the vote. We will now vote on the recommendation as outlined in the report, which is to grant the applications subject to the conditions listed. Please press the button on your microphone or on your screen if attended remotely. Yes. If you're in favor of the application, no, if you're against the application or alternatively you can abstain, we will start the vote now. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The application is granted. Subject to obviously section 106 and conditions. Okay. The next item on the agenda is urgent items. So the no urgent items have been received in the debate. The date of the next meeting is to be confirmed. Thank you to officers and members. And that is the end of the meeting. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. . [ Silence ]