Transcript

Good morning members, good morning officers, good morning. Welcome members of the public that have joined us for the planning application or planning and regulatory committee to get its right title Wednesday the 25th of September. Firstly, apologies absence that have been received from John Rovini and Jonathan Harley, there's no substitutes. No, no checking that. The minutes of the last meeting, are you happy that I signed these? It's a while ago I appreciate but fine, thank you very much. I'll do those later. The petitions are now received. Public question time, there's nothing received from the public. Members question time, Catherine you have submitted two questions and the responses are contained in the update. Is there anything you wish to add on that briefly? Thank you. Thank you Edward. On the first question, I'd like to thank the officers for pulling together the response which is very much appreciated. I think there are two elements that aren't fully answered by the response. One is around who is which statutory agency is responsible for identifying and mitigating ground water flood risk and the second one is surface water flood risk in terms of water flowing off hills. Oh, okay, sorry, excuse me. I was wondering whether or not I could get a response to those two parts of the question Edward if that's possible. Sorry, the second-- the first part I got was the second part of your comment. Sorry, it was to do with part B of the question which was the evaluation of surface water flood risk particularly in areas with hills and valleys. It's not associated with water courses. It's associated with storm water essentially running off the hills. Yes, so in terms of surface water, that would be something falling primarily into the remit of the LLFA, the Lead Local Flood Authority. So they would be the consultee we as the planning authority would go to for any matters relating to surface water drainage or mitigation of surface water flooding issues. In terms of ground water, that might fall into a couple of different camps. Obviously, the environment agency have a role in terms of protection of ground water. There then could be an interrelationship with what the LLFA might look at as well and we also could seek advice from our specialist consultees who we use for hydrological and geological matters. So it doesn't necessarily get squarely divided. Only one person is looking at this, only one person is looking at that. So it may fall into a couple of different camps. I can provide a follow-up written response as well if that's helpful. Thank you, Shannon. Thank you, Edward. I just have one follow-up question or one suggestion on the second question rather than a question if that's all right with you, Chair. Regarding the second point regarding what is a system that is able to be robustly or subject to robust maintenance regime versus something that is not maintainable, I think is a discussion I would like to have offline. I think that I can understand the response but I think that there are some specific issues that are coming up across a number of sites now in relation to such design and I would appreciate a subsequent conversation if that would be all right with you, Shannon. Yeah, I'm happy to arrange that. Yes, I think it involves other parties than on the planning and it is a complicated issue as my own experience has told me and the more people that get involved, the more complicated it becomes but we won't see anymore. Okay, thank you very much indeed for that. Some interesting points raised, thank you. Declarations of interest on the items, which one of which has no longer appeared but any declarations on the agenda, members? No, thank you very much. The next item was to be the Combrick North Day Nook Drive Red Hill but that has now been withdrawn and so we then move on to the application relating to Engleford Green in Eggham and this one is Dawn is leading us on this item. Thank you, Chairman. Commemorial members' attention firstly to the update sheet that was circulated which got minor changes to report and wording of conditions. There is a typo on that as well which where it relates to condition 14, it should say condition. Extra care provides self-contained units for independent living by older people with onsite facilities to support their care needs as they change or increase through their lives and the outline kind of application before you relates to the site of the former Birchlands residential care home in Engleford Green which is in Runnymede and there's a cycle onto the site plan. Actually, no, we can stay on the location plan. It's in a predominantly residential area with houses to the north and west and St. Jude's Infant School and Plainfield are detached houses fronting Barleymore Road on the other side of the road as well as the access into Berkeley Close, a cul-de-sac opposite. The northwestern boundary of the site abuts Englefield Green conservation area. The existing-- James, please. So on this site plan, the westernmost access on the plan above which is to the left of the screen is the existing pedestrian access which will be retained. The access to the east to the main car parking area also facilitates access to enable maintenance of Plainfields. So the site has been cleared and enclosed with hoarding and there are a significant number of trees removed to facilitate the development. So if you look at this ground floor plan, it basically shows the layout of the development which is three stories. The colored side of the block is the ground floor provision of recreational and support facilities that's above and the layout of the units above. These are initiative plans at this stage but they're generally divided in terms of the numbers. There is a basement being proposed over part of the development which will house plant. And James, please. So landscaping is for illustration at this stage 'cause it's not part of the outline application biodiversity net gain improvements on the site. So that is showing a hard and soft landscaping across the site, retention of the drainage dip. A number of representations were received as summarized in paragraph 16 on the character of the area. Other issues were raised in respect of overlooking and loss of privacy and the loss of parking provision summarized in the report. As set out in the various sections of the report, it is recognized that the proposed building would be of different and greater mass size officers. For the reasons set out in the report, the delivery of this scheme is considered to accord with the borough's broad aspiration. Well, yeah. Thank you very much indeed. We have a speaker, our normal speaker to address us on these matters. Join your mics on. Welcome once again, Carol. You know the routine but for-- you have three minutes and you'll be told when there's one minute remaining. And if you stay in situ to deal with any questions of a planning nature that the committee may have and the time will start whenever you're ready. So thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman. The Birchland site in Englefield Green is one of the program of extra care housing projects which little admissions and can shorten the length of hospital stays. The Birchland site was specifically selected for this use because it meets keys and the local health infrastructure can also support it. The design meets the criteria and requirements for affordable specialist housing. It's a-- can suit current and future needs of the residents. Its location reduces reliability on cars for both residents and staff and thus lower energy bills for the residents. We'll be installing vehicle charging throughout for both cars and mobility scooters and for bicycles. And we will install the latest telecare technology so that care can be delivered remotely as well as locally. Residents will also be encouraged to use smart technology. [ Inaudible Remark ] The Birchland's development contributes towards Surrey's ambitious targets of delivering 725 new affordable homes by 2030. It aims also to deliver against the net zero targets and it supports the community vision for Surrey to ensure that everyone has a home with appropriate housing for all. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, as always very interesting. Members, do you have any questions of a planning nature for the speaker? Catherine. Sorry, can I just have one question and it actually came out of what Dawn said but you've said something similar. We talked about the pavement being improved immediately outside but there's also a drainage ditch from memory when we went on the site visit immediately outside. Is there a plan that those two things will both be managed or because it's not covered in the conditions terribly, well, I can thank you. The drainage ditch will be maintained. Obviously, it provides a habitat and of course as a means of drainage, we want to keep it as well. There are bridges over that drainage ditch at both the vehicular and pedestrian accesses. So, it will not interfere in the slightest in either people being able to get to the next door school. James, do you want to come in? Good morning. Just wanted to add on to that. The conditions around the access referred to scheme to be submitted. We've got high level detail at the moment. It will be subject to our full technical approvals process where we will look at that drainage as well. You okay, Kathryn? Anybody else? No. I have one question. I'm not sure if it's a fair one for Carol or for the officers but, you know, we talk about the elevations and the external treatments and I just want to flag up at some stage it would be quite-- we've seen some of the completed buildings when we were out on our annual tour and I think we were less than overwhelmed at some of the external treatment I think is the best way of putting it. And whilst that is a detailed element, I for one, I think the committee will, based on the comments previously made, would welcome an opportunity of reviewing, of being informed, whichever way you want to put it, to see how these external elements are dealt with and particularly on the elevational treatment. Landscaping is landscaping but the elevational treatment is the use of bricks, it's the use of materials, it's the life of those materials so that we can just feel more comfortable if we're pretty. Now, I'm not sure-- yes, Dawn, it may be for you and not for Carol but I'll raise it now. Yeah. I was just going to say in this case, because it's adjacent to the conservation area, we will be consulting our heritage team and we've got a slightly more justification for asking for better materials on the building or should I say higher quality materials and on the hard landscaping as well. So, we've got that added reason to require it on the reserve matters. And you will be, of course, showing us those. [ Inaudible Remark ] The resolution at the moment doesn't propose that if the committee wish to amend the resolution to include that, we can do. I feel an amendment winging your way as we speak. Yes, I just consulted with the planners throughout before we actually bring proposals forward. Yeah, thank you. My comment was not just specific, more general in fact, that we just-- we don't always see the full picture and I think at times, we just feel slightly lacking if you like, I don't know the right word expression but I just raised that and I think so we can plug that. Members, any other questions for the comment this week? No? Thank you very much indeed. Once again, thank you. Members, now open to members. Ernest. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This-- we were on the site with the whole situation on this site seemed to be very positive and the whole thing seemed to fit in very well. I looked at the agenda and page 75, it clearly ticks all the boxes and so it doesn't seem to be any great controversy. One of the comments about it says they're very positive about development as the proposed use is much needed in the area and the aspiration to meet the building efficiency standards is fantastic. That's what one of the observers says. But the policy and dealing with this or the policies dealing with it page 83, all four main items on there are totally in favor of it. There are two NPF, NPPFs which establish that this is well within the NPPF policies and then there are two paragraph 24 and paragraph 26 from the local Runnymede Council and they're very much in favor of it and it seeks to obviously in their view meet their own policies. And then there's paragraph 25 which is the Egham local area and it supports provision of this new development. So the people surrounding this or the borough anyway, the borough and the Egham village area certainly are in support and we know that this is very much needed in Surrey and is part of our program. So I have no hesitation in supporting it. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Just a second Jeffrey, I should say the local member Marissa Heath is hopefully joining us but she's been delayed and I've jumped out of the order to give her a little chance to come and join but we haven't heard anything at this stage, no. So we'll carry on. If she comes on, well before we finish the item, I'll let her-- obviously let her come in and speak but in the meantime we'll just carry on and Jeffrey. Well, the obvious thing really Chair, I haven't seen or heard anything that would make me think this should not be approved but with respect to the interaction you were having with the offices earlier, I would like to formally propose that this committee takes responsibility for the reserved matters. In addition to the general points that you made, there's also the proximity to the conservation area and we can all read on page 78 the comments of the historic listed buildings consultation people made and I think for those reasons that we should take responsibility for the reserved matters. Thank you. Thank you. I noted and that's been accepted, I believe. Kathleen. Thank you Chair. I'm also fully supportive of this application and completely support the reserved matters coming back. I have two things that I would just like to cover on conditions. It doesn't-- I know we talked about the fact that the school needs access through the site to maintain its playing field and that's obviously critical and we wouldn't want to do anything that would limit that. I would just like the planning officer's advice as to whether there should be a condition around that to maintain that access. I kind of feel that there should because we can't predict what will happen in the future and I'm sure none of us want to be responsible for removing that access. And the other thing is, although there's nothing specifically in here linking highways and drainage, I know James and I have talked about this a lot, probably sick of hearing it from me, but I-- if the reserved matters are coming back, I don't have an issue with that but I do think that we do still procedurally have a bit of an issue between highways and drainage and I would just like us to be able to check that those two things do work together. Sorry James, thank you. Yeah, thanks for that. Sorry James, I'm just going to say, it was probably in my own mind but whether weighty or rights of access was needed. I was also wondering about a maintenance agreement on the road but I mean that's getting a little bit of an overkill. I've been nodded out to James. Yeah, very good valid points really to consider on this. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for there to be a condition in there at this point around access to the school. We're not-- there's details of what's within the site included here but layout is a reserved matter on this application. So it would be something we would want to bottom out the detail of then. I think I'd defer to the planning officers as to what form of condition could take at this stage to secure that beyond me saying we will be looking for it at a later stage. And then in terms of the drainage, just to sort of come back on the point that I made previously are we-- any developer of any type wants to-- needing to do a change on the highway has to go through our full technical review process which does involve assessment of the drainage elements. If it's appropriate for those details to come back as part of the reserve matters, I don't see any harm in that whatsoever, especially if that's information the committee would like to have sight of. [ Pause ] So we're just discussing-- picking up on James' point around the condition. If members of the committee will resolve to grant permission with that additional-- if the committee will solve that principle, we can finalize the wording to secure that. Are you saying you don't want to discuss and agree wording as a commission? It may-- some thought to the precise wording may do all favors in the long run. I think that's acceptable. Dawn. Just a small point to help Catherine understand the verge situation. The redline boundary in this case goes right to the highway and therefore we have got the requirement under the details that we have now that they will maintain the verge-- the drainage ditch and I think that helps with their surface water issue as well, the runoff from-- [ Pause ] Catherine. Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing that you're going to do that. It was the fact that we're going to do pavement improvements on a side of the road where there isn't anything where we've also got a drainage ditch which is giving us our biodiversity net gain. There is a little bit of a conflict there and as long as we resolve it, I know you understand that. I just wanted to make it clear. [ Pause ] Yeah, so I was just checking that we've got the usual requirement for new working on Sundays and just to clarify, it's the safety issue for the school and the construction going on, part of the construction management and yeah, that's all in place. But I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you. [ Pause ] Thank you. Thank you. Just a few comments from residents about the loss of privacy, especially on the St. Jude's Road. Can you just sort of clarify the extent of that loss of privacy with the mature trees they're talking about. Is that an actual issue or how will we mitigate that? [ Pause ] The report sets that out in some detail but if you look at the plan in front of you and the photograph what you would expect for developments relating to each other, that is not to say that there will be an impact because when something is built at the end of your garden, attention of all of the trees along the boundary where they're shown to be retained. We've also added an informative that consideration be given to the location of the windows sort of positioned even if it's in sort of a few meters either left or right which is what the neighbors have said. If a window is slightly behind a tree it's better than it's in the gap because we have had meetings with some of the neighbors. But I'm satisfied that it meets the criteria that is normally acceptable. And photographs with those that weren't able to attend, did you put those photographs into the deck because I think that would help Victor and others. [ Pause ] I think that's the one we saw on site. [ Pause ] That one will be removed. Yeah, sorry, it's the one-- that one, that's the one that's going I think, isn't it? It's very hard to see with the photographs. I realized when I looked at them that it's quite hard to comprehend. But generally the site is very level and it's been cleared and it has got the trees around the general vicinity of the site. [ Pause ] Don, can I just come in here? I think Victor's point or the point of the residence was the overlooking from the gardens, it's the landscaping. So there was a picture earlier on. It was just-- if you could go back to that one and just point out or just describe where the residents that are making the comment, what view would they have of the building? And just 'cause it's side on to them, it's-- so we can see the trees in between the-- you've got sort of a good distance between the two. Do you want to go to the plan rather than the photos to all? There was the landscaping plan that you had. All right. Can we go back to the landscaping plan? [ Pause ] Right. Is that the right one? Yeah. So the residence where the majority of the comments are made about overlooking are where on that plan? On the left-hand side which is towards the west of the site is the row of coming in from the left-hand side of the-- that's the end of their gardens and then there's a long tree screen. Lots of the substantial trees on the application site which will be retained. And clearly what you've got, there is the building elevations along that boundary but at the front it does angle in so it won't be so the back of the neighboring property is around 45 meters which is well-- I mean that would normally be acceptable distance would normally be 25 for three-story to two, so we've got a lot more distance. But that's not to say that through the trees that people will be able to probably see the top of building. Okay. Thanks. I mean that's covered that area and that's it. Members, if we've got no other comments, unfortunately Marissa Heath has not been able to join us. So the recommendation is now as amended in terms of the update sheet and the further condition imposed is now in front of us. All those in-- So just clarify to make sure I've understood the resolution. The resolution will be amended to say that the reserve matters application should return to this committee and also to include a condition to ensure the access is maintained for the school, wording to be finalized in agreement with the chair and vice-chair. That's as I understood the committee, the resolution is now being put to them. Correct. Members, all those in agreement with that, please indicate. Thank you members, that is unanimous. Thank you. We're now on to the next item which all items are interesting but this one I think is of particular relevance to a large number of people. Caroline is going to talk us through the Horse Hill application. So to put it correctly, the report and the outcome of the consideration of this matter by the Supreme Court, Horse Hill, Wellsite, Horse Hill, Hookwood, Hawley, Surrey. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and good morning members. This is an application that the Planning and Regulatory Committee actually considered in September 2019 and it relates to a Planning Commission that was issued on the 27th of September 2019. The council was challenged by a local resident and our decision was upheld by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. However, the Supreme Court came to a different conclusion and ruled that the council had acted unlawfully by not considering the indirect downstream emissions of the oil that was produced when burnt in the Environmental Impact Assessment. The order was published on the 19th of September and is addressed in the update sheet. Just one slight correction, the cost payable for the High Court and Court of Appeal are up to 35,000 pounds each because we don't yet know what the appellant's costs were. Headline is that the Planning Commission has been quashed and will need to be returned-- re-determined in due course and returned to this committee. The key findings of the judgment were that the greenhouse gas emissions were an inevitable consequence of the proposal, that there is a clear chain of causation in this case, that the environmental impact was flawed as it only took into account the direct emissions, i.e. those arising from the site, but not the indirect emissions, i.e. those arising from the burning of the oil following refining and sale. The court also found that there were established methodologies for calculating greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, there was no technical reason that they couldn't have been taken into account. They also noted that there was no existing case law that grappled with this question, so it was a new question for them to consider. The broader impact of this judgment is that for future EIA development, planning authorities will need to take a precautionary approach to indirect effects and where there is an inevitability of a consequence and the ability to undertake a meaningful assessment, it must be included in the EIA. And any separation from the project, which in our case the oil had to be refined, does not negate this requirement. All applicants with proposals for hydrocarbon development in the county that are deemed to be EIA development will now need to assess the downstream greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of course. It's not clear how the ruling impacts on other types of development, but it is conceivable that it will have implications for other types of mineral development and potentially highway schemes that require environmental impact assessment. Members may have been aware of the West Cumbria mining decision that was issued a couple of weeks ago. That decision drew heavily on this Supreme Court judgment. So committee is asked to make the Supreme Court's decision. Thank you. Thank you. Members, do you have-- okay, off you go. Well, Mr. Chairman, all I can say is I'm down here at a very low legal position and the Supreme Court is up there obviously and they can more or less seemingly do as they like. What it seems to me as an ordinary non-legal person is that what we're faced with is the Supreme Court making law on the hoof. I mean, the council behaved in a perfectly satisfactory and straightforward way according to the law. But then once this gets to the Supreme Court, they say, Oh no, hold on a minute. We thought of something different and it had to meet this other situation which is not in the law. I don't know how, you know, in a-- well, we are supposed to be a democracy. Parliament is supposed to take-- as you told me earlier, Parliament is supposed to take the law and not other people. But in this case, we seem to be ruled by people right up there somewhere. So, you know, it's a very, very odd decision because in all the time I've been on any planning, the thing that's been drilled into me is that you can only take things to court on process and not on merit. But this is a situation where the Supreme Court seems to suddenly develop process on the hoof and then said, You don't actually comply with it. That's my view. I'm ashamed, if you like, to be in a society with a high court that seems to think that it can just suddenly make law on the hoof. Thank you, Ernest, very heartfelt comments. Caroline, do you want to comment on that? I don't think there's a lot I can say in response. Thank you. The one question that does come to mind is-- it's just checking in Japanese. I mean, how many learned judges had sat in and opined on this going through the different iterations of the law, and, you know, it's trying to get consistency, which is really what Ernest is saying. So there was one judge at the high court, three judges at the Court of Appeal, and five at the Supreme Court. The judge at the high court ruled in our favor. We got a majority of two at the Court of Appeal, and then we lost on a majority of three at the Supreme Court. Chairman, I do have a question for the officers. I'd like to know on future applications, by what means and what skill and what research or how, how are the officers going to judge what the harm is to some oil burnt somewhere else by some means that they know not how, where, or what, they know not what the oil is being used for, how are they going to make a judgment on that, how are they going to advise us in terms of whether this condition is met or not met? Thank you. Because oil is-- it goes into a global market and it's used anywhere, we feel that the appropriate measure would be to compare the greenhouse gas emissions, which we can calculate because there is a methodology to do so, against the carbon budget for the country, and see what proportion of that it will create. Because we think that's the only way we can do it. How will you know if all of this oil is being burnt because oil is used to manufacture all sorts of plastics and other things, so how will you know that? Well, we have to make an assumption. But the vast majority of oil is burnt in one way or another. So, I think it's possible. Obviously, the accuracy is not going to be spot on because as you say, there are quite a lot of variables in the whole process. But that's the ruling of the court, therefore that is the law. Jeffrey. Well, I only wanted to say in the light of what Ernest said that I don't share his sense of outrage at this. I think, you know, the culpability-- our culpability should be mitigated by the fact that there was an absence of case law and therefore, you know, it was quite difficult for us. And I well remember the discussion and I well remember how finally balanced the arguments were. And I, you know, I voted against. So, I don't say that in the sense of feeling smug, but, you know. So, I was very conscious of how finally balanced the arguments were. So, I hope the sense of us being culpable, as I say, is mitigated by the absence of case law and the fact that it was very difficult. But these were very, very, very, very weighted difficult issues that deserved serious consideration by the High Court. And I don't resent the fact that the High Court has reached the decision that it has. I guess I'm concerned as to how we use this going forwards. Because when oil gas is extracted from the ground, depending on the processes that are used, depending on where it is, there are different inherent carbon emissions that come with those things. And some sites will generate less direct carbon to generate the same amount of oil than another site. So, in reality, you know, what we want people to be doing is where we have to have a certain amount of oil to keep the economy going at the moment. Unfortunately, that's the way we are. You know, the reality is what we want to be comparing is the site that creates the least direct carbon versus the sites that create the most direct carbon. And by not generating oil and gas in country, we are probably going to import more from Russia, former Soviet Union, China, goodness knows where else. And that creates a different problem. So I would like to understand whether you think we have to weigh that balance or we don't. The other thing that it struck me and I've stood in council meetings and argued against is that at the moment Surrey calculates its carbon footprint based on the carbon that is burnt in Surrey. That is, to my mind, wrong because Surrey is a massive importer of things from all over the world and all of those things have a carbon footprint. So are we now saying as part-- I mean, landmark in terms of how far does this go is my concern because, you know, to me, this is as a landmark decision could make the calculation of the carbon footprint for every single authority in this country wrong. And I would very much like to understand-- and I know that's a really complicated set of questions, Caroline, and I'm very sorry. But I'm sure they are the same questions that go through your mind and I would like to understand where you think we're at the moment and what the process is from taking this from a landmark decision to something any of us can interpret and use. So I suppose my first point I would make is that this ruling only applies to environmental impact assessment development proposals. So that's all it applies to at this stage. We've actually, in our response to the National Planning Policy Framework consultation, we have actually asked the government for more guidance on this because we feel that we are in a position where we don't really know. It's all a bit sort of finger in the air. As I say, it was the West Cumbria mining decision drew very heavily on this particular Supreme Court decision. I've lost my train of thought now. I do apologize. [ Inaudible Remark ] So in summary, the reasoning, the majority reasoning at Supreme Court development consent, so that was the majority reasoning. So you just map it again, see it's down to the downstream impact. Could you just read that section again please, do you mind? The essential reasoning of the majority was that downstream combustion emissions have to be assessed as part and capable of meaningful assessment. Coach and horses, yeah. So it's like all of these things. It's learning curve, it's iteration, it's-- each case is going to be reviewed. Let's just go back on to Jeffrey's point. I mean, it's the committee. I think at that time, yeah, it's a long arduous debate but I think at the time government policy overrode or impacted a lot of the maybe the decisions that were made at the end of the day, the government policy was to allow and to encourage at that time because there's new government policies coming out all the time. So, you know, I think really we just got to review and watch and learn and listen. Yeah, I mean actually the government guidance on this is exactly the same. It's give great weight to the benefits of. And that was the balancing that the committee had to do at that time. That's something else we've asked the government to consider again in their review of the NPPF because it puts planning authorities in a difficult position frankly. Right, okay. We could discuss in this. It's very interesting and it's, you know, what is the downstream impact? Is it a lorry driving away from the site? You know, it's the impact they've used and what's being used in the construction of that lorry, what have you. The whole thing could even go but it's something that's got to be-- we've got to watch and learn. So, but thank you for that. I feel quite annoyed that the county has to pay costs but which is-- and it's pointing at everybody for something we felt we did in good faith in the court of the law. But members, you were asked to note and I think the best thing is all we can do is note and updates would be appreciated. Catherine. I actually think the council has been put in an impossible situation because when this comes back, I don't know how the officers would fulfill this, you know, this Supreme Court-- I genuinely don't. And I'm an engineer and I don't know how you would do it. And this is the sort of thing I do day in, day out and I don't know how you would do it. So I think as and when another one of these oil and gas applications comes through, there needs to be some kind of member's development session long before we sit down and do it with the background of whatever-- whoever has decided about how it's actually implemented because with the best will in the world, what Helen has read out is not implementable in my technical opinion. That was why I asked it, Helen, to repeat that because I just-- I don't get it. Yeah. And I think that's fair comment because we haven't dealt with-- the committee hasn't dealt with an oil or gas application for some time and some of the members haven't dealt with them. So I think, yes, absolutely, there will be a training session on oil and gas specifically but also hopefully we'll know a bit more about how this particular judgment is going to be interpreted. So just to be clear, it's not just oil and gas, it's also hydrogen because we will have more applications coming through from hydrogen all of which will have EIA's and the different generation mechanisms for hydrogen will carry massively different carbon impacts. We've already-- we've had a few come through over the last few years. But this judgment will have an enormous impact on those, probably more than on the oil and gas. I agree and I also think it could have a knock on effect on sort of concreting aggregate and things like that. Yeah. Some of which are coming to us sooner than later, as you well know. Members, Ernest, very quickly please. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't wanna ask this question but really it's in the report. The oil company has operated the planning permission so we got a very greasy situation here. The drill hole, everything there is operating. So they're now in a retrospective situation, I mean if they need to apply for planning permission, it needs to be retrospective. You know, and the council is in the awkward position. Does the council wanna put a stop order on as a result of this decision? I should think not probably because the implications of that are severe. But this is a very-- we're now in a very difficult situation. We've got a company operating a situation without really and truly having planning permission. [ Inaudible Remark ] I mean it's something we're very conscious of. There isn't anything I can say to the committee by way of an update per se. Clearly, as the decision has been quashed, as you say, the application is-- in effect, we need to redetermine it at some point so there is no permission. So it is a complicated picture. Yes, we're very conscious of the fact that things have happened at the site. So that's something that the enforcement team and the planning teams that I manage are mindful of and I'm sure at some point, we will have a more concrete update than that as to where the next steps go. I'm glad you didn't want to ask that question, Ernest. Appreciate it. But yeah, it's-- there's another hot potato for us. Right, members, thank you very much indeed. Thank you Caroline for that. That's the end of the agenda. The next meeting is on the 30th of October and I'm aware there are a number of things lining up, some major items. There's a queue that are coming our way. So members, officers, members of the public that are with us, thank you very much indeed and it's still a good morning. Thank you and goodbye. [ Silence ] [BLANK_AUDIO]