Transcript

Good morning, officers. Welcome to the Planning Committee meeting. I'm Tisser Lebens and I'm the chair of the Planning Committee of the quality council. This is a multi-location meeting with the option of joining in person, in a chamber or remotely. Before proceeding today, I have to remind everyone present that the proceedings of today's meeting are being filmed live and may be kept on the council's internet site as an archive record of the meeting. The images and sound recording may also be used for training purposes within the council. Members of the public watching the meeting via the English language webcast will receive Welsh to English simultaneous translation automatically. Members and guests who have joined through Zoom who wish to receive simultaneous translation from Welsh to English should click on the interpreter symbol at the bottom of the screen and then choose English. Those who are in attendance in the chamber should use the translation device and microphone provided. I must remind all members and officers that you should only activate your mics after I have invited you to speak on an item. This will allow the seamless broadcast of proceedings. Remember to mute your microphones after speaking. Also, may I ask committee members to keep their cameras on throughout the meeting and not only when speaking. If remote members lose connection during the live meeting, please make every attempt to reconnect. However, the meeting will continue as long as we are core it. There is no fire alarm test planned today. Therefore, for anyone joining from council building, should the alarm sound, it will not be a test and you should follow the appropriate fire exit signs. We shall now move on to the agenda we have before us today. The first item is apologies for absence. We have received apologies from Councillor Terry Davies. I can see that Councillor John James is not here. He hasn't contacted us as far as I know. Oh, yes, he's online. He's online. Sorry, John. No problem, chair. On to item 2, declaration of personal interest. I will ask our solicitor to read this for us. Steve, thank you. Are you going through it first? I think I'll just go through this and then let them go after me. Thank you. You all have the responsibility under the Code of Conduct to verbally declare any personal interests you may have in relation to any item appearing on the agenda today. Please ensure that you clearly indicate which agenda item you have a personal interest in and the specific nature of the interest to be disclosed and whether or not you will be withdrawing from the meeting due in consideration of that item. If your interest is prejudicial, you will have to leave the meeting. For remote attendees, the democratic services officer will place you in the virtual lobby and invite you back to the meeting once the debate has concluded. You should not use the rejoin meeting button. If an interest has not been declared at the start but becomes known during discussions, it will need to be declared when that interest becomes apparent. You will need to repeat your declaration of personal interest at the beginning of the relevant item on the agenda as well as indicating whether or not you will be leaving the meeting due in consideration of that item. You will also need to indicate whether you have been granted a dispensation by the standards committee or the modern officer to speak or vote or both in respect of any item on the agenda. Thank you, Steve. Can any members... Jean-Lois. Yes, thank you. Following advice by the solicitor, I will be declaring a personal interest as the applicant is a neighbour and one of the objectors I know her well, so I'll be leaving the meeting after having advice. ...councillor Jean-Lois about this and that it's also prejudicial, so that's why she's leaving the meeting. Thank you. We'll move on then to item three and it reads as follows. 06099. C3 for the conversion of seven new residential flats at Capel, Norton Road, Penagros and Italy. I will go over to the officer for the report. Thank you. Before going through the main report, I would highlight there is an addendum item on this application and that relates to correction in the report whereby you will know from the second paragraph of the report there is a correction there as far as directional indication in the report whereby first to west rather than east that is corrected and that is also corrected then in the addendum and the relevant paragraph will be produced there. I will now share the screen and get the PowerPoint to display. Hopefully it will emerge. So the application relates to full planning permission for the conversion of a redundant chapel which is a D1 use class to a proposed series of residential flats which is a class C3 of residential use in the old Penagros congregational chapel in the center of Penagros. The first slide in front of you shows the extent of the application site edged red and as you can see that it fronts mainly onto Norton Road at the junction of the main roads in Penagros settlement itself. The second slide shows in the context of the cross hands settlement limits it's clearly shown within the continuous black line which is taken as an extract from the Camabancha local development plan which defines the development limits for that settlement. So again it's clearly within settlement limits. The next slide then shows it in slightly greater detail both as location plan and block plan. You will note that the application site includes the cemetery there's an extensive cemetery to the north of the building itself which fronts along its side elevation southern elevation onto Norton Road whereby there is also a further building which is located northeast of the application site which is a vestry building which is presently used to hold services for the chapel congregation and that will remain so the application relates solely to the original building which dates from the 1900s and again it is quite a large building as the further photographs in the power point will illustrate. Again this shows some details as to the some extra alterations there will be minimal disturbance to the building but there will be some rearrangement of the forecourt area where there's a pedestrian access from Norton Road and the junction itself together with some landscaping along the northern boundary or along the northern elevation of the building and there's some only some slight changes to the external appearance again those will be illustrated as I go through the power point. This shows the existing building both the external elevations as well as the internal floor plan as you will note from the floor plans again it does have a gallery element to it and again you will note then it's the top left front elevation with the entrance doorway its characteristics of these chapels of its time so it does have quite an imposing and conspicuous location within the settlement of Pen of Gros. The other elevations then the top right shows the northern elevation which faces onto the graveyard whereby the bottom right then shows the southern elevation which is onto Norton Road. This now shows the proposed scheme of conversion and again the main access into the building would be via the existing access which is the eastern elevation showing the top left and again you've got the three floor plans below so from left to right you've got the ground floor where it's proposed to have three one-bedroom two-person flats on the middle floor then further three two-person one-bedroom flats and then in the attic space on the third floor again that would be a two-bedroom four-person flat so those amount to seven units in total so six of those would be one-bedroom two-person flats and the seventh one would be a two-bedroom four-person flat. Also you will note of course from the top middle side elevation that there will be an external staircase leading to one of the one-bedroom flats on the first floor and as you can see you can see the outlay there along the northern elevation. The other access then to the flats other than the main door would be on the ground floor and that would be by an existing doorway onto Norton Road which you should be able to make out from the bottom left floor plan and again to the top left hand corner of that you'll see the doorway and that will be retained and used for that flat only. The building itself has been empty for a number of years and again this proposal seeks to reuse the building to stop it falling into further decline. The side infantry now is a cross section through the building and show how it shows how it would be split so as you can see there there would be a metal frame inserted within the building to provide for the necessary floor demarcation both the first floor and also as far as the arctic space for the seventh flat but again that would be obscured by the external elevations of the building itself. Also you will note from the previous elevations and illustrated there in part there will be roof light windows three on both roof planes to provide natural light into that seventh flat in the arctic space so again amounting to minimal alterations to the external appearance. Also you will note there from that cross section you will note the right hand side that there will be a new hedge bank planted along that northern elevation or the foreground to that northern elevation to help screen the development in part from the extensive graveyard beyond. And again this is a longitudinal section again showing the split by the internal frame and again you should be able to see the outline there of the external staircase which will provide for access to one of the first floor flats. Again these flats would be for starter or young people or even young professionals starting out on the property ladder hence why they are small and quite compact but they do conform to the Welsh government affordable housing standards and do slightly exceed those standards in the floor areas. The next slide shows some details of the forecourt arrangements I did mention that earlier there may well be some requirements to relocate some historic gravestones however that will be covered by a license granted by the home office subject to a separate application made by the applicant but those changes would be relatively minimal. Now we have photographs of the building so this is the front elevation which is east facing and again you can see there's some of the historic gravestones to the forecourt of the building. This would be the principal access in which would serve then five of the proposed seven flats. The next slide is taken at a slightly different angle at the beginning of Norton road so again you see the principal access in as well as the side elevation which is south facing onto Norton road. It is worth