Transcript

Ychwanegwch yn fawr iawn i'r ddiweddaraf o'r Cynulliad Cymdeithasol Telford yng Nghymru. Rwy'n meddwl y bydd llawer o ddŵr yn ymwneudol, ac yn y cysylltiad o ddŵr, gallai'r gysylltiad yn cael ei ddod yn y Cymdeithasol. Mae'r tolygiadau'n ymwneudol ymlaen i'r Cymdeithasol nesaf. Mae'r ymwneudol hwn yn cael ei ddod yn y cysylltiad i sicrhau bod pawb sy'n ymwneudol, neu'n ymwneudol, yn y gysylltiadau a'r gysylltiadau a'r gysylltiadau yn gallu gweld a'i ddod o'r gysylltiadau. Mae'n bwysig y bydd y gysylltiadau'n gallu cyfrannu eu wybodaeth gyda'r gysylltiad, ac y bydd y gysylltiadau'r Cynulliad Cymdeithasol yn gallu cysylltu a'i ddod yn y cysylltiad. Rhywun y Pan ona'i ddod yn canol, rwyf yn gallu llivesi. Rwyf yn ysgrif Prinzipd bach! Nid roi ddod yn y Ddiwedd, ac yn allanai f developio triaethau'r ddod. Rwyf yn es وأfod i llawer i feddwl fod os教egwyd a canoli â hynny acquiredwr a calling Difback y TARP' everfiwn. Felly, byddwn i'n gobeithio ein bod pawb sy'n cymryd neu'n mynd i'r ffonau mobl. Ac unrhyw beth arall, pan fyddwch chi'n cymryd i ddweud, byddwch chi'n gweithio'r botwm rhan, unrhyw beth, ac mae'r llwyf hŷn yn cael eu cymryd. Unrhyw beth, mae'r llwyf hŷn yn cael ei ddweud, byddwch chi'n cymryd i ddweud. Iawn, ddolch i chi. Rhywbeth, unrhyw beth, yw'r amgylcheddau ar gael. Mae amgylcheddau o'r cyngor Thomas Iancar a'r cyngor Karen Blondell yw'r cyngor Nigel Dugmore a'r cyngor Stephen Bentley yw'r cyngor, a'r cyngor Giles Luter, ond nid oes cyngor amgylcheddau ar gael i'w gyrraedd. Iawn, ddolch i chi. Unrhyw beth, mae'r llwyf hŷn yn cael ei ddweud, byddwch chi'n cymryd. Iawn, ddolch i chi. Rhywbeth, y ffrindiau yma o'r cyngor yma, maen nhw'n cael eu dyfyniadu. Mae'r cyngor wedi'i ddod yn 4 o September. A allwn ni gynnal bod yna ddwy ffrindiau? Rhywbeth. Rhywbeth. Diolch. Rhywbeth, unrhyw ffrindiau ar gyfer llyfrwyr neu'n ymddiriedaeth? Nid, Cymru. Diolch. Unrhyw cyngor cyngor? Nid yn ymdrech, Cymru. Diolch. Rhywbeth. Unrhyw ffrindiau y gynngor yna. Unrhyw ffrindiau ar gyfer llywyr. Beth y byddเจdion eidio'r dechrau cwestrach. Llwyran. Rhyw annoy bydde. Pa粉 ohonynt o rywbeth. Government o. Mic all yw'r Dechrau'r Dechrau'r Dechrau yng Nghwlyndiaeth Our annib waffle eu cyfrifiad开 ymglwyd? Mae'n rhaid yn ymdrech. Mae ysgolwch o rywwyd. Mae Cymru yn sectorwm yn contesti'n fwrdd o'r gilydd. Mae'r ffrindiau er mwyn samogla ymlaen. y nよ converting iawn yn wallau. Mae deallusividad os holl 이�wadau'n perwyfi â gwyst accurate. Ac maen nhw'n ei elen saddeilah, gydag y cyhoeddiant cyfreithiolaeththey� package, Felly mae hynny'n ymwneud â'ch adolygiad, hefyd yn y report cymdeithasol. Felly dyma gweithredu ar gyfer gweithredu ar ymwneud â chyflwyno 100. Mae'r gweithredu yn ymwneud â gweithredu'r gweithredu i'r gwasanaeth gyda'r holl fathau eraill. Diolch, Cymru. Diolch. Roeddwn i'n dechrau i'r gweithredu Andi Harrison i fynd i'r rostrum. A allwn i ddweud i'r gweithredu y byddwch chi'n cael 3 munud i ddweud. Diolch, Ander. Good evening. As you know, I'm here to represent St George's and Prysley Parish Council and of course our local residents. As you know from the agenda, there's a significant level of local opposition to this planning application. And I've really got to start with that. We have had three parish council meetings now where the application has been discussed and each time it's been, let's say, the topic of lots of discussion, whereas planning normally just goes straight through. I have accounts on the website today and there's something like 340 objections to this application. It's not NIMBYism. The parish has recently had quite a number of large developments going on which have gone through without any kind of major opposition. There's the Redrow site, there's Miller Homes and of course the Cloisters development. The parish council appreciates the need for new homes, but this site isn't the place for them. We welcome the reduction in numbers from 120 to 100 homes, but in my view that's not going far enough for a number of reasons. My personal preference would be reduced to zero, but that's here or there. If this is to go ahead, we would rather the numbers reduced further. I won't put a number on that, but part of our interest is to increase biodiversity. It's one of the few remaining large green spaces in the St George and Prysley area. There's normal biodiversity there. This site will have a negative impact on that and if the work is to go ahead, which obviously we'd rather not, we'd like to see the application increase biodiversity rather than having a negative impact on it. For example, alboxes, bat brits, bat boxes, bat brits, all that kind of thing. The parish council has major concerns about impacts on the local infrastructure. Section 106 will look after the schools, hopefully. I'd like that to be in local schools so people can walk to the schools. One of the major concerns from our residents is around the doctors, the dentists. People have already come to the parish council complaining that the infrastructure there is just not up to scratch. People can't get appointments and this application will only make that worse. Further, there's no real attention in the application to linking with public transport. I had a look at what the plans were around the bus routes. If you're fit and healthy, it's fine to get to the bus stops that we talk about, but it's not going to work for the elderly and infirm. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask Councillor Tim Nelson to come forward, please? Good evening, Members. I'm speaking on behalf of Councillor Rachel Tyrell. As the previous speaker spoke well, there are over 300 objections. This is one more. I refer to the previous application, number TWC 202030837, which was withdrawn on 29 January this year. I supported the objection of the parish council, of which I am a member, and witnessed a substantially higher than usual attendance and listened to very real concerns of local residents. I endorse the large formal application of the parish council. This development does not form part of the local plan and is therefore contrary to identified local development needs. The issue of drainage has not been addressed. This is of additional significance when considering this is also a site of important historical interest as a Roman moat. While the development field is not proposed directly on this site, it is immediately adjacent, and the proximity of the build is a concern. The archaeological assessment by Sophie Bell of Fuller Long dated July this year is limited. It's only a desk-based report. No site inspection has taken place and no test observations have been carried out. It refers to the planning authority's provisions in the local plan 2018, six years ago for their preservation. This report therefore acknowledges its own limitations. There are no local equipped play area provision. Indeed, no facilities are proposed at all. This demonstrates an overdevelopment to the site. The plans indicate a lack of parking, which will lead to multiple vehicles being parked on local roads. The previous application referred to blocks of flats, which are not in keeping with the natural existing village style of the residential area. This application is silent on the property type. With regard to highways and safety, access to development would be a new junction of the A5 Telford Way. This is, and I know from my experience, a very busy road leading from the problematic line-kill roundabout, which is still waiting for new white lines and is the subject of local complaints. During construction, traffic will use alternative local roads through St George's and Priors Lee. Priors Lee is already very busy from the substantial developments in Priors Lee and the rebuild of the secondary school Holy Trinity Camadie, which was identified by local cabins at the time, was dismissed, and now these traffic concerns have been proved correct. Development will also lead to loss of amenity and green space, which is naturally and literally naturally a home to flora, fauna and wildlife. Quality, affordable housing is required, but this application does not satisfy that need, and I confirm my objection to this application on behalf of my local residents. We noted that only this week there has been discovery of a Roman site in Attingham Park, and there the Natural Trust is talking about the technical detail of preserving that heritage, whereas in St George's and Telford we are proposing to build houses on a Roman site. It is vitally important that we protect the few remaining spaces of green space and heritage in our area. Thank you. Thank you too. Thank you. Can I ask for Andrew Whittle, please? Thank you. Thank you. So the national planning policy framework changes are proposed reforms, otherwise the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government would not ask 106 times whether the reforms are agreeable and invite a response. The decision on this application should only be based on the current policy. No matter the number of objections, there only needs to be one objection that highlights fundamental flaws within the proposal. As is evident from the comments, sentiment is high and there is a real risk that perception, if approved, is one of development at any cost with little regard for the long-term physical and mental health impact on residents. One resident had their application for an additional window rejected on the basis that it would impact a neighbour's privacy. Bo is back and gone to this site to have the prospect of having neighbours look directly into their living rooms and bedrooms. There is condition. Sounds good. Okay. Well, let's see if we can sort it out. Put that quid in the meter. That's what we're working on, but you do need log-in, so we're just getting the log-in deals to enable that to happen. Okay, just test that. Yeah, that's fine. Might as well sit down. So, I left off, yeah, just the last sentence, the last paragraph then. So, those backing onto this site have the prospect of having neighbours, you're obviously having this development looking into people's living rooms and bedrooms, so a little bit more than a window there. So, there is conditional support based, sorry. You might as well start again, I think. You want, okay. We can take stock of what you said prior to the electricity going off. Start at the beginning? Yeah, start at the beginning if you will. Yeah, no problem at all. Okay, so the national planning policy framework changes are proposed reforms, otherwise the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government would not ask 106 times whether the reforms are agreeable and invite a response. The decision therefore on this application should only be based on the current policy. No matter the number of objections, there only needs to be one objection that highlights fundamental flaws within the proposal. As is evident from comments, sentiment is high and there is a real risk that perception, if approved, is one of development at any cost, with little regard for the long-term physical and mental health impacted on residents. One resident had their application for an additional window on their landing rejected on the basis that it would impact on a neighbour's privacy. Those backing onto this site, this proposed site, have the prospect of having their neighbours look directly into their living rooms and bedrooms. There is conditional support based on financial contributions. One-off payments for education and health services will run out very quickly. Demand for services will continue well after the pot is empty. This proposal should be considered on its individual merits and flaws, not another local development as the application attempts to. Several hundred homes have already been built locally, with more including shops planned around the second busiest arterial road connecting to the M6 and M54. Large five and six axle articulated vehicles are already taking side roads like Church Street, so it's over development. In addition, traffic assessment models use data from periods that reduce the perception of risk, for example, government-enforced lockdown. Traffic collision reports failed to include collision data from 2023. There is suggestion of a net bio gain, but my calculator cannot compute how the scale of man-made materials to be used results in a gain. The only gain that it is able to compute is that of revenue. Page 21, section 4.7 of the planning statement, when trying to address policy NE1, does state there will be a shortfall of habitat, but off-site habitat creation will be in place so that doesn't benefit St George's. The application states that the travel plan provides a strategy for encouraging sustainable travel. The planning statement, page 19, section 4.1 states that it will meet policy C1 by promoting an alternative to the car. How does a development that includes space for 250 cars promote an alternative? It is hardly sustainable. The proposed junction will double the road width needed to accommodate it, and I've never seen a crossing place close to an intersection or roundabout that didn't cause a bottleneck or increase the risk to drivers and pedestrians. This site has unique characteristics. It is the last remaining ancient farmland in the area. The geological and archaeological survey images clearly show lines in more than one field where, I quote, archaeological interpretation is favoured. The full along report in 6.16 states that development will likely remove or heavily truncate archaeological features within its footprint. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Can you all hear me okay? Lovely, thank you. I'd just like to start by saying that Montagu Land is fully behind the Council's very progressive approach to housing growth, and we fully support the ambition shown in the emerging local plan. And the reason I say that is because we believe this development forms a straightforward and uncomplicated opportunity to help the Council deliver that housing target. The site is owned by a land promoter, and it's physically unconstrained, so it is deliverable. The site lies within the urban area, and it does not form part of the adopted green network in the adopted local plan, so in planning terms its development should be acceptable in principle. And we note that the proposal does enjoy broad support among statutory consultees and among the Council's own professional officers, and we're confident we can work with these individuals to get the Reserve Matters application worked up and to take on board their thoughts and their ideas. Many of those who took part in the planning process were very keen to see improvements to healthcare, education and highway safety in the St George's area. We're very glad to be able to respond positively to that. You know, through our section 106 contribution, our proposal offers the opportunity to upgrade schools, play areas, sports pitches and healthcare facilities, as well as to provide much-needed affordable housing in line with the Council's own guidelines. In addition to that, the proposed highway junction is supported by the Council's own highway team. We believe it will offer a safe, controlled crossing of the A5 where there was none before, and this will help those using the public right-of-way and will make the journey between Priorsley and St George's that bit safer. We do understand it can be tough to accept change, and one of the reasons we've submitted an outline application is to give ourselves the flexibility to be able to shape this development in the way that works best for this part of Talford. We have already taken on board comments relating to density and to heritage, and as has been said, we are now proposing 100 rather than 120 homes, and we've done that specifically in response to comments made in relation to density. We're also keeping all forms of development well away from that protected moat, and we're able to demonstrate that in the plans that we've submitted. I'd just like to finish really by just saying we shall continue to listen as the design evolves, and as we move hopefully towards a reserve matters stage, we will be open to suggestions, and we're very keen to hear anything people may have to say in terms of further changes, further alterations that they believe are needed. Thank you very much. Thank you, PJ. All right, can I ask the officers to present the application? Thank you. So this application is seeking outline planning permission, which means members are being asked to consider whether the principle of developing this site for residential purposes is acceptable. Details of the access have been submitted for full consideration now, and were the application to be approved, then the remaining detailed matters covering site layout, appearance of the dwellings, scale of the development and landscaping would be submitted at a later date under a reserved matters application. The site is located in St George's, which is within the urban boundary of Telford. The principle of development is supported within the urban boundary, subject to a proposed development, being able to comply with all the relevant policies of the local plan. There have been objections that this site is not an allocated site for housing under the current local plan, but that in itself is not a reason why it cannot be considered to have an acceptable principle for development. Sorry, can you speak up? Sorry, some of the people can't hear you at the moment. Is that better? Is that better? Can you hear now? I'll carry on going in. There we go. So yeah, there have been objections that the site is not an allocated site for housing under the current local plan. The site is considered to be white land, and our housing policies make allowance for windfall sites such as this to come forward. The council not only expects windfall sites to come forward during the lifetime of the local plan, but relies on them to deliver the housing numbers set by government. The site is an open field bordered by housing and the A5. It has been previously used for agriculture and is now grassland, as can be seen from the photographs. There have been many objections over the potential loss of this green space, and as officers we recognise the sentiments expressed by those who have objected, as well as the strength of feeling. As the case officer, I have to present to members the planning position, and the planning position is that this green space is not publicly owned. It's not green network, it's not green belt, we don't have any in Telford. It's a privately owned piece of land, and this is important in understanding what the planning fallback position is. There is a public right of way that runs through the site. Now that is publicly accessible, and the public have a right to use it to cross the site from north to south or vice versa. A public right of way will be retained as part of the application. You can see that in the initiative master plan. For the rest of the site, there is no right to public access. This means that the landowner would be within their rights to fence off the land either side of the public right of way and stop access across it. Under permitted development rights, a fence could be constructed measuring two metres in height either side of the public right of way and in most places around the site's boundaries. The only part of the site the public are entitled to access is the public right of way, and as I've said, that's proposed to remain. The public right of way will provide a direct link to the public open space on the other side of the A5 known as the flash. The flash is council owned and therefore accessible to the public as well as being under the council's control. Under these proposals, a new signalised pedestrian crossing would join up the public right of way on each side of the A5 to provide a safe, continuous pedestrian route. In recognising the importance of providing publicly accessible green space in this area and the likelihood that more people will want to access the flash as a consequence of this development, the council's ecology offer has requested a section 106 contribution to mitigate the impacts of the development. These monies would be directed towards improvements to the flash by way of footpaths, litter bins and habitat improvements. The position and extent of the site access is under full consideration as part of this application. The highways officer supports the scheme, subject to conditions and a section 106 contribution towards the Telford Transport Growth Strategy. The proposed works to the access would change the nature of the A5 in this area significantly. It would reduce the speed limit from its current 60mph to 40mph. It would induce a signalised pedestrian crossing to achieve safe access to Pryersley and the flash and it would reduce traffic queuing on the A5. The site is well connected for footway, cycleway and bus links, making it a sustainable site in transport terms. Were the development to be approved, there would be impacts upon local facilities such as schools, GP surgeries and play and recreation facilities. To mitigate these impacts, statutory consultees have asked for section 106 contributions and these are set out in detail in the recommendation. I can also confirm that the applicant has agreed they will pay them in full. With the use of recommended planning conditions and section 106 contributions, it is considered that the proposals are capable of meeting the requirements of the relevant policies in the local plan and therefore the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I'll open it up now to the members. Peter? Thank you. Sorry, I'm using a different microphone so I may struggle. Firstly, in my memory, this is the first application I've seen where the integrated care board, the health authorities, have actually put money forward. I've banged on about this for a long time and it's nice to see an application that's offering £89,000 towards local health services. That said, it will only really make the surgeries bigger, it won't supply any more doctors, so we have to look at that as well. I would, at this point, like to say that from now, for every application over 50 houses, can we please see the integrated care board engaging with planning and development to put more money into local health services, because that's what we need. However, as the speakers have said, this is not in the local plan. Now, that to me is very important because come January, we'll be expected to sit here and talk about thousands of houses that are in the local plan. And because they're in that local plan, they'll have more credence and credibility. I feel, personally, this one has no credibility, it is really someone trying to make some money. It's of no real benefit to the local people. When you talk about parking, in actual fact, to go behind this field, as I did the other day, to try and park to find it and to look at it, the roads behind were all covered with, there were parked cars everywhere. So this wouldn't help if it was to be brought into fruition. There are recently, as we know, about 2,000 houses gone into Pryerslea. But again, those were all in the local plan, those we expect. This, to me, is speculative. We don't need windfall sites. We've got an offcoming in Telford and Rican that we need to be able to deal with. Whilst we've got money coming in and it's been identified for local health services, which I think is really good and I want to see more of it in the future, because I know what you said, Katie, about it. It's not really a reason to refuse. But to me, not being in the local plan, being a speculative application, and with no identified need in that area, I feel we can reject this and I certainly won't support it. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Any other comments? Janis? As Peter has said, I also have concerns about highways and the overdevelopment in this area. I believe the area, I've had a look at it myself, is quite a boggy area. There's a lot of water on the site I don't see how that's going to be dealt with. I really would be against this as well. Thank you. Councillor Steve Bentley? Thank you, Chair. I echo everything that Councillor Scott has said. I think this application raises more questions than answers and it needs to be taken off the table. And if the developer is serious about bringing something forward here, he needs to look at the density, he needs to look at the highways, he needs to look at the drainage and he needs to look at the archaeological site as well and bring us some real grounded things. And affordable housing is essential, and again, that's not mentioned in here. And again, I understand what Councillor Scott is saying about health provision and such like. £89,000. May sound a lot of money, but it isn't a lot of money. And it's certainly not going to bring more doctors, dentists, NHS into the area. Thank you. Councillor Amric? Thank you, Chair. I read this report on this application a couple of times and I've seen that it's a private land and as a private land owner you can fence it anyway without considering any local objections or anything. Most of the objections or comments are mainly for the resolved matters. According to this report, the highways are supported, the drainage is supported subject to conditions, a lot of ecology support conditions, affordable housing is supported, environment is supported, education is supported with all the financial education contributions. And I can't actually find any material reason to say no. So I will be saying that as an outline planning application, I will support it, but when the resolved matters application comes through, there will be a lot to discuss and a lot to be sorted to make sure that it is actually beneficial to the town and the people who live around there. Thank you. Thank you, Amric. Are there any other comments, questions? Katie, do you want to respond to some of the comments that have been made? Thank you. There's a couple of points I can respond to. In terms of the density, we've got a ballpark figure to work with that. If the resolved matters came forward, it would be up to 100 dwellings. It could be a lot less than that. That would be down to whichever developer brought it forward to decide. Highways and drainage have both been considered and assessed by the officers. The local lead flood authority is happy that the drainage can be dealt with on this site. There are the appropriate connection points. That would all come forward as part of a detailed scheme later on. You wouldn't expect to get that level of detail right now, but drainage are happy that that can be dealt with. The highways officer has worked on this scheme in pre-app. They knew what to expect. One of the reasons that the past application was withdrawn was because there were concerns around the access and how it was being designed. That's been resolved in the eyes of the local highways authority as part of the scheme. Matters of parking, dwelling size, that would all come forward further down the line as part of reserve matters. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any more? No? Nothing? Sorry, Steve. Go on. It's all right. I'm going to go back to the drainage for a minute. For the past two years, I've been inundated where applications have been approved and drainage has been said it's going to be okay, this, that and the other. Can somebody tell me whether the pumping station is in the ownership of the statutory undertakers and have they said there is capacity there? Severnt Trent Water were consulted on the application and they didn't respond, which, under their guidance, means that they have no objections to the scheme. I don't think that's a very good answer at all. We should be pressing Severnt Trent because this fallback position of theirs, it's not our responsibility, doesn't work anymore. And drainage is a big issue. And if there is mains drainage there, perhaps we should be asking the developer to consider a section 21A application. Okay, thank you. Yeah? All I can do to clarify with Severnt Trent, Chair, is they issue their standing guidance and it says if they don't reply within 21 days, it's taken as read that it's no objection from there. Okay, right. Okay, if there's no other further questions, we can go to a vote. So it's to recommend grant full, grant outline planning permission on this particular application. So can I have those that are for the application? It needs to be seconded. Oh, seconded? Thank you, Anne-Marie. Okay, so those that are for the application. Okay. Those that are against the application. Okay. Any abstentions? I think that's it. Right. So yeah. So. Yes. So yeah. Propose. Yeah. So. The motion. Yeah. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. Propose. Yeah. So. The motion. Yeah. So the motion has failed. So therefore, we need to have reasons for objecting against the application. So if you can. Well, mine are, it's speculative, it's not in our local plan, if I need in that area. Okay. Right. If I may come back in on that. Sorry. If I may come back on those considerations for the reasons for refusal. The application site has no land allocation within the local plan, but it is within the urban area. So we have to consider it on its merits that there's no, there's nothing that protects it or that it isn't allocated. Just because it isn't allocated, you can't then say it's just speculative development. Because it's not allocated, we do actually have an allowance for what's called windfall sites within the borough, and they make up an important number of our housing need across the borough area. So we are looking at Telford's urban area, not specific in terms of St George's or it is as a whole. And we do have a housing need. I get that, but, and this is important because we've gone through this before, we have just voted to reject it. You have asked for our reasons. I've given you three reasons myself, and those are my reasons. Now, whether they're strong enough to fight and appeal isn't our problem to be frank. It needs to go to appeal because this area does not need it. And of course, as I said before, there's a lot coming in the local plan. And, you know, if we're talking about refusal, that will be difficult. I don't think this is too difficult purely on the basis that it's not being put forward for the interests of Telford and Reekon residents, it's put forward for the interests of the owner. And I don't feel that we need to sit around here forever and ever trying to invent reasons. There are our reasons, and I'm sure people on this committee, I hope, will come up with other reasons as well. But those are my three reasons, and I would not go back on them. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Can I ask for an adjournment? Yes, certainly. Can I just remind the members of the committee that officers are here to give advice to all members, and that's based on their professional advice. So we do need to bear that in mind when advice is given, and whether or not members wish to accept it. But I just want to make it clear that that's the role of officers within the committee. The Chair has proposed an adjournment to take legal advice, so if that's agreeable, a seconder and then a vote on that would be helpful. What would that mean exactly? When you say there's an adjournment, till when? This evening. So members can adjourn now, take legal advice, and return to this room to continue the matter. Okay. Can I have a proposer? Yeah? A seconder. A seconder? Okay, Janice, thank you. All right, everyone in agreement? Yeah, everyone in agreement to that. Okay, so what we'll do, we'll adjourn on this one for legal advice. And should we? We can go in the seven room. Yeah. So, if we can all, we'll go to the seven room, which is across the way. All right, thank you. Right, thank you, everybody, and thanks for your patience. We've just had legal advice, and we've been looking at what was some of the reasons that the objections were against, that were presented by the members. What we... You need to get a proposal for the reason for refusal. Yeah, so... You need to get a proposal. A proposal for... I think Councillor Scott was going to say something. What we're going to do is to defer this particular application. You need the proposal. But we need to have a proposal for that. So, I believe Peter Scott is going to propose a deferral of this particular application at this time. Yes, thank you. After quite a lot of good legal advice, what I'm proposing we do is defer this particular application, particularly on the density of the application, to see if the applicant can come forward with something that will be more acceptable to local people. And at the same time, all the other added issues within the application. So, I propose that we defer. Okay. Can I just add something? Yeah, certainly. Councillor Scott, just for clarity, your proposal is to defer the application to allow officers to have discussions with the applicant on the basis of concerns around density, which aren't in keeping with the surrounding, the density within the surrounding area. Is that right? It is right, and thank you for putting it better than I did. Thank you. Okay. Seconder? Is that you? Councillor Steve Bentley here? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Can I have a vote for a deferral? Okay, that's unanimous, I think. Yes? Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. So, the applications be deferred until the officers can then speak to the applicant and look at all the various options that are open to them. All right, so thank you for that. Okay. Members of the public? Yeah. Members of the public can disappear if you wish. But don't have to, you can stay as well. You can stay for the rest. Right, thank you. All right, the, we can go straight on now to the second application. TWC 2024 0633, Breffney House, Farm Lane, Horsay, Telford. And can I ask the, Chloe? Chloe, please. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use from a residential dwelling use class C3 to a residential care home use class C2 at Breffney House, Farm Lane in Horsay. The application is being heard at Planning Committee as the proposal has received a notable number of objections. The officer recommendation is that delegated authority be granted to the development management service delivery manager to grant full planning permission. A written update has been circulated to members following the publication of the committee report, and this will be highlighted within my main address after the speakers. Okay, thank you. All right, can I welcome Lawrence O'Dwyer to the rostrum? You have three minutes, Lawrence. All right. Okay, positive outcomes has been established for over 10 years, and our service has evolved to provide trauma-informed therapeutic childcare in homes where children feel safe and nurtured. We are a growing organisation with a clear mission to deliver high-quality therapeutic care and continually improve our service, creating enriching environments for both children and colleagues. The children we support arrive to us having suffered significant trauma, and our homes enable them to recover from past experiences and recognise their potential. And indeed, many of our children leave us and gain independence jobs and become valuable members of society. We offer a specialised service and are fortunate to have a wealth of experienced professionals. I myself have 18 years with eight of these leading high-quality organisations. Alongside that, we have a clinical director and regional manager all focused on ensuring that we deliver the highest levels of care, and this investment has led positive outcomes to being recognised as an outstanding provider by our regulator, something only achieved by 10% of childcare providers during the previous inspection cycle. A key element of these inspections are around how we engage and support our children to engage with the community and enhance their development and social connections. We have achieved considerable success in this area, with children often exchanging gifts and cards with neighbours during special occasions. We understand that opening a children's home can create some concerns, and we have encountered similar worries from residents in the past. All our homes are strategically situated in built-up areas, as we believe it is essential for children in care to be given the opportunity to live in communities. We have always found that concerns are quickly alleviated once people gain a deeper understanding of our services and the type of children we support, acknowledging that we only accommodate children we determine that are suitable for community environments. In fact, we have received only one complaint from a neighbour across all of our homes over the past three years, which highlights our commitment to maintaining positive relationships with our community and addressing any issues promptly. We also recognise our responsibility to bring value to the local area, and as such we have built an excellent reputation as a valued employer in the areas we are based with an obvious economic benefit. We have also built strong relationships with the commissioning team for Telford and Recon, recognising their support for the proposal, stating that it meets the local sufficiency needs for providing this type of service within the borough. We carefully consider the location of our homes and the young people we support within them. As such, we are pleased that this was echoed by the Highways Authority, who support the proposal, noting its negligible impact on the local road network. We are also pleased to read that our application complies with all relevant policies related to specialist housing needs and the impact on neighbouring properties. Finally, our vision is to create a safe and nurturing home for children to live and thrive within a community environment, and approving this application will demonstrate the council's drive to support vulnerable children in our society. Thank you for your time. The application site is located within the Biltop area of Telford, where the principle of residential development is generally considered acceptable. The proposal would see the existing six-bedroom dwelling being converted into a four-bedroom children's care home, providing care for four young persons between the ages of seven and seventeen under the care of full-time staff members. Two of the existing bedrooms will be utilised for staff sleeping quarters, if required, during the shared night shifts. Whilst no external alterations are proposed, some internal changes are proposed in this instance, including the reconfiguration of the existing layout to allow the subdivision of one of the existing bedrooms to provide an additional storage room. The scale and design of the dwelling will not be altered as a result of the proposal, and the scheme will therefore not impact the existing street scene. The proposed internal arrangements are also considered appropriate for the type and level of care that has been proposed. The application site is considered to be a sustainable location, with Lightmore Village Primary School located approximately one mile from the site, Morrison's at Lawley Drive being approximately 1.2 miles, and the closest bus stop being approximately 0.3 miles from the site. The proposal is therefore compliant with policy H07 of the Telford and Reekon Local Plan, which assesses specialist housing needs, including those falling within use class C2, such as this proposal. The council's specialist housing team have been consulted and are supportive of the proposed works, with the proposal meeting local sufficiency needs around providing this type of service within the borough. The supporting documentation submitted with the application confirms that the number of staff present on a regular basis will be five. This includes one manager, who will be working Monday to Friday between the hours of nine and five, and four care staff. Two of the care staff will work the daytime shift, with the other two staying throughout the night, and the maximum number of staff present on site would be six, but this will only be during the small changeover period early morning. While some of the visits are likely, such as those made by social workers and Ofsted, these will be infrequent, and the applicant has confirmed that staff meetings would generally be undertaken off-site. The intensity of these visits is therefore limited, and whilst the proposal will offer a level of on-site care, it is intended that the daily operation will be undiscernible to that of a large family home. As such, officers do not consider there will be any adverse impacts on nearby properties, and the proposal would not prejudice or undermine existing surrounding uses. A site plan has been submitted with this application, demonstrating the available on-site parking provision, and a series of car movement plans has also been provided, outlining the anticipated car movements on a normal day. These plans demonstrate that there will be little disturbance to the surrounding highways network, with cars being able to access and egress the site whilst others are parked, which is particularly relevant during staff changeover times. The Local Highways Authority are also satisfied that there is space available for manoeuvring of vehicles prior to egressing onto the highway in a forward gear. Given the size of the existing driveway and the number of staff changeovers proposed per day being limited, the level of traffic associated with the proposal is not considered to differ significantly from that of the existing residential dwelling. Shift changeover times are also considered appropriate, with some leeway to ensure that there is not too much disruption to the surrounding area, and officers are satisfied with this and are of the view that the operation proposed can be suitably controlled through the inclusion of conditions on the decision notice. As such, there are no significant highway safety impacts to warrant the refusal of this application, and the works are considered compliant with Policy C3 of the Telfyn o Recon Local Plan. I have the notable number of objections that have been received. All material considerations that have been raised have been addressed within the committee report and the update produced. These include concern being raised regarding the consultation exercise that has been undertaken, which officers consider this was acceptable in this instance, and the relevant neighbouring properties were formally consulted. This being said, all representations received have been taken into consideration, and all material planning considerations have been addressed accordingly within the reports produced and the update. Some of the points raised aren't, however, material planning considerations in this instance, including concerns over the personal history of the users of the care home. Whilst this has been acknowledged by officers, these types of care home facilities do need to be within sustainable locations, and the applicant is looking to provide a family home to the young persons in care rather than institutional settings, and this approach is also favoured by the statutory regulator, Ofsted. Finally, officers would like to make a point about a previous application on the site and that being refused, as this has been mentioned within a number of representations received. This was a lawful development certificate which was submitted earlier this year, for which the LPA had assessed whether the proposed works required the submission of a full planning application, or whether the works would be lawful. When this application was assessed, it was done so on a matter of fact and degree, rather than on the suitability of the proposal in relation to planning policies, and officers had determined that a full planning application did need to be submitted, and that was why the application was refused, so there are differences between that and this now being considered. No other concerns have been raised by statutory consultees in this instance, and there are no technical reasons to warrant the refusal of this application. Therefore, officers consider the proposal to be acceptable and complies with relevant local and national policies, and the officer recommendation is that the application is granted delegated authority to service delivery manager to grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives. Thank you. Thank you, Chloe. I'll open it up to the members. Councillor Peter Scott, please. Thank you. It's interesting, by the way, that the Parish Council didn't make any comment, and there's nobody here speaking against it, but that's people's choice. I understand that people are always concerned when potentially rowdy kids could move in next door to them, and I think, you know, it's a natural fear. However, this is going to have four young people in and five staff, which is probably more, well, it is more than if you had four kids with two parents. So I have no fears on these children being a problem to the surrounding residents. There is a need in the borough, in fact, in the country for care of this type, and quite honestly, there are no real reasons to object to this because even if they do turn out to be rowdy, there are conditions and there are agencies that can deal with it. But personally, I don't feel that this is a risk, particularly at this location at Breffany House. I don't think there's a risk to other residents at all, so I would be happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Councillor Steve Bentley. I would echo what Councillor Scott has said. I think it's a no-brainer, this. As a corporate parent, we have a responsibility to ensure that all children have opportunity and the best potential start that they can get in life. For me, I would be happy to support this application as it stands at this present moment in time, and I'm pretty confident in our safeguarding people, which is well led by our directors, would be all over this if there were any problems at all. Thank you, Steve. Councillor Janice Jones. I welcome this proposal wholeheartedly. I think there's a need for this sort of accommodation, especially in built-up areas, where children and young people are invited into communities. A lot of these children have been through enough and need to be treated within the communities as they should be. I definitely welcome this. It fits the bill. There's parking, there's no issues. Thank you, Janice. Councillor Arnold England. Yes, thank you, Chair. I totally agree with my colleagues. The one word that stuck in my mind, therapeutic care. I do know a lot about therapeutic care. It's to help traumatise children, reintegrate in society, and you do that through this type of accommodation in the community. So I'm totally in favour of it. Thank you. Thank you, Arnold. Any other comments? Therefore, we'll go to a vote. It's recommended that we grant full planning permission on this particular application with the delegated authority to be passed to the development management service delivery manager. I'll keep forgetting. Arnold seconded. Is everyone for this particular application? Unanimous. Thank you. So there we go. Thank you very much. We'll go straight on now to TWC 2024 0605. That is 34 Avon Close, Little Dorley, Telford. Right, can I ask for Chloe to give a presentation on the application, please? Thank you, Chair. This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use from a dwelling house, use class C3, to a residential institution, use class C2, 34 Avon Close, Little Dorley. The application is being heard at committee as the proposal has received a notable number of objections, and the officer recommendation is that delegated authority be granted to the development management service delivery manager to grant full planning permission. There are some speakers for this application as well. Yeah, that's right. Okay, thank you. Can I ask for Mr Jason Blair, member of the public? Thank you. Hello. Thank you for allowing me to speak at the meeting. I didn't receive any communication, so I only found out about this very late on. I'm here on my own speaking, but I'm here with a community of people, some of which are not able to come and speak because they're either ailing or they felt so passionate about it, they feel it would detract from the message. I live next door to the proposed property, and I think it's fair to say that I'm one of the newest ones who have come into this community. It's a small cul-de-sac, and yes, there's problems with traffic, with parking, with the pool at the back creating rats and various issues, but we all work together. We come together, we sometimes have a drink together, we share food together, and it's a nice little community. There's some bungalows there, there's some dormer houses, we all get on, and it's really nice and friendly. If the committee cares about communities, that's what this is. It's a small community who are close, and it's been really expressed quite strongly that this will break up that little community. People are talking about moving out, and they're not happy. They're not happy because I feel it's like almost oil and water. There's older ones who are ailing. They've seen how, yes, I can understand how these children, they've come up and they've come up in a difficult situation, but where we're talking about is a lot of older ones where we've seen how these care facilities round about have caused a lot of problems, a lot of disturbance, a lot of issues with the police, and they don't want that in their older age. They want to be able to not worry about the car and other issues which have presented itself going forward. So the neighbours' wishes are that it is rejected, and it's our wishes that it's rejected. We all signed, I think the sentiments of the area, it is a beautiful place. We all had a deed when we signed up for the house itself, and I'd like to read from you from that deed which we all signed and I got from the solicitors. Not at any time hereafter to use or permit the said piece of land or any building or erection, which may be at any time be erected thereon for the purpose of any trade or business, which that's what these are, businesses. Whatsoever, for any purpose other than that of private dwelling house or to do or permit any act or anything which shall be or may become nuisance, damage, annoyance to the vendors or the owners or occupiers for the time being of any adjoining or neighbouring houses. Your three minutes is up, okay. So I'd like the committee to seriously take that into consideration, that they've signed up as a business, that they won't have a business there when they bought the property. That's a legal consideration. I think the fact of the ailing and, yes, in other areas it may be suitable in this area. I can't even see why we're even sitting here and talking today. So I thank you for your time and I look forward to your decision. Thank you. Thank you, Jason. All right, can I ask for Ashley Waite, the applicant, please? Cool. Hi, everybody. Thank you very much for your time today. I'd like to start by just saying thank you very much for the presentation just presented. The community sound like the perfect place for such a care home. These children have gone through emotional trauma. This particular care home, I would like to just read the supporting statement from our care consultant, who is also in the room today. This statement accompanies a planning application for the conversion of a residential property into a children's care facility supporting both youth class C2 residential institutions. The facility will offer 24-hour care, seven days a week, to children aged between seven and 17 with specific emotional and behavioural needs. The application complies with relevant UK planning laws and regulations for both youth classes. The home is applying for planning permission for up to two children in a family-like setting, and family-like setting being the relevant part here. The operational hours and staffing are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. As support for the application, we've also now submitted a staffing operational hour plan so that there will only be three given cars on site at any point. We've also recently submitted a revised site plan, which has three parking spaces on the property, which is evidence that it can actually facilitate the amount of staff being used in this particular area. Rwy'n meddwl y bydd y dandy a'r pôl ysgolion wedi'i wneud, a'r hynny'n gweithio'n gweithio'n bwysig iawn i'r aelodau yng Nghymru. Rwy'n gallu sylweddoli y byddwn ni'n gweithio'n bwysig iawn i'r aelodau yng nghymru, yn ymwneud â'r aelodau a'r aelodau yng nghymru, a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r aelodau a'r a the home is not designed to be a home that will not look after the care of the children we shall be providing a loving home for children whose families cannot care for them we shall create a family like home for the children with two adults and two children such as you may find in many families we are providing an alternative that will help fill the gap of a lack of foster families for local children to help retain their identity and their community roots Diolch, Ashley. Diolch, Llywodraeth. Felly roeddwn yn fallu beth y tu allan o'r solchen überall dros tryه, pan fydd gennych compirm beatingderio am y Bomaniad ar y Llyfrgell Abidiaeth, sy'n sylwi씨ol yma o hynny mae angen methu yr ymddangos Vaer hyn yn rhaid yn eu ob схyn�w â hyn arno. Felly, rwy'n cofio bod y diŵr y lain ymddygiadau'r ddwyloedd yn ymddiriedig, yn cyfrannu'r ddwyloedd ymddiriedig i ddwyloedd ymddiriedig neu ymddiriedig i bobl cymdeithasol. Mae'r ddwyloedd a'r sgail yn ddaethu'r ddwyloedd nid yw'n ddaethu fel ymddygiad, ac y ddwyloedd nid yw'n ddaethu'r ymddygiad ymddygiad. Mae'r gynlluniau ymddiriedig yn ddaethu'r ddwyloedd i'r gynllun a'r niferoedd sy'n cael ei gynllunio. Mae'r tîm ymddiriedig ymddiriedig yn cael ei gynllunio ar y gynllun ac mae'n cymorthoedd y gynlluniau ar gyfer cyllid, gan gynnigio'r gynlluniau ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol ar gyfer y gynlluniau ar gyfer y gynlluniau ar gyfer y gynlluniau ar y gynlluniau. Mae'r gynllun yn cymryd i fod yn unrhyw lle cymorth, sy'n cymorthoedd 0.28 mlynedd o ddwyloedd a chyfrwyr, 0.6 mlynedd o ddwyloedd ymddygiad ac 1.3 mlynedd o ddwyloedd a chyfrwyr Llangley Telford. Mae'r gynllun yn ymddygiad i fod yn cymhliant gyda'r ddwyloedd H07 o'r Plann Dymru Telford sy'n cymryd at ddwyloedd hysbysgol, gan gynnigio'r ddwyloedd sy'n cael eu gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol, fel y gynllun hwn. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio, yn ystod hynny, yw 2 gynlluniau, 1 gynllunwr ymddygiad ac 1 gynllunwr ymddygiad, mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae'r gynlluniau sy'n cael ei gynllunio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol yn ystod hynny. Mae rhai es mywydpes sydd yn tryingrealiaethwch, ba yma, fallsyn drwy am werth wallu cymdeithasol a newydd Neover又. Mae'r h din yr oed yn cyrraeddn, ac mae'r recorddrop arno allan iames ac ymolygiadau cyver müsste na Laura. Mae'r cysylltiad ges i weithio am digwyddiad aев gysylltiad sy'n cymdeithio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol. Mae'r bwyth arbennonol Strraph pass. Mae'r dis짝 yma wedi'i arwain. Mae'r cysylltiad sy'n cymdeithio ar gyfer cyfleoedd cyffredinol sy'n gweithredu i hynny o ffrindiaeth modist. Oherwydd hynny, mae'r ffrindiaeth ddim yn cymryd y byddai'n gweithredu unrhyw bethau ar y prifysgol a byddai'r gweithredu ddim yn cymryd neu'n gweithredu sylweddol. Er enghraifft, mae'r gweithredu yn dweud y byddai'r gweithredu'n gweithredu o ddau gwaith ar y drwyf. Oherwydd y gweithredu hynny, mae'r gweithredu wedi'i ddemonstru bod y gwaith yn gallu cael ei gynnwys, ac yn y tôn o ddau gwaith ar-lein. Mae hynny yn gweithredu gwybodaeth ymwneud â'r gweithredu. Mae'r gwaith ymwneud â'r gwaith ar-lein yn cael ei gynnwys o ddau gwaith ar-lein, oherwydd y manedr nid oes yn cael ei gynnwys yn ystod. Mae'r gwaith ymwneud â'r gwaith ar-lein i fod yn cael ei gynnwys ym mhob y gwaith ar-lein. Mae'r ddau gwaith ar-lein ariannu ar y gwaith ar-lein ac wedi'i ddatblygu bod yr ystodol bugbergyddion am y bleinydd diwylliannol yn olygwyrostol adnabod y petition o normau y bryd yma, ond sef hynny maes o lovell Reitgliad y ddau gwaith ar-lein Ted的时候 nid yn cael addysg y penderfyniad hwnnw'n anoddu ym MYLE 1. Mi furdod y maerwyr wasswrdd o Rwy'n medortedwr brif clenntur ll útil ag ystyrch saeth cerddedig yn y adalai a datblygu pash arbalu aron problemau a'u cryfladdingau pasulu'r byddai yn weithio cyffredin. Mae dar rods o ddad Lad 1918 a plen y tro law nesaf yn eu lawys. Ac yn nanhaol, roedd eich amlwg dwoe irchro'nев, bydd yn unrhyw fath o gynllunio gynllunio. Mae'r gweithwyr wedi'i cymryd fel y byddai'r gynllunio'n debygol, yn cymryd â pholisiadau lleol a gynlluniool. Mae'r gweithwyr yn cymryd y byddai'r gynllunioedd a'r gynllunioedd yn cael gynllunio i'r gynllunioedd a'r gynllunioedd i gynllunio gynllunio'r gynllunioedd sy'n cymryd at y gynllunioedd a'r gynllunioedd. Diolch. Diolch, Chloe. Rwy'n dechrau, roeddwn i'n dechrau i'r gynllunioedd. Diolch yn fawr, Cymru. Diolch, Cymru. Rwy'n credu bod y cyhoeddus sydd wedi'i gwneud ar y gynllunio gynllunio gynllunio yn gallu cael ei gynllunio i hynny. Ac rwy'n gweld unrhyw sefydliad y byddwn yn gallu mynd i weithio i'r gynllunio. Rwy'n dechrau i'r gynllunioedd eraill. Diolch, Cymru. Diolch, Cymru. Fe wnaf i ddechrau, rwy'n dechrau i'r llyfr cyhoeddus. Mae'n dweud yn ystod ystod 2.1, 34 Avon Clos yw ddorma'n ddysgu'n ddysgu. Yn 8.6, y cyhoeddus yn ymwneud â ddysgu'n ddysgu'n ddysgu'n ddysgu'n ddysgu. Yw'n ddysgu'n ddysgu neu'n ddysgu? Mae'n ddysgu'n ddysgu'n ddysgu. Er mwyn i g tease, am benodri a ch Rus-Gwnaff o ddysgu cael geth a chydw, ond mae gen i ddechrau qualified fe galleryneisclub mynd yn cael cycidos ond byth o'r ddysgu'n ddysgu. Felly mae hynny arian na allan, ond dw i eisiau ffwrdd y bydd y plynyddