Transcript

Good evening, and welcome to the Development Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Iqbal Hussain and I will be chairing this meeting. The meeting is being held in person. Committee members and the key participants are present in this room, in this room, committee room. Only the committee members present in the meeting will be able to vote. Another person may be also attending remotely, committee members and others who have chosen to attend remotely have been advised by the committee who says that, should technical difficulty prevent their full participation in the meeting, it may proceed in the absence if I feel it is necessary. I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this, I would like to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing this meeting, including the virtual meeting procedure. Participants must address the meeting through myself as a chair. If you are participating online and you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact the democratic service officers as soon as possible via email, however, officers may not be able to respond to all such requests. You should keep your microphone and camera switched off at all other times. Please do not use the meeting chat facility. Any information added to the chat facilities will be discarded. If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the democratic officer as soon as possible. I will now ask the committee members present to introduce themselves, please. Can you also state if you have any declaration of interest that you may have in this agenda, items, and the nature of the interest? Can I start from my right? Thank you, chair. I am a feeder busting counsellor for Island Gardens. I have met with Canary Wharf group as a ward counsellor, because the Island Gardens is on the Isle of Dogs, but I don't recognise anyone on the applicant's side tonight. Councillor, I have nothing to declare, chair. Thank you. Councillor Gulam, from Poplar Wharf, nothing to declare. Good evening, chair. I have not received any apologies. Thank you. Okay. Agenda item 2 is the minutes from the previous meeting. Can we approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2024? Agenda item 3 are the recommendation and procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance. I will now ask Paul Beckenham, head of development management planning and building control, to present the guidance, please. Thank you, chair. Good evening and good evening, members, and those who are joining the meeting this evening. Chair, just before I do that, I just noticed that Councillor Ahmed has joined the meeting, so I wonder whether perhaps if we allow him to introduce himself, and then I will go through my item. Thank you. May I ask Councillor Ahmed to introduce yourself, please. Hi. Good evening, chair. I am late. Councillor Farouk Ahmed, watch your word, and I have nothing to declare. Thank you. Thank you, chair. So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications, including the legal advice that decisions must be taken in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and material planning considerations. The process for considering the reports will go in the following way, so I will introduce the item with a brief description of the application and a summary of the recommendation, and then officers will present the report. We would then normally hear from any speakers who have registered, but there aren't any speakers who have registered this evening, chair, so then the committee will go on to ask any points of clarification or questions of officers, and to debate the issues, and then finally come to a decision based on a majority vote, and I'll relay that back to everybody in the chamber and joining online. Should the committee propose changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation, for example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or obligations, then the task of formalising those changes is delegated to the corporate director of housing and regeneration. In the event that the committee do not accept the officer recommendation, they must give their reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action. The committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice, and the task of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the corporate director of housing and regeneration. If the committee proposed to make a decision that would seem to go against the provisions of the development plan or could have legal implications, then the item may be deferred for further report from officers to deal with the committee's proposed decision. There isn't an update report this evening, Chair, and as I mentioned earlier, there are no registered speakers, so thank you. Thank you, Paul, back now, for executing the procedure. Now we have no deferral item for tonight. So as in Item 5, the planning application for decision, we have one planning application considered this evening. As in Item 5.1, it's about Montgomerie Square, Montgomerie Street, Wood Street in Wood Street, London, E14. I would like to now invite Paul to introduce the application, please. Thank you very much, Chair. So as the chairs said, this is a planning application affecting Montgomerie Square, Montgomerie Street and Water Street, which fall within the Canary Wharf estate area and also into the Wood Wharf development, which is adjacent. The application proposes the removal of the existing permanent structures, alterations to the existing landscaping and provision of hard and soft landscaping, public realm improvements, a flexible event space, retail pavilion and all associated works and structures along with the provision of some road amendments to Upper Bank Street and Montgomerie Street and pedestrian friendly public realm and layout enhancements to Water Street. So quite a long description, Chair, but hopefully it will become apparent through the presentation. The recommendation to the committee this evening is to grant planning permission subject to planning conditions and obligations. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I would like to invite Nicholas Pelling, Case Officer, to present the application, please. Nicholas. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members, members of the public, dialing in online and members of the public in the room. As Paul mentioned, the application site is located in the wider Canary Wharf estate. The Canary Wharf estate is indicated here on this map in blue with the wood wharf development indicated in green and then the application site in red. As you can see, the application site spans both the historic Canary Wharf estate and goes down into the wood wharf development. This here is a site plan showing the site in a bit more detail with the site outlined in red showing Montgomery Square on the left and then Water Street going down into Wood Wharf with various developed plots and undeveloped plots within the wider outline. It's worth noting from the start that the proposals today are part of a wider strategy introduced by Canary Wharf to introduce further ecology and greening into the estate as well as to create a more welcoming atmosphere and to integrate the estate into the wider borough. There's a green axis or a proposal for a green axis to run right away through the estate from the Newfoundland building all the way down to the eastern edge of Wood Wharf. The estate is already delivered middle dock which opened earlier this week. Jubilee Park is in the centre of the estate which is a large green area with lots of tree planting and then as you move eastwards there's Montgomery Square and Water Street which are the current proposals and then there were previous proposals which were approved under delegated authority for temporary landscaping works to Union Square and Timber Key to provide more public realm whilst development plots come forwards. And as you move further east there's the permanent harbored square which is part of the wider Wood Wharf scheme and then ecology islands at the graving dock. There's also a green spine running along the south dock here. Turning now to the proposal site, the site here in yellow are the temporary landscaping works which I mentioned and then the red outline is the proposal site. The proposals will be delivered in two phases, the first of which will be Montgomery Square and the second of which is Water Street. This will be dealt with by a phasing condition. In terms of public consultation on the proposals, there were roughly 1,200 letters sent out and site notices erected in both the square and on Water Street and 195 representations were received, 193 of which were objections, one in support and one neutral representation. The large majority of the objections were from customers of a business which operates from within the square and primarily related to the loss of that business from the square. There were however objections from residents of the borough in relation to highways issues and noise impacts whereas a full list of objections is listed in the report. Only 40 of the objections were from residents with addresses in the borough but there were also 17 who gave addresses for business addresses within Canary Wharf and then there were representations received from all over the UK. Turning now to the first phase which is Montgomery Square, the existing square is predominantly hard landscaped with a few trees along here on the eastern edge which historically represented the edge of the Canary Wharf Estate and then there are some trees also within the 640 east demise which is indicated in this square here. There are also TfL assets including entrances to the tube station here and to the left of the square as well as a lift in the northwest corner of the square. This central space here is the event space which currently operates events throughout the year ranging from food markets, Christmas markets and art installations and sports events. This final outline here on the right hand side is a marketing suite which is linked to the marketing of spaces within Wood Wharf which has a temporary consent until 2027. This will remain in place until the end of that permission at which point the landscaping works which are proposed within this area will be undertaken. There are also proposals which will affect this junction here where there is currently a security kiosk and a barrier which controls traffic into the Wood Wharf Estate. Just some photos of the site on a few slides, this is the view as you exit the tube station from Jubilee Park to the west of the site. As you can see there is a significant barrier to accessing the square, both physical and visual barrier which will be removed as part of proposals. This image here shows the 640 East unit which is comprised of various different shipping containers, cladding, wooden cladding. The original permission allowed for three shipping containers but over time this has been expanded to include various other buildings and structures around them. This image here is from the other side of the square looking towards 640 East which shows the large event space and the tree planting on the eastern side. This is an image looking back towards the square showing the tree planting, the marketing suite and the junction I have mentioned. Turning now to the proposals, the proposals include a wide ranging landscaping scheme which will introduce a significant amount of greenery to the square as well as opportunities to sit in the form of benches and sort of amenity grassland where people can sit and enjoy their lunch or a drink. There will be the loss of some of the trees here but there will be approximately 40 trees planted to replace those as well as trees to be planted off site and to appropriately mitigate the loss of the trees on the site. As you can see this is the area here where the marketing suite is located which will be delivered upon the removal of the marketing suite. From the entrance of the Jubilee line station you will be able to access the square by a new pedestrian crossing without any obstruction. There will also be more informal crossings to the north and south. The final intervention to mention is the introduction of a new three story pavilion which will replace the 640 East building. This image here shows the outline of the pavilion which is on top of the blue outline here which represents the current 640 East building which is only a single story. As you can see the outline of the pavilion building is significantly more rationalised compared to the 640 East building and actually provides a more open feel to the square as a result. This image here is a CGI representation of what the pavilion building will look like. The building will house a restaurant use and will cover three stories including the provision of outdoor terraces. The stepping back of the building in different places enables the building to rise to three stories without negatively impacting on the openness of the square. As you can see there will also be a green roof on the building as well as three of the trees which are within the 640 East and I's being retained. This is an elevation of the building which shows the timber construction frame which will be a rational grid format with step back sections. There will also be a significant amount of glazing which enhances the activation particularly at the ground floor. The rear elevation or the north elevation which faces onto the gardens towards the north of the square will be significantly more infilled but this is because this part of the building will house the back of house function such as the kitchen and the extraction units which don't really allow for the additional permeability allowed. However this is significantly closer to the building to the north of the proposed pavilion and so there will be much less impact on the openness of the square as a result. There is precedent for this kind of building elsewhere within the Canary Wharf estates in the form of the Ivy restaurant which was built in the Canada Park Square which is built to a very similar style. This is a final CGI visualisation of the proposed building which demonstrates how the step back massing reduces the impact of the building on the openness of the square. Turning now to the objections received in relation to the loss of the business, now it's not for planning regulations to actually control the occupier of a particular building. Planning relates to the use of the land itself so the proposed land use provides a similar amount of floor space, in fact there will be a slightly increased floor space overall across the three floors but a reduced footprint across the square as a whole. In a similar use, the current use is a café and bar and the proposed use will be for a restaurant which is in line with town centre policies applicable to the area. Therefore the proposed pavilion itself is acceptable in land use terms. There is no planning requirement as such to re-accommodate the bar/restaurant business, however the applicant has provided information in relation to a separate policy which usually applies to office uses but could loosely be applied to town centre uses as well. That information provided stated that the applicant engaged with the owner and found a new location for them which is actually within the red line of the application, 200 metres away on Water Street itself in a commercial unit in the new building here seen on the right with outdoor seating provided with parasols to shelter from the elements. The business has been operating from this location since October 2023 and so officers are therefore satisfied that the applicant has satisfied all planning considerations and planning policy issues in relation to the business. There are no other planning issues in relation to the business or the impact of the proposals on it. Turning now to the proposals on Water Street, the majority of the proposals are related to this area indicated in red here. The yellow star indicates where the 640 East unit is. There will also be some smaller proposals to this area here and then this box here shows where the other meanwhile landscaping uses will be introduced in the Union Square. Some images of Water Street looking down across the bridge towards Wood Wharf and then this here is the junction with Park Drive as Water Street meets it which is where the pedestrian or the vehicle restrictions will end and then this here is looking further along Water Street down into Harvard Square and then turning back around the image from Harvard Square looking back towards Newfoundland and the Canary Wharf Estate. Turning now to the proposals, the proposals primarily relate to the closure of the road through traffic from the public. The only vehicles which will have access to the road will be emergency vehicles, servicing vehicles, taxis and people who need to access the blue badge spaces. The closure of the road will be indicated by planters at each end as well as a new treatment to the road surface which will raise the level of the road to be more in level with the pavements which means that pedestrians will feel more at ease in walking freely across the road. There will be small pocket parklets introduced on each side which mean that any vehicles that are using the road will need to approach slowly and kind of weave their way through and there will also be lighting across the road on this eastern element here. There will also be outdoor seating introduced and formalised outside various of the commercial units including the 640 East and other units around which will be secured by condition. There will also be the introduction of additional planting in the form of planters and further trees. This is a CGI of what the junction with Park Drive might look like. The primary objections in relation to these elements of the proposals are in relation to transport. These images might be slightly confusing, I've tried to distill the impacts into some relatively simple images but so basically at the moment residents are accessing the car park here, this is the kind of residential district which will be mostly impacted with other residential buildings over here and along the south here. They can currently access both directions along Water Street here but to access that they would need to follow the one way system round here and down or down Trafalgar Way and then down Montgomery Square down into Water Street. There is currently no access down Charter Street from Cartier Circle. Now the proposals will only come forward which will be secured by planning obligation once the entrance to Charter Street via Cartier Circle is open to two way traffic. As you can see here there are restrictions across Montgomery Square which means that only emergency vehicles and service vehicles will be able to access the southern route as well as down Water Street. However residents will then have two way access through Charter Street into Cartier Circle and then the wider estate and they will be able to just come down from Trafalgar Way straight down into the parking. So in some instances the route will be shorter and then in the other instances there will be no discernible difference because instead of coming down Montgomery Street and then across they will be going across and then down. And then in terms of the, once the Wood Wharf proposal is fully developed there will also then be additional access routes over here on the eastern side of the development which means that there will be another access route and any traffic will be further reduced. However the area isn't particularly well or heavily trafficked in any event and so there are not expected to be any impacts or real discernible impacts to residents. There were also some objections in relation to noise in particular in relation to noise from the event spaces which will all be dealt with via condition which will be agreed with the noise officers. This slide here just shows the amount of greening that will be introduced. There will be a 500, over 500% biodiversity net gain which is far in excess of the statutory requirements and the proposals will be in line with urban greening factor requirements. There will be a significant amount of additional planting and increases in biodiversity across the two sites. In terms of planning obligations there will be, and SIL, there will be SIL payable which amounts to roughly £70,000 based on current estimates. There will also be roughly £15,000 in contributions including carbon offsets and development coordination monitoring and then there will be tree planting off site, there will be requirements to secure public assets to the square including new elements of public open space and then ensuring that the closure of Water Street only occurs after the full opening of Cartier circle. As mentioned the proposals significantly enhance the ecology across the wider estate and tie into strategic visions for the enhancement of the wider Canary Wharf estate, including introducing enhancements to permeability across the estate and into Wood Wharf and officers therefore recommending granting planning commission subject to the conditions and obligations set out in the report. Thank you. Thank you for presenting the application. As we have no registered speaker for this application, we will now move on to members' questions. Do members have any questions to the officers or the applicant? Please indicate if you do have. Councillor Baskin. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. It's really interesting. I have a question about traffic on Preston's Road. So I know like there's been some work on Preston's Road from Canary Wharf group to improve access into Wood Wharf and you mentioned in your presentation there'll be an additional access from Preston's Road into Wood Wharf. When is that due to happen and when is the I think there was something that happened in terms of the agreement. I don't know if it was to do with still but the Canary Wharf group invested a lot in road improvements on Preston's Road as part of some previous application and I wondered whether this would generate something similar as well because obviously there'd be an increase of traffic from Preston's Road into Wood Wharf. Have I confused you with that question? Sorry. No, the question makes sense. I guess in terms of timing of the opening of additional access points, it might be best for the applicant to answer that question in terms of kind of development timelines and things and I'm not entirely sure on the other kind of works that have been carried out into Preston's Road but I mean the all the impacts that our highways officers and TfL have indicated are only to private roads within the Wood Wharf and Canary Wharf estates. There wouldn't be additional traffic generated to Preston's Road and Trafalgar Way really because kind of the proposals aren't expected to introduce additional traffic into the estate. It's just rerouting residents within the estate itself instead of going kind of one route within the estate to kind of go another route within the estate so it's not really going to introduce traffic coming into the estate itself from public highway if that makes sense. Yes, well I was thinking like because the area's quite, there's a lot of restaurants as well so there'll be a lot of taxis and deliveries and that sort of thing so are they, when officers have assessed the increase or the impact on traffic have they looked at sort of traffic flows as well as part of that? So the application was submitted with a transport statement and that was reviewed by our highways team and they had no concerns as to the impacts on the public highway at all and obviously the restaurant is only about 200 square metres larger than the existing business so it wouldn't really be expected to increase traffic flows by a significant amount because obviously it would have a similar sort of number of patrons I guess so there wouldn't really be additional taxi drop offs or anything and there's also a large number of other public transport routes which can be taken, there's obviously the Elizabeth line which recently opened not too far away, it's right next to Jubilee line station and so officers wouldn't really expect there to be a significant enough increase in transport into the estate from the public highway at least to warrant any kind of further action. So I just want to understand, so you know the road that's going to be closed, is that open currently? Yes, it's open currently. Okay, thank you. Councillor Ahmad. Thank you Chair, thank you for the presentation, that was wonderful. Just two questions, the first one, you know you've mentioned that you've sent about 1200 letters to the local resident, is that the actual number of residents who lives in that area or more than that? So it was to an area which was probably broader than we ordinarily would have done or would be required to, we included all of the residents within the Wood Wharf estate, not within the whole that they stayed, but that residential district immediately next to Water Street were all consulted, including One Park Drive and the other residential buildings next to it, it included businesses surrounding the square and Water Street, so it didn't kind of go outside Wood Wharf, because we wouldn't be required to under our statement of community involvement to do that. Thank you. Just another quick question about Section 106, as you have mentioned, could you give us any indication of what will be secured for that? Yeah, sure, so these are the obligations which will be secured, so there'll be three financial contributions in relation to offsetting carbon, the reason we can secure that in this application is because the size of the site pulls the development into being a major application, whereas the size of the building itself wouldn't ordinarily meet that requirement, so we've been able to secure a carbon offset contribution by that method, there'll be a development coordination contribution, as well as a monitoring fee, and then in terms of non-financial obligations, there'll be a requirement to plant trees outside the red line boundary, which is to appropriately mitigate the loss of the trees which are at the eastern side of Montgomery Square, and that will just be to provide additional canopy cover and tree numbers, and then there'll be securing public access to the square, which is already secured under the Wood Wharf Master Plan, Section 106, but there are additional elements of square which are being provided which wouldn't ordinarily be covered, so we're just kind of belt and braces, making sure that public will have access to all elements of the square, and then an obligation to ensure that Water Street will only be closed once those other routes are open so there's no negative impacts on residents in terms of accessing their properties.

• Thank you for that, thank you, Chair.
• Councillor Lachman.
• Thank you, Chair. So I see 193 objections, have you looked at the objections, do you know what the reasons are? Because there's only one support. Is there a frequency on the reasoning, or, yeah?
• Yes, yeah, so the vast majority of the objections were in relation to the loss of the business from within the square, which, as I mentioned, isn't necessarily a material planning consideration in terms of the occupier of the new pavilion building itself. The pavilion building itself is providing a new unit which can be occupied by any business in line with local plan requirements, and the applicant has re-accommodated the business elsewhere within the red line, so we feel that those objections are adequately met. There was a significant number of those objections which were very similar in nature, primarily from customers of that business. There were other objections received from residents of the Wood Wharf Estate in relation to, mainly in relation to transport and noise impacts, which, again, we feel have been adequately addressed.
• Members, to the applicant. I have a question to Nip, we have 193 objectors, and mainly they remain for the loss of businesses, and do you have any idea how many residents object or object in terms of with the road closure or traffic movement?
• I don't have that exact figure to hand, but I would say it was probably in the '20s-ish of objections in relation to that, but I don't have the exact figure to hand, and obviously there was a significant number of objections to go through in this report, but yeah, once a material consideration is raised by an objection, it becomes a material consideration, and we have considered the application in light of those objections, and still consider the proposals to be acceptable.
• Question, okay, could I now ask members to share a final thoughts, summary final thoughts on the application, how do you feel about this, which I do want to go? Thank you.
• Thank you, yeah, so I thought it was a really clear presentation, I think the objections have been addressed, like nobody's turned up here tonight to speak, so I feel assured that the objectors' concerns have been addressed as well, so I'm not sure there's a material reason to turn this down, so I'm reminded to accept the officer's recommendation to approve.
• Do you want me to cancel that one?
• I've been to Docklands quite a lot, and I get it, the TFL and the highway have said having the road being closed, it wouldn't be a big impact, but to me, I feel like it will be a big impact, 'cause I've been there and there's always so much traffic, having another road closed would be a major impact, I think, and also, there is a lot of objection, so I feel like I'm with the objectors on this one, to be fair.
• Regarding the application and this site was presented, I have no doubt into this, it's quite nice, beautiful, and I'll never doubt whenever something is happening on that particular area, but I have two reservations on this, which is, one is about the value of the development will bring on that particular site and the profit will generate from that particular building, which does not really match Section 106 and other things, that's one of the things, and the other one is, obviously, I have a lot of sympathy about the loss of the businesses, those objectors, but unfortunately, obviously, it does not apply with the planning environment, so therefore, yep, I'm happy with it, but the thing is this, as I've said, it does not match with the financial profit and the gain here, for the local authority, thank you.
• Thank you, Mr. Chair, I am echo with our Councillor Amin Rahman, I think he's not is a planning material consideration, but of course, lot of people will lose their business and definitely, it will increase the traffic congestion, as well as emergency signs, the services will be impacted, so I...
• I have a question for the applicant. What benefit would the road closer proposal would bring to the local resident and what disadvantages will bring and how do you mitigate this conflict between the two?
• Sorry, Chair, to be clear, was that about the road closure and the kind of implications? So we've looked at this in detail and as the officers have set out, we've submitted a transport statement, it is our view that that road is lightly trafficked at the moment, it is not a major through road, it's mainly used by delivery trucks and it's not a very busy road, it also, because it's lightly used, but it is set out as a road, makes the square feel quite different as a public space, we genuinely believe that taking that road out would make the space a much more successful place and it will be much softer, much greener and present a much more kind of enhanced environment for the local community and it goes, it's very much in alignment with our vision for the wider estates, as the officers set out that green spine, placing pedestrians at the forefront for us and our longer term vision at Canary Wharf is absolutely at the forefront of what we're trying to achieve, reducing lane widths, breaking shared surfaces for vehicles, slowing down vehicle traffic speeds, it's very important but of course we're alive to the concerns which is why we've employed transport consultants to look at the vehicle movements and do traffic counts and they assure us that there will be no material impact as a result. I think we need some, I'm going to ask Paul Beckenham to share his final thoughts on this. I think it would be hard for the members, their final thoughts would like to listen from Paul Beckenham. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity. I think if I was to sum up, the application, if you look at it in the round, is trying to fit within that wider strategy that we talked about, about Canary Wharf Group looking to try and make improvements right across the estate, it's just one part of that jigsaw, if you'd like to see it in that way, so it's about integrating the new wood wharf development into Canary Wharf Estate and vice versa, so making that connection feel much more welcoming, much greener, much more friendly and welcoming for pedestrians. I wanted to just kind of touch on a couple of points, I understand that obviously some of the residents have moved into some of the newer developments within wood wharf have objected because they sort of see this as affecting the routine if they're driving to their properties. I mean a couple of things, I mean obviously most of those developments are largely car free anyway, so there shouldn't really be that many people driving who are living there, but also I think you've got to look at it in the context of how it feels now, but what the future proposal is, so at the moment the access that comes north-south through from Cartier Circus down into wood wharf is only one way and in the future that's proposed to be open to two-way traffic, so what is proposed at the moment is the closure of Water Street will only happen once the two-way traffic is introduced, so there will be alternative routes, so that was part of, I know the diagrams were a little bit complicated but that was part of the presentation, so there is a planning condition recommended there, so in a way that provides that mitigation that I can understand why residents may feel concerned at the moment, but if you look to the future they will have an extra option coming from the north and they'll also have an extra option eventually coming from the east, so in a way I don't think there's a massive impact there, and as I say there should be very few people who, residents who are actually sort of driving there anyway, really just those who are blue badge parking, disabled parking. Just the comments about, Colin's comments about the section 106, the contributions there are calculated in accordance with the policies in the council's SPD, so they come out as they are in order to mitigate the impact of the development, really the benefits of this development are actually in the development itself, so the contribution that it makes to placemaking and the significant biodiversity net gain and the urban greening factor, all those are actually coming from the development and that placemaking rather than contributions to mitigate it if you like, so slightly different context, but that, thank you chair for allowing me to sort of sum it up, that's all I have to say, thank you. Thank you Paul for your contribution, do you want to say something? No I don't have anything to add. I can sense there's a split on this one and my position is a bit uncomputable as a chair, if member agrees can I propose for a site visit to get a real sense of what would be the planning, what benefit it would bring to the local community as a whole or for the impact, negative impact, what kind of negative impact can have or involved with this planning application? Anyone? So I don't feel I need one because I am familiar with the site because I walk through it fairly regularly but others may feel differently and I would be happy to support it if others feel they need it. Same chair, I don't feel like I need to do a site visit, I know this area very well. Then it's time for us to go for vote. Can I see all those in favour of this application, please? All those against? Okay, so there's a 50/50, so I need to go back again, which will allow me to broadcast my vote. Can I see all those in favour of this application, please, again? Thank you for the inconvenience, thank you. And all those against? I have to move. Thank you. Thank you, chairs. So as the committee has resolved not to accept the recommendation to grant planning permission, we have two in favour and three against. Chair would now call to yourself or any other members who haven't agreed with the recommendation to set out effectively. Can I hand that back to you, too? Can I ask, yes, chair, so my reasonings were that there were a lot of objectors on this one, also the road closure, objectors have come in and have objected. Thank you, Mr Chair, because a lot of business will be losing their revenue and traffic congestion this day. Let me increase the travelling for the local residents coming in and going out and limiting accessibility. Thank you, chair. I think if I have captured this correctly, then the committee is proposing that the planning commission should be refused because the road closures would affect local businesses, would increase traffic congestion and would have a negative impact on residents entering and exiting the estate. I mean, I just want to, if I may, chair, before you take the vote on that, the application has been assessed by the council's highway officers and they are arguably the experts in this and haven't raised any objection on any of those matters, so obviously please consider the implications of that to adopt those reasons for refusal. I noticed that there were comments around the traffic effects on local businesses, but so far as I'm aware, local businesses haven't objected on the grounds of traffic. It's local residents who have raised transport issues. I think I'm correct in saying that there are no local businesses that have raised transport issues directly themselves, but again, that's your prerogative, but I just want to make those points so that you're making your decision with all the - in terms of the next steps, chair, then it would be to correct and say to propose and then to vote on them, is that correct? I have three reasons. So the road closures would affect local businesses, the road closures would affect traffic congestion within the estate and the negative impact on exit and entry arrangements for local residents. Thank you for your helping on this issue. So we have - you have heard the summary of the objection, so based on this, I would like to ask you again to vote who are - those in favour of this object, in favour of objection, based on these three reasons given? Those against? Thank you, chair. So just to confirm the committee's decision, the committee has resolved to go against the officer recommendation to grant planning commission and has resolved to refuse planning commission for reasons that relate to the impact of the proposed road closure on Water Street on local businesses, on traffic congestion and the negative impact on entry and exit arrangements for local businesses. Thank you, everyone. Members and everyone present here, the meeting is closed for tonight. Thank you for your contribution. [BLANK_AUDIO]