noting of course as you will probably already have observed there will be no dedicated car parking for this proposed scheme of conversion and again that is elaborated upon in the report given that the existing religious use of the building which is a d1 use does have a higher car parking requirement than the proposed flat development however there is no car parking to serve the chapel as it presently exists and on that basis our colleagues in the highway engineering department have assessed whereby there is no therefore a requirement to provide dedicated car parking at the site. I will be elaborating upon that as I go through the report in greater detail. Again we are on to Norton road looking at the side elevation and you can see there the site note is clearly displayed on the lighting pole. This again it shows some details as to when the building was built and you can see there 1883 as when it was built. This then again is on Norton road looking in the opposite direction it should be just about able to see behind the highway sign there that there is a gateway a pedestrian gateway and pedestrian doorway into the building which would be utilized for one of the ground floor flats. This now is taken of the northern elevation which fronts onto the extensive graveyard and again it's along that side elevation where the proposed external stairway will be provided to provide access for one of the flats on the first floor. One of the existing windows the furthest window on the first floor would be adapted to a doorway to accommodate that change. This again shows the same elevation but further up into the graveyard and again as mentioned earlier the building will remain relatively unchanged other than the one doorway and external staircase and of course three roof light windows into that roof plane. There will be minimal disturbance to gravestones however as previously mentioned any such disturbance would be subject to a license application to the home office for the translocation of any gravestones and graves. This is taken further up the graveyard again so given in wider context. Again to the left or east of the building as you look at the slide in front of you you've got the main square you can just about see the vestry building on the far extreme left of the photograph. To the right hand side you've got a public house which has an extensive car park to the rear which is just beyond that timber fence. This shows the same elevation in greater detail and again the first floor right hand window would become a doorway to provide access. This now is taken from the car park to the public house next door showing a slight angle to give you a better idea of the proportions of the building. This now is taken from Norton road on the opposite southern elevation you can't just about see then the doorway there at the end of the building which would be utilized then of access to the one of the ground floor flats. Again looking along Norton road over to the square where the access is off the square itself. This is the site notice again publicizing the application in accordance with our statutory requirements and again this is taken from the adjacent car park to the public house looking at the building you've got the public house to the right hand side. This shows some of the features although there is a basement it is of a limited access which can't be utilized but that was used for heating purposes associated with the chapel. So that concludes the the slides turning out the main report I've already covered the site description and location as well as the proposal itself the main report then refers to its planning history whereby there were some alterations carried out in 2014 when it was a functioning chapel. Also the relevant policies relating to the application are clearly stated principally relating to housing within development limits as well as the protection of buildings and landscapes where conversions are proposed. Also recent reference of course to affordable housing whereby we will be securing a financial contribution towards affordable housing on the basis of this proposal and of course not forgetting the spg area whereby we will be also securing a contribution in accordance with that policy requirement. You will of course note that we have had representations um most supportive but we have had a letter of concern from plan to be a committee council raising concerns relating to no on-site car parking provision for the proposed conversion but as previously mentioned given its existing d1 use as a religious place of worship again the car parking requirements for that would be far greater than any flat development but the chapel does not have any car parking given its historic use and on that basis we are not in a robust location to require for dedicated car parking provision for the proposal. Again the local members also made representations but given that the local members here today he will share those with you later. We've also had six letters of objection raising concerns on car parking or lack of car parking provision and also concerns relating to the use for residential purposes and the perceived disturbance which may be caused by that and also disturbance to the grain stones and associated noise. Also concern raised that why is the building not listed whereby it is clearly not listed by the Welsh government. As far as those concerns are relevant again the application building is a redundant chapel it has no use at the moment and this will serve to provide a much needed residential use of the chapel providing for one bedroom principally and one two-bedroom unit which again should satisfy some of the local need in the area for young people starting out on the housing ladder. As far as impacts upon the character of the building again the applicants did seek a pre-application inquiry on the building and to be fair the submission submitted does address all those points raised and highlighted by the officer in his response and also highlighting of course the contributions necessary in accordance with policy. I've already covered the highway impacts and related to the other uses which could be made of the chapel building without the need for planning at the present time and those are listed and it ranges from creches, day nurseries and day centres, libraries, museum, public halls etc even a law court all of which could be done without the need for planning permission. Hence why the proposal amounts to a less intensive use within a separate use class. As far as privacy and noise impacts again those aren't substantiated by robust evidence and as previously mentioned the proposed residential use would be a far less intensive use of the building and given its use as a chapel which is used not only for services but also for funerals and also weddings and also at the festivals etc throughout the year the potential for noise and disturbance would be greater without use than any residential flat date development. As far as the graveyards are concerned as previously mentioned any disturbance to gravestones would be subject to a license to the home office. As far as biodiversity concerns a bat survey was undertaken but there were no bats found within the building itself. And lastly of course referring back to what I previously mentioned any resolution to grant planning permission on this development will be subject to a legal agreement safeguarding a contribution towards affordable housing as well as towards a care amenity mass fertility butterfly requirements both of which are local development plan policy requirements. Otherwise the recommendation chair is to approve. Thank you. Thank you John for that detailed report. I should have welcomed two new members to the committee at the beginning of the meeting but I'm now welcoming Councillor John James back to the committee. After a year of being absent and also Councillor Steve Williams to his first meeting welcome both. So we'll go on the local member is here and he wants to say a few words and you now have up to five minutes die. Thank you chair and thank you for the wholesome report about the building. I'd just like to say Peregros couple is iconic in the middle of the village. The village is named after the chapel. It's been a hub for the whole life of the village for over 200 years and with the decreasing numbers the members of chapel have renewed the vestry which is now used as a place to worship. I'd like to encourage members of planning vote in favor of this application. It allows us to keep the character of the building and provides seven flats where there's a real need for for them. We all know that we need these sorts of flats in our wards. If we can give attention to some of the concerns of the residents the graveyard will be kept as it is apart from one or two graves. There'll be plenty of access available to the graveyard. The parking situation is not ideal but there is a public car park within about 100 meters of the chapel. If this building is not passed then the building will go to rock and rowing and will be nicer in the middle of the village and we've all seen such public buildings in other villages more or less falling down because there's no use to them. So I very much hope that you will support this application and thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you councilor Thomas. So I can open it up then to the committee members if anybody has a recommendation or a comment. Thank you. Yes I know the chapel quite well actually. What I'd like to know is there is a bench of the local member, there is a car park about 100 meters away from there but do you think the residents because the pub I don't know the pub is closed I think it is anyway there's a big car park there. Will they use that car park then for parking the cars because you could end up with about a dozen cars, 10 or 12 cars on Pennygrove Square and to be honest it isn't a place you want to see them parked on the road. It is a danger, it is a danger there. It's quite a busy road. It comes up from Landebeere, Blaine, through Pennygrove, Clasands and there's a lot of traffic on that road. That's the only concern I've got. One thing I will say it's nice to see that this happened in a lot of areas. Trappers and churches have been used in this way, flats or live in accommodation for people and it's nice to see that they are being kept instead of demolished in the end of the day because a lot of them go into a certain state. I've seen some of them. All the windows have been smashed in them. I don't know that's a sad thing to see. So it's a good thing then. I'm not saying I'd go against this application. The only issue I got is the parking lot. That's the only thing I'm concerned about because the square it is quite the busy road. Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you Chairman. Two concerns. The first concern is I hope this conversion is a sympathetic and adequate to the building and you know it is fit for purpose. The second point which is rather concerning is the parking and also the officer's comment that because there was no parking requirement previously that they don't think there should be any parking requirement presently and that does concern me because this is a new application and basically a new planning application. So it's not a planning application on an old building. So I don't know if the solicitor has any comment on that as guidance for because it is a new planning and I'm very concerned about the parking especially as a general item. But also I would take in the local members concerns and recommendations. Thank you. Yes I think the local members put on a very comprehensive and well-put report on what he wants for the area. I think I agree with it and what Councillor Cooper said as well that I shouldn't see so many of these buildings being left to a different state and what's going on as well but the service will still continue. They're going to the parking and that could put a string on the parking issue when it is a service. So you have the people who are living there as well as people who are going to worship. The other point I don't know if I missed it out there John Thomas about is there access for emergency? I don't know where we stand legally on that but I didn't pick it up in the report perhaps I overlooked it but I know that in England they don't have to. It was recommended to have emergency access but could you elaborate on that please? Yes to support what's being said about the building could I say is there a boundary wall on three sides of the chapel where there will be access to go around the chapel and we'll separate it then from the old chapel ground. And another question I had similar to John James's question was regarding the fire exits. There are stairs going up to one in one place but what about the rest of them with regards to safety fire exits to the other flats? That's the question I had. Sorry chair I've just noticed I don't normally look at who the applicant is so I happened to look because I was wondering was the applicant the chapel or was it a private company and I just noticed the names of the applicant and I think I might know the applicant so I'm just going to step out if that's okay. I'm not sure though but I think I might. Thank you Sue. John your hand's still up. Sorry there's a mistake. Councillor Jean Lewis. Thank you chair. Yes I share some of my fellow councilors concerns as well. With regards to the outside of the chapel is there a room for a car to park outside at all? Thank you. I can't see any other hands up so we'll go back to the officer. There are a few questions there. Most of them do with parking. Back to the officer then. Thank you Mr chair. I'll go through the points in the order they were raised. First of all Councillor Peter Cooper. I refer to the public park which is located some 100 meters from the application site. There is no policy requirement but it is a public car park anybody can use that but again this recommendation is based upon our highway engineers who've assessed it against the relevant parking requirements and given its historic use as the report clearly states and the other uses which could be made on that building at the present time within the D1 use class which could have a far more significant car parking demand as the chapel itself would have had at its peak. So we can't force them to provide the car parking otherwise if we were to do that we couldn't defend it at appeal right. We've been perfectly honest. If we are looking to refuse it on car parking we as officers can't defend it at appeal but if members go against us then it would fall upon you to provide that evidence and again it's not something we each we would but you know it is what it is we've had that assessment car parking requirement is not a necessity. The point also raised by Councillor Cooper is it on a busy junction and it is busy not as busy now because we've had the economic link road built for the long Norton road which has reduced the amount of traffic along Norton road quite significantly but but more people are looking to go from um cross hands up to the gate and not different day log or similar so that has reduced the pressure on Pengrove square which has reduced the traffic but there is quite a lot of traffic through the square but again you know Councillor Cooper also highlighted of course it's nice to see that these buildings are being reused. Most of you members have got empty chapels within your wards particularly those in Keneghi there are a number of empty chapels which aren't being used and fall into disuse and become an eyesore you know as members have already highlighted the longer they're empty then they are subject to vandalism there are graffiti windows being broken even some of them being set on fire which again is not good for the local community and certainly if they can be put to productive use providing starter homes for young people that is something which we have to commend and support wherever possible. Again moving on to what Councillor Skinner has said you know it will be a sympathetic conversion with minimal alterations to the external of the building but there will be some minor changes but it does provide a large iconic building providing a much needed housing provision within the village which again every member wants within his ward particularly for young people starting out on the housing ladder. As far as parking I've already covered that in detail whereby we have the support of us highway engineers as for why we can't ask for car parking as reiterated in the report itself. Again Councillor John James also condones the sympathetic conversion raises concerns on car parking which is acknowledged but already qualified but as far as access by emergency vehicles or even compliance with emergency requirements it would be subject to building regulations. Building regulations would dictate that any means of access has to be a protected means of escape whereby in the event of a fire in one of the flats then that means of escape must provide for the necessary half hour or hour or even longer period to ensure that other residents can safely exit the building without the fire spreading but that would be a building regulations requirement and this building will have to have building regulations either through the local authority or through an approved company of inspectors so again there is the safeguard as that is concerned. As far as any external access well that would be same as is the chapel at the present time but as far as internal the building regs would dictate and ensure compliance. As far as the point raised by Councillor Charles relating to the boundary definitions I did refer that there would be a new hedge bank constructed to the northern elevation or short distance away from the northern elevation to provide some separation with the with the graveyard but again that is only one such feature. As far as the remainder the building is quite tight to the road although though there is some space between the southern elevation and boundary wall and the pavement again that would necessarily be of any purpose to the public to walk around they could easily see the building from the other side of that wall so there is no requirement there will be public access via the gates and by the shared pedestrian walkway up to the front door and that is clearly stated on the application so this proposal will not hinder access to the graveyard at all by relatives of interned individuals. As far as Councillor Jean Lewis as far as any on-site car parking at the present time there isn't there are no car parking provisions for the chapel at all hence why we are not seeking to safeguard any because there aren't any and again it has to be considered on its merits as submitted and again I would reiterate of course that the applicant did submit a formal pre-application on this proposal before submitting the planning application whereby the requirements were clearly stated to the applicant and to be fair they fulfilled those requirements as far as the application submission hence why chair we have no issue with the proposal subject to the conditions and the requirement for the legal agreement. Thank you John. Two members have their hands up and were asked to speak. Councillor Russell Sparks first of all. Thank you John for the report, good report this morning. I'd like to propose that we go along with the recommendation of the officer and support the application. Thank you Councillor Sparks. Do we have a seconder? Yes we do. Councillor Michael Thomas please. I was going to actually propose that we go along with the officers as well but could I also thank John Thomas for the report and for the very clear answering of some of the questions that have been brought up as well. That was much appreciated and it is really nice actually to see all buildings like this being stopped from falling into disrepair and anti-social behaviour etc and being used for you know for starter homes, flats etc which I think all of our awards require so you know I think this needs to be applauded so you have no hesitation in supporting this. Thank you Councillor Thomas. Sorry Chair, just do you know the outside of the building? Obviously that's, am I right to say that's going to be kept as it is? They can't alter anything on the external part of the building. Yes there will be some minimal changes as I've said on the northern elevation there will be an external staircase and there will be a doorway instead of one of the windows. As far as the anything else some of the windows will be obscure glaze such as for bathrooms etc for privacy but otherwise the changes will be minimal. Some of the doors or windows may need to be changed as far as building regulations are concerned to comply with the statutory requirements for robust materials and finishes to the building but otherwise we're not looking at any major changes. You may have noticed on one of the slides that there was supposed to be a balcony in some of the roof lights that has been omitted so unfortunately it's on the plans for those who were omitted because they weren't sympathetic to the character of the building so we have had some minor changes done to it but the changes to external building it won't change it from its iconic chapel building appearance. So it has been proposed and seconded that we go along with the recommendation of the officer and permit this application if you're in favor please can you show of hands now. Thank you if you could lower your hands. I think that's unanimous. Anybody against? Anybody abstaining then? No? So it is planning is given unanimously. We can now ask Councillor Slalom to come back. You're welcome to stay if you wish Councillor Thomas. Thank you. We'll move on into the next item before us, well the last item actually this morning and it reads as follows PL0638. Bank farm nutrient storage lagoon at land south of Trilich, Galwardine. And now we'll hand you over to Helen who is going to give us the report. Thank you. One of the Councillors, Councillor Jean Lewis, the local member has declared an interest. Can you remind us please? Yes thank you. PL0638 and I have declared a personal interest and I've given the reasons as well because I am a neighbor of the applicant and I know one of the objectors. Thank you. So I'm leaving now. Okay over to Helen for the report then. Right senior development manager. Before I start the main presentation I just wanted to give members the heads up that we've had an addendum to this application. It mainly summarizes additional correspondence that we've received from the objector raising concerns about the proximity of the lagoon next to a private water supply and a response then from the applicant in response to those objections and that's detailed out in the addendum before you. So the applications coming before you following the receipt of more than three objections from local residents and those are set out in the report but as mentioned the proposal is for a nutrient management, sorry a nutrient storage lagoon to serve the agricultural holding known as Maddox farm. The application site is actually located 1.5 kilometers as the crow flies from the village of Trilich. This slide here shows the actual location of the lagoon itself with the main farm holding Maddox farm located a further 2.2 kilometers south of the application site itself here. So this is an outline of the application site itself to give you an idea of the surrounding area. In effect it's access off the main public highway the B4299 county road and it's located within an existing agricultural field area here and as you can see from this area there are scattered farmsteads and residential properties within the vicinity the nearest being 450 meters away from the application site itself. This is an aerial view of the application site so as mentioned it's accessed from an existing access that leads into the agricultural fields and the lagoon itself would be located in the second field from the public highway and located at this location here. This is the actual submission the red line plan as we refer to it that was submitted with the application and these set out the actual physical alterations to the land that would be required to create the storage lagoon itself. It would measure 38 meters by 46 meters and there'd be an embankment then created by the earth generated from the ground which would be required to create the lagoon itself so this is effectively that square there is the lagoon itself and these indications show the embankment area that would be created. So in terms of the Maddox farm holding apologies of the quality of this slide but I'll just highlight to you this indicates the whole the land holding associated with the agricultural holding itself it's the field areas that you can see here outlined in white and so it's this parcel of land here and then this parcel of land here there's a further parcel of land here and then these fields along here with the main complex itself of the farm located just down here. So in terms of the the need for this lagoon at this location it is primarily as a result of new regulations that are coming in as of the 1st of August this year which requires farmers to have a five-month supply of nutrient storage on their farm holdings at the moment the farm does couldn't comply with that and hence the need for an additional lagoon the farm has it's a dairy farm of 500 or 530 cattle together and in order therefore to have the required storage facility an additional lagoon has been required. The lagoon itself is what we call a satellite lagoon and these are quite commonplace now in order to comply with the regulations that are coming in and the intention being is that it's located in the area where the spreading essentially will take place outside of the close period which is now also been extended by the new regulations that are coming in. So you can see this part the lagoon itself is located here which is located within this wide parcel of land so the intention would be that the slurry would be transported from the main holding periodically up to the lagoon during that sort of closed period and stored during that closed winter period and when spreading is allowed to take place in the summer months it would be spread by an umbilical cord then from the actual lagoon itself and spread within this main sort of parcel of land area which is the main silage and arable crops associated with the holding itself. So that gives you the justification for the location of this lagoon which is effectively away from the main holding itself but nevertheless is located where the need is for the actual slurry itself and it would result in not having to transport the slurry during those spreading events which can be quite intense with vehicles leading from the main holding up to the field spreading it and it can be quite an intense period of a number of vehicle movements in a short period of time. The result of this would be still obviously the slurry would have to be imported to that lagoon but it would be in a more controlled manner and over a significantly longer period of time. So in terms of the site itself it is in an elevated position above in in the countryside and this is gives you an idea of the of the site itself this is a view looking down the access track leading from the public highway so this is the existing track so this is the first field and then this is looking down towards the application site itself which is actually just located beyond this tree and hedge line here. This is the edge of the first field and the location of the proposed lagoon is just beyond this line here and here is the view effectively of where the lagoon itself would be. As mentioned there would be quite significant engineering works in terms of lowering the ground to create the lagoon and then the ground well the soil created from that works would be used to create embankments around the actual lagoon itself. It would effectively be along here and back along there set back from the existing hedgerow but following discussions with our ecology and landscape officer they have advised that it would be of assistance to encourage the use of additional planting along this hedgerow. In particular there is along this area here where there has been some removal of former hedgerows so it is suggested that additional planting could take place at this location here and not only to help screen the development but also to replace what's been periodically lost over a period of time. So then again this is a view looking back towards the wider field area and as I mentioned it is in quite an elevated position albeit on that sort of plateau and in effect what would be seen is an earth mound and then the slurry lagoon centrally within that earth mound. Then this is a view looking down so the the application site is just to the right hand side here and this is the track that leads down further onto the wider fields which are associated with the holding itself. This is a view then looking back to that first field with the public highway which is just beyond that hedge line there and then a view of looking back along the track back towards the public highway. And then this is a view of the existing access onto that public highway so that's the view looking north towards Trilich and then that's the view looking south back towards the main farm holding at Maddox Farm. So in terms of assessing this application as I've mentioned in terms of the need for for this lagoon it is as a result of the requirements that are coming in and as set out in the report and as I just explained you know in terms of the justification for this lagoon in this location it is generally accepted that this would provide opportunities for the farm to meet with those regulations which are governed by natural resources whales and there will be a requirement as part of those regulations which are separate to planning but as part of those regulations that they will be liaising directly with NRW in terms of the site location and the structure and the construction of the lagoon itself so that's part and parcel of the requirement of the new regulations and NRW have not raised any objections to the scheme following our consultation with them provided evidently it is built in accordance with their requirements. Nevertheless we have received a number of objections from local residents, 17 in total from 15 different households raising a number of issues, one of which is impact on local private water supplies. We've had correspondence that suggests that there are a private water supply within the vicinity of the lagoon based on information before us, it is beyond what the regulations state which is 50 meters, the regulations require lagoons to be 50 meters away from private waterholes or boreholes and from the information that's been provided to us we're satisfied that the lagoon would be beyond that requirement but nevertheless that's a requirement under the regulations that would be governed by NRW once the actual structure is actually built. So in terms of also the impact upon biodiversity interests and in particular a nearby SSSI which is about 500 meters to the north, the application has been supported by a ammonia screening assessment which has actually concluded that the proposal would result in improvements in terms of ammonia emissions from the farm. At the moment the existing slurry lagoon does have to be emptied on a regular basis and which creates agitation and releases those ammonias into the atmosphere. With this additional storage it will enable that slurry to be stored for a longer period and therefore remain undisturbed for a longer period and therefore overall the assessment concludes that it would be a reduction in terms of the amount of ammonia released into the atmosphere. Evidently that would be changed when the spreading takes place but that's the usual course in agricultural practices in any event. So we don't consider that there would be any impacts upon biodiversity impacts in terms of the SSSI and as I mentioned NRW have not raised any objections to the scheme. Concerns regarding vehicle movements have been raised. As I mentioned in the presentation evidently this will require a movement of the slurry from the main holding up to the lagoon and that will occur on a sort of more regulated and more steady scenario than what is currently the scenario when slurry is being spread on this parcel of land which does require a number of vehicle movements in a condensed period. So the impact of this lagoon is the fact that those movements can be can be more spread out over the course of a longer period of time and also in terms of the proposal it is intended to have an umbilical cord system so when slurry does take place, slurry spreading does take place, no additional movements will be required at that period of time. There's been concerns about the impacts of an odour and insects on nearby residential properties. As I mentioned the nearest property is about 450 meters away from the lagoon itself and given the nature of the application and the fact that as we mentioned it is intended to be a storage unit that's effectively largely remaining dormant until such time the slurry needs to be spread it is generally considered that it would not give rise to a significant increase over and above what is the current situation evidently when spreading takes place there will be an increase in odour but that's inevitable in the Camarvish agricultural countryside. And in terms of character and impact of of the area some concerns have been raised about the fact that it is divorced from the main farm holding but as I've said in in the presentation it is considered given the location and the fact that there is potential for additional tree planting it's not considered that the proposal would give rise to significant impacts on the character and appearance of the area. There was also concerns about the impact upon tourism and loss of jobs as a result of this development but you know in in conclusion to our consideration of the development's impact on the area it's not considered this would give rise to a significant difference to what is the current situation really in terms of agricultural practices in the area itself. So if we're on balance we've considered all the information that's been put before us and the objections that have been received coupled with the responses we've received from statutory consultees who have raised no objections to the application we've come to the conclusion that the application can be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report before you. Thank you. Thank you Helen for that conference 7 detail report. We do have two object local objectors who wish to speak. This is Lisa Jones and Mr Andrew Broad. Can I invite you to address the committee? You have up to five minutes each to do so. We'll begin with Ms Jones. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. Being a farmer working full time on our farm I completely understand and acknowledge the new roles imposed by the Welsh government regarding the storage of slurry. However I do not believe that this is an ideal location. Numerous complaints have been raised by local residents with regards to odor, damage to the main road and environmental concerns. I have read the information pack that you as counselors have received from the planning department and I feel there are numerous incorrect facts. They note that the land is of poor agricultural quality where in fact it is with the best land in the parish so this is not factually correct. It also notes that the rainfall over the winter months is 979 millimeters but in fact last year it was 1187 millimeters which is 20 percent more than the figures they've used for the calculations which is a significant under calculation and as we all know every year is getting wetter. The report also notes that the crust will be created on the slurry and that it will not be agitated but how do they intend to add more slurry without educating the crust? But there's one main point that's been completely omitted from the report. Surrounding this development there are around a dozen small holdings who are completely reliant on water from their own water wells. There is no supply in the locality from Welsh water and I am concerned if the natural underground water system or local water courses are contaminated these small holdings will have no water supply at all. I understand that the lagoon is not to be deeper than four meters but our well is only five meters deep and fills to within one meter from ground level. There is mention of lining the lagoon but only if the materials dug out will be of substandard quality therefore there's no guarantee that the lagoon will be lined and with 1.5 million gallons of slurry that is an immense pressure on the surrounding earth. So how can they ensure there will be no pollution? They may be able to ensure this while under construction but what about the decades ahead? Once pollution has leaked there's no way of stopping it. Natural Resources Wales have no objection but have they considered the facts that I've mentioned? Natural Resources Wales recommendations may not always be correct as you have recently experienced with another case in the county. This farm has hundreds of acres from which to choose a location including the homestead where they have plenty of room that has already been excavated and more importantly where they have a plentiful supply of water with Welsh water. There's no clause within this application to assure that the highway is cleaned. The cost of the highway cleaning over the last years have come down to the county council when they are called out to clean the highway regularly when it is in dangerous condition. Is it possible to include a clause that the applicant must clean the highway? Therefore I conclude by asking you one question. If the water supply to one or to a dozen surrounding small holdings becomes contaminated due to this development and you as a committee have approved it will you accept the responsibility and the cost to ensure that these homes will have access to clean drinkable water? Thank you for your consideration. Thank you Ms Jones. I'll move on then to Mr Andrew Broad. You have also up to five minutes to ask a question, thank you. My name is Andrew Broad and I live below the proposed lagoon site at a farm called Fronlas. I am ejecting to the slurry lagoon because my water supply is close to the site and also my neighbour's water supply either on borehole or spring water which would be affected by it. How can it be right to place a slurry lagoon on top of a hill when you know people are drawing water out? There is no main supply in this area. To think it will be organic waste from cows would be an understatement. There is going to be parlour washing chemicals as well as other chemicals going in which if enters the water table are harmful to humans and animal life. If the lagoon is to be dug do you think that it will be filled and left? No it would not. The filling and emptying of the lagoon would be routine and the traffic on the road would increase. It made me smile to think about a nutrient store when at the moment slurry from the farm is almost spread every day of the year. I was sorry to see not I was sorry not to see in it in any reference to the ditches culverts and grates to catch water off the land of the proposed site. If we are going to have wetter weather the groundwater will rise and this would percolate into the lagoon increasing the volume. Likewise if we have more rain this will increase the volume. If overtopping does occur and happens it would end up in the ditches and the grates. So wouldn't it be better for an above ground store at the home farm where there would be no risk to groundwater supplies and if a lid was put on it to stop the ammonia leaking and rain entering this store would be truly a nutrient store thus future proofing the farming business. However no dig a hole fill it with slurry and then in 12 months time on another block of land dig another hole and fill it with slurry. It's not dealing with the problem it's just exporting it. Maybe this is about herd expansion. As a final note I would like to point out this area there was at least three small water wheels on farms and small holdings just to give you an indication of the amount of water under the land of the proposed site and just for reference this is contaminated water from a borehole. Okay thank you Mr Broad. We'll move on then to the applicant's agent Mrs Laura Greenman and you also have up to five minutes. Thank you. Thank you to officers for your report this morning. My name is Laura Greenman. I'm a planning and environmental solicitor and I'm representing Mr Thomas today in relation to this application. Clearly it's support on the basis of the necessary nature of this application as a key update I suppose in terms of ongoing farming practices and in that context I think it's important to make the point that Mr Thomas is a sixth generation farm farmer in the parish and indeed in Mr Thomas's lifetime the number of dairy farms on the stretch of a stretch of road between Maddox farm and the primary school that he attended the number of dairy farms have dropped significantly from 14 down to just two so I think we're all very much aware of the difficult industry that farming is currently. As we've heard the reason for this application is clearly justified in in law and that is the Welsh government water resource control of agricultural pollution regulations 2021 which take effect this August and as we've heard they clearly require that farmers increase their available storage capacity on farm to a period of five months. This as we've heard therefore supplements the current slurry storage capacity on the farm but does so purely on the basis that it's entirely necessary to comply with those regulations. The motivations for the regulations and indeed this application are purely about reducing pollution the intention being that slurry can be spread on the fields when the weather conditions are suitable and so that those valuable nutrients aren't lost and indeed additional chemicals and fertilizers aren't need to be put into the land so that the nutrient benefits of the land are maximized. The intention is also to prevent water runoff and indeed to address the risk that arises from that. As we've heard NLW have been consulted on the application and they have not raised any concerns indeed NLW will have an ongoing involvement in the construction of the slurry lagoon or the nutrient lagoon I should say and indeed in terms of ongoing farm practices anyway. In terms of the policy position we're aware that that is accepted and there is nothing in policy terms that would prevent this scheme coming forward and indeed there's policy support for preserving the agricultural industry I believe. So the slurry lagoon will serve the existing farm holding there is no intensification planned and the scheme has been designed in such a manner to ensure that it meets the requirements of the regulations and there has been expert impact by qualified engineers to ensure that the scheme is designed in a sympathetic and appropriate manner to achieve the job that it's intended to do and to comply with the law. This also introduces a number of additional benefits we've heard that the ammonia assessments have concluded that emissions will in fact be reduced following the development of this scheme because of the reduced level of agitation of ammonia and as we've heard unfortunately some emission of ammonia is a necessary impact or byproduct of the agricultural industry at certain points. We have heard that the lagoon will need to be emptied less frequently and indeed that will happen via an existing highway network so no additional highway works are proposed and there will be a reduction in the overall number of vehicle movements as part of the ongoing agricultural practice as a result of this scheme. In terms of the location of the development that has been proposed so that is it is away from houses indeed I think that the closest house that we've heard is over a quarter of a mile away and the visual impacts will be minimized by screening through planting that we have heard about already to try to ensure that the scheme is designed in such a manner that not only does it achieve its technical purpose but that it also has the least impact possible for for neighbours. So overall we consider that the application should be approved to ensure that Maddox farm can continue to operate in line with the regulatory requirements that it and other farms indeed face and and as part of that to improve farm management practices to the benefit of the environment and the community as a whole. Thank you. Thank you Mr Greenman. So the local member Jean Lewis has announced a traditional interest so we can open up to committee now. Ken Howell. Thank you chair and thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. As I understand when they create a lagoon as it's called that is lined with plastic I think it is which keeps the content of the lagoon within the lagoon so nothing should be able to escape to different other places. Is that true? That's my question. Councillor Doran-Phillips. Yes thank you chair and thank you Helen for the report. Yes this is a very difficult application with the new rules coming in with regards to slurry. You have to have room for the slurry before spreading it, room to keep it but then we have to look at the neighbour's concerns as well and my biggest concern is the impact on the drinking water of the neighbours. I have a few questions. Has there been an environmental impact assessment with regards to the drinking water of the neighbours and it's good to hear that the NRW are going to keep an eye on things because they are the ones who will say what has to be done. Ken has already asked the question how sealed because it's going to be earthen, how sealed is it going to be? Is it going to be a liner to make sure that nothing can leak from the lagoon? My other concern is the roads because I see a lot of this happening in the area already. I know this isn't very far there won't be much travelling but all to it happens you know tractors taking slurry long distances. You see these days it pumps slurry for miles. Is there a way to pump the slurry from the farm to the lagoon? Councillor Peter Cooper. Thank you chair. There's a couple of issues I got with this. It's just the lining, that's one thing wasn't in the report that it were to be lined. I thought that should have been part of the report but I didn't hear anything on it. It's quite close to the highway as well and with the amount of cattle this owner's got is it over 500 plus that's a lot of slurry to move from the farm and to be honest what I don't understand there's a good distance between the farm and where this tank is going to be. Why couldn't this have been put closer to the farm where it would have saved the cost of transporting it down to the lagoon? I don't understand why it isn't closer. It would have saved them and here's why they haven't got to move it down but at the end of the day it the water courses that's a main you know these people are relying on the water courses in that area there is no mains for them and that's all they want something to go wrong and because personally I'm one of these people don't like to see slurry on fields being spread to be honest. I'll give you one of the reasons. I like a lot of fishing, I always have in my life. The last two years I am bothered because there's nothing in the rivers, only eels. You get some eels in there. It's salmon, seaweed, trout, nothing. It's all spread in all the time and chemicals and I know a lot of you know they've got to do it to improve the land but personally I think this should have been put near to the farm. I think that what the cause could be they don't want to have the smell, pass it on to somebody else. One answer to that is we have to look at the application before us. Back to Helen then. In terms of the lining of whether the goal is to be lined or not, it is in effect it'll have to be constructed in accordance with regulations and what NWA require. As I understand it, there'll be an assessment of the soil to see whether the soil is capable of effectively naturally lining but if that's not the case then lining will take place. As I've said, there is a requirement under the regulations that the construction system of these lagoons are carried out under their supervision and under their eyes so they have to, in effect, confirm that it complies with the regulations so there is additional safeguards in place there. That I hope responds to the concerns that have been mentioned. In terms of, again, it's separate to planning in some respects because there is different regulations in place but the regulations itself says that these nutrient storage facilities can be located as long as they're 50 metres away from private water supplies and from the information that we've received they are, this sort of lagoon is, away from those in, well it can comply with that requirement. In terms of, Councillor Dorian-Phillips' question is whether an environmental impact assessment has been undertaken and the environmental impact assessment rules, there's a requirement undertaken to screening but that, the nature of this development wouldn't trigger that requirement. So an environmental impact assessment of the development in terms of planning has not been undertaken. In terms of impact on private water supplies that's outside of our realms, it again, and that's another blue issue in terms of impacts upon private water supplies itself. Evidently during spreading there is a requirement as well for under regulations that farmers undertake spreading away from private water supplies as well and again that's under separate regulations from us under planning. In terms of the location, as I mentioned, the justification mainly for the location of this is to serve that holding area, the land holding area in this particular location. If this wasn't located at this location you'd end up maintaining that slurry being transported along the road during those times when slurry has to be spread in this particular location. So you'd have quite an intense period of vehicle movements from the farm going up to spread the slurry at this location. Having the lagoon at the location proposed will in effect take away that intense period. It will still require vehicles to take the slurry up there but as I mentioned that would be in a more controlled manner and over a longer period of time. So in effect there won't be additional impacts in terms of the highway, it just means that the transportation of it is over a wider period of time. And in terms of being close to the highway it is in excess of 100 metres I think or more than that two, three hundred metres away from the highway itself. It's away from public vantage points as well. And as I mentioned in terms of the planting and visual aspects that can be mitigated to a degree with additional planting. Hopefully that's addressed some of the concerns that you've raised. For the members of us to speak we'll begin with Conserad Ridskinner. Well I wonder if there's a more expert member of this panel could speak before me. I don't know. A few comments with regards to the application. It's totally necessary according to the new rules that plans like this are developed. Can I ask before this application because before us whether discussions had been had between the officers and the farmer with regards to the best location for creating this development. Also am I correct to understand that this land around this site is not tied to the farm directly? That there's some land between here, between the location of the farm itself. It was difficult to see that from the screen. And if so, how much land is there around this location where there would be room to pump the slurry out? I support the fact that the screening is done around the site because it does seem very high in a very high location. And lastly with regards to the complaints that have come to hand with regards to the water supply, the drinking supply to the small holdings in the surrounding area. That was revealed clearly to NRW and so that yourselves as officers could measure how many yards was between the site and the water that is used by others. If there were to be a problem on this site, would the way this slurry runs from this, would this slurry run down towards those locations or water sources? Thank you. Councilor Gareth Thomas. Yes, thank you chair. I'd like to congratulate Helen first of all on the comprehensive report and also her understanding of this situation. When I saw this coming before us I read it and first thing I looked at was why did they locate it up there? Obviously there's more land around the place here. Also as somebody who knows a bit about this, as a farmer myself, who as a dairy farmer I understand the problems that these people have. The one thing that gives me comfort, although I'm not very keen on the NRW, they have been keeping a close eye on this. They will be safeguarding the environment and believe me they're very, very hard people to please. They haven't given permission for this farmer. They haven't just given him permission for the sake of it. I can guarantee you they have looked into it and they will tell them in the end, I can guarantee you, that they will have to line this because their danger will go through the earth even now. Not even allowed now to have a heap. They're quite draconian in their ways with regards to these regulations. So I was quite happy and comfortable with the fact that the NRW are saying yes, it's fine. I'm a bit disappointed in Peter Cooper with regards to what he says about slurry. I am not sure what he expects us to do because he had a coffee this morning with milk in it. Oh come on now, you can't have it both ways. Now the NRW make sure that we don't pollute rivers, that's why they're there. I was in a mart yesterday and I saw a farmer from Tlanga giving up on milking just because of the way NRW was putting pressure to get everything correct. So much pressure on them. It's very nice to see farmers like this keeping things going, keeping the countryside going, doing exactly what the countryside should do, produce food. Nobody's come here today without some food in their bellies and they say thank the farmer, where we're in a situation today where we can allow this farmer to keep going. But we could also do this with certainty that NRW have their eye on things and I can guarantee you that the NRW won't let anything go wrong and I'm sure they'll make sure that the water and the groundwater is being looked after and that there will be no pollution. I should imagine there should be a line so that box can be ticked. I haven't asked Helen any questions but I think she's answered them very well. I was pumping a slurry in a few fields today and we had a pipe across the road. It's much less first than having a slurry tanker back and forth so this is going to make sure that the roads are safer than before because we only have a small window to take this slurry out and having those tractors up and down all the time with these huge slurry tankers day and night in order to do the work within that window. So I'm happy to propose that we go along with the recommendations of the officer and that's quite unusual for me to agree with an officer. I know you'll be smiling about that but I certainly agree that this will be good for the environment and also will be good for agriculture. I'm starting to be concerned as well. When I saw this report about a lagoon, I thought about my daily work when I was still swimming in a lagoon but now I understand that it's nothing to do. I wouldn't like to swim in this type of lagoon however. But I'm happy to second Councillor Thomas with regards to this and I propose that we go along with the officer. Thank you Councillor Sparks. Councillor Jones. Thank you Chair. I agree to an extent with Councillor Cooper. I'm sure we'd all like to go back to the old days and that we have a... I approve this because these type of satellite lagoons do work. I have an experience of this because some of the largest dairy farms in Wales are in my ward. These satellite lagoons do help our communities with regards to lessen the impact on transport and moving the slurry from one part of the area to the next. I'd like to see more of these really. Having lagoons of such I think is a good idea to store the slurry closer to where it is spread rather than having to transport it. It would have less impact on our communities. So I want to have certainty as well that the NRW are responsible for the lining. I want that guarantee with regards to making sure that no liquid will escape from the actual lagoon. But this type of thing is something that we will have to look into in more detail in order to support people and help them to go along with the new regulations. The farmers don't have a choice. But for me these type of satellite lagoons are better for the communities than the old-fashioned way of keeping the slurry all on the farmyard. So I will be approving it. Thank you Kares. And lastly, Councillor Edward Skinner. Thank you chair. When I said I'd prefer to hear expert opinion first, I didn't realise I'd be so far down the peck in order. But as Mr Sparks said, this application is going to test my knowledge of the English language because when I hear lagoon, I imagine somewhere out in the Seychelles or Hawaii or somewhere like that. That's where I would happily swim. But I am a bit shocked when according to the descriptions, it seems to be a hole banked with earth, which I am very concerned about. Especially then when the application is described as a nutrient store. But then we go into, it's for slurry. Now slurry isn't a nice word to me really because it conjures imaginations of, in my limited knowledge, what slurry is. And so I'd like that to be explained to me why it's not a slurry store when it is a nutrient store. And then the other thing is, if I was to go out into the countryside and dig a hole and you know, perhaps produce some slurry myself, I suppose I'd be breaking I don't know how many environmental laws, because that's the reason for septic tanks in domestic properties. So that's the area, you know, could happen quite right. So I think, you know, I was expecting to see concrete constructions going on and that this stuff would be in a securely contained structure. And I was waiting for that to happen, but it never did. And I have to say as well, I'm not confident with NWR personally, because of certain things with sewage and things that have happened in my ward where the streams and I legally get covered up. So there is a question there. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go from the Seychelles of Hengoid to Dorian Phillips. Yes, thank you. I have to say I do feel a bit more comfortable now, having heard what Councillor Thomas said about NWR and how careful they're going to look into things. That's going to be the crucial thing here, is that NWR do their stuff properly. And I'm not sure if we can go back and make sure that it is done properly. And so that's possible, because they don't always do. So that's important. Perhaps we can ask the applicant maybe, is there a way of pumping this from the farm? Are they allowed to come back and ask? Is it possible to pump it from the farm itself to the lagoon? I see the point of having it there, because that's where it's going to be spread. There won't be any traffic on the road if they could do that, if they pumped it. Is it possible to do so? Is he allowed to come back to me on that, the applicant itself? Helen? Unfortunately, it's not a dialogue. I was just going to come in on the construction issues in terms of these things. And you can have earth lined lagoons that don't have concrete in, but you have to do the soil characteristic testing first, because same as waste disposal sites, if you can clay engineer it through natural clays, that will be sufficient to ensure that it doesn't leak, then that's possible. But you'd have to demonstrate that that was a satisfactory way of doing it. Otherwise, it would be a concrete construction, reinforced concrete, possibly with earth on the outside as earth banks to make it more natural looking. But essentially, natural resources wells are not going to license anything that isn't robust enough to contain that slurry within the structure. And one of the reasons they say 50 meters from a borehole or spring is that's where they consider the danger to be inside 50 meters. This is outside 50 meters. And indeed, the co-op regs allow slurry spreading through eight months of the year within 50 meters. So it's safer to store it in a concrete lined lagoon than it is to spread it on the fields for eight months, is what NNW is saying. And that's what the co-op regs are saying. So essentially, it is a completely sealed unit. It's designed to be a completely sealed unit. A few more questions to answer, Helen, before we go to the vote. In terms of going back to the location, I know some questions were raised about other potential locations. Obviously, we're having to assess the application that's before us. And that's what was presented to us as planning officers. The question was raised whether there was any discussion. There was no pre-application that preceded this submission. So when we received the application, we had to determine it based on what was before us. But if I can sort of quickly share, again, the screen that indicates, I know it's not the best quality of plans, whether that is coming up. So these, if I can zoom in, maybe. Will it work? So these are the land parcels associated with the holdings. So you've got this area here, and then you've got this area here, which is where the lagoon is located at this point here. And you've got a parcel of land here, but there is a gap in between this parcel of land and that parcel of land. And then you've got the remaining areas here and the main farm holding at this point here. As I sort of set out in the presentation in the first place, the principal reason of locating the lagoon here is to effectively serve the largest piece of land holding associated with the farm, which is not associated or near to the existing main complex area to the south here, which effectively, you know, there is a lagoon at the holding here, which effectively could serve this parcel, and then you'd have this separate one serving that parcel of land there. In terms of then pumping it from the holding, it's not a question that has been asked of the applicant, but in terms of looking at, you know, this holding map, you can see that there is a contiguous land holding that would enable the pumping to go all the way up to the lagoon itself and also it would have to cross the public highway as well, which is not something that would be supported. So hopefully that would address the questions that were raised in relation to that. And in terms again, NRW, as I understand it, NRW have got a dedicated team within the organization now to look at these applications and give them the additional requirements of the regulations that have been put in place. So they have got a dedicated team that do go out to farms to ensure that the regulations are abided by. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Helen. Excuse my ignorance as well. I'm a townie, so I apologize to all the farmers amongst you that I know very little about slurrys, lagoons or whatever. But one thing I'm concerned about is obviously the construction of it, and I think that the complainants here are concerned about the loss of their water table in relation to their farms. This construction of the slurry lagoon, does that have a valve that can say and identify that there's a loss of slurry within that pit, which then could be acted upon or perhaps be pumped out so due to the risk to the water tables, i.e. once it gets to a certain level, if there's an unexplained loss through a leakage or whether it's starting to go over the banks, that they can intervene, that there might be an alarm there, similar to some of which the NRW has at rivers and tributaries across the command share area to identify high water flow. Would that be something that would be included in the construction or going forward could be to reduce risks to water tables amongst farms in the area. Thank you. And lastly, Peter Cooper. Yes, sorry but I've got to be honest, I don't agree with the officer's report on this one and personally I won't be voting for it because I'm very concerned about the people. If they were all on mains water, I think it would be okay, touch and go on it, but looking at it, they're relying on water courses in the area and there's not one or two, there's a few of them there and that's what I'm concerned about and if they wanted to put this tank somewhere, put it by the farm where they are, leave them have it up there, not put it down up on top of the hill where it could cause a lot of overflow problems and that's why I can't support it. Thank you. Well, this application will be one of many similar types of applications all come before us due to the RWR regulations, of course. So, any further questions to answer, Helen? I have a question from Councillor Williams. The construction is required to be in accordance with calculations that are provided in terms of the amount of slurry storage is required for a farm for a five-month period. As I understand it, and I'm not an expert on the co-op regulations, but the spreading is not allowed over a four-month period, but you need storage for a five-month period to give some sort of contingency level. For that calculation to be effective, NRW then monitor it on the basis of how much slurry is taken from the existing slurry going off from the farm to the slurry pit, how it's used, what the rainfall level is, and if there's a significant discrepancy in that, NRW will pick that up as part of their monitoring regime and they will identify if there is an issue, and that issue will have to be resolved. They can serve notice on the farmer to resolve that issue. That's my understanding of it. Yeah, well, Kin can have a few thoughts. As a former dairy farmer who lives a few years from the Gondrythe Vow River, I know exactly what slurry problems are. So, it's been proposed and seconded that we go along with the recommendation, the officer. If you are in agreement, show hands now, please, if you're in agreement with the officer. Thank you. If you can lower your hands, please. Anybody against? Two. If you can lower your hands, please. Anybody abstaining? Three. Three abstaining. So, it has been given by majority vote. Thank you, objectors and agents and the applicant for your presence. You may stay if you wish or you're welcome to leave. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. We're waiting for Councillor Lewis to rejoin us. I'm just wondering whether we have five minutes to go to the toilet. Foot break, sorry. If we're not going to be long, hurry on. Move on then to item four, appeals report. And I'll ask who comes to go through this. The list of appeals is given to you every month so that you're aware of what appeals are in and appeals that can be commented on and the decisions that have been made. I've got nothing to add to the report specifically this month. Wasn't I into a question? Any questions on this? Thank you, chair. Yes, something contentious. The appears dissemination on table three where they've gone up to Cardiff to appeal against the decision to if I'll read it we turned it down as a county council but they've appealed to Cardiff. Is it true that they've had it? What's happening here? Page 36 it is. Yes, they've been allowed to have it. Does that mean they're going to appeal that we're appealing? No, there's nothing as present to show that it would be worth us appealing it. Somebody else's hand was up. I was just going to ask is it an expensive process to appeal? Is it a normal sort of process? I don't know if we've had training on this. I'm sorry if I've forgotten. When you say appeal, what do you mean? Do you mean appeal the inspector's decision? Yes, that's what I mean. Is it typical? Is it something we do very often? How does that work? Well, I think it's not relevant to the process of this committee and the ins and outs of that. All I'll say at the moment is that it is possible to do it. I can discuss things with you after but we don't tend to do it very often because it's not in our interest normally to do it. If the inspector looked at everything properly then that's usually only if there are issues with the decision that you would contemplate going to an appeal. Obviously, it's a legal matter and it has to be looked at from that perspective. Okay, could I just check with the chair? Have we had training on this? I can't remember. When you mean training, I'm not following the train there to be honest. Training on the appeals sort of process? Oh, the appeals process. Yes, we have had training on the appeals process in terms of if a decision that we make, sorry, yeah, decision that we make which is to refuse permission is then going forward to an appeal. Yes, we have training on that. Thank you. On that, on the appeal process because I'm all for training. Yes, if you need more training, that's fine. I'm sure he has a plan and he's online but I'm sure that can be arranged. I'm sure he will make a note to that. That's fine, yeah. Obviously, any requests for training you have, let us know. We're all ears on that. Because we have a new member here, for instance, that needs. Yes, that's right and in fairness, it is something to get your heads around when you do start the system and how it works and everything. It is quite complicated until you get sort of to grip to it. Yeah, thank you. Yes, just to clarify something. The health authority apparently appealing against our decision to refuse planning for DDoS but I, as a private individual, will want to put my representations forward when they start the written. So, how does that impact on me, does it impact on me as a member of the planning committee? Well, we discussed that after, Councillor Skinner. There is a process to follow. Obviously, if you're not a party to the case, which you won't be at the moment, there's only certain things that will be coming your way. Unless you're a proper Rule 6 party, you won't get full access to everything. But you will get a chance if there is any, depends how it goes. Do you know whether it's been set down as an inquiry yet or probably not at the moment? It hasn't been started yet. So, there's loads of time to do it. Obviously, we can assist you as it goes along in any help you need. Lovely Councillor, Councillor Sparks. Thank you, chair. I welcome the opportunity for appeals training. I think that's something I'm conscious of is, you know, the important work this committee does in effecting democratic decisions on difficult cases but also the cost implications for appeals, you know, when they're made in the current situation and with, although there's an upcoming election now and the situation isn't likely to change, we're going to continue to be under financial pressure. So, I'd welcome any training to help us as a committee to work towards that. Thank you, chair. If I can speak here, please. To provide appeals training for members, I think it would be beneficial for members being as part of our constitution that if members go against officers' advice, members themselves have to defend an appeal. So, in those circumstances, it would be very beneficial for members to have had some training. I can see that Rodri's hand has been up. Rodri, do you want to come in here? Yeah, chair. Thank you. There has been training on what we call planning appeals process which goes to PDU and that's been included in the member induction training and we completed that for the new members ahead of today's session but also to remind you of the barrister training that you had recently which covered the wider judicial review process and if you recall in that training we are going to rerun or do a further training schedule in the next couple of months with some legal support to focus on those areas. So, yes, absolutely. And it's in hand. Thank you, Councillor Doran-Phillips. Yes, thank you, chair. Going back to what Councillor Thomas said in regards to this application that we have refused and then it's been permitted in appeal. I think you all know where I'm coming from here. Why don't we challenge that as you've done with one other little thing? Why don't we challenge them all instead of just picking something more minor, if you know what I mean? Appeal decisions that come through. We're looking at the appeal decision in terms of is it legally correct? Has the appropriate process been followed? Even if we disagree with the decision, if the appropriate process has been followed, then there's no mechanism for us to go for judicial review because it's a process thing. But where we think the process has not been followed correctly, we may well consider taking legal advice and legal action if that's the most appropriate mechanism. But it is a legal process, so we can't go into individual cases, but we do scrutinise them. And if we think the process has not been followed correctly, it is open to us to challenge. But where the process has been followed correctly, but we don't agree with the decision, there's no opportunity to challenge those decisions. To just completely concur with what Hugh has said, just to support what he said, if you are going to appeal anything to the High Court, then you will need to look at whether the inspectors misdirected himself on a matter of law. We can't appeal on facts issues. It's all about legal issues and whether inspectors applied the law and policy correctly. So those are the grounds that we normally have to look at. And we can't appeal everything because there's obviously cost issues involved and there's obviously legal issues in terms of on balance whether it's worth appealing or not. There's no point in taking a case to court where there's no grounds at all for appealing it because there'll be cost implications and reputation implications for the Council. So it's a carefully balanced decision before we go forward on any type of legal proceedings. Yeah, Dior, could I ask you on about costs. Can you tell us what sort of costs are we involved with in certain cases at the moment? What sort of costs are we talking about here? Well, obviously that is all coming out in the mix. I'm not going to that in this Committee now. It's not relevant to the Committee today. But obviously it will be a matter of public records and it will be accountable for and that information will be forthcoming in due course. So we have a proposal to accept the report, please. Seconder Gareth Thomas, everybody in favour of receiving the report? I think that's unanimous. Thank you. Everybody against? Everybody abstaining then? One. Thank you. We'll move on then to item item I think it's item five. Can we propose the correct record, please? Thank you. Seconder, everybody in favour? Show of hands, please. Thank you. I think that is anonymous. That's the end of the meeting. Can I ask for the webcast to be turned off on the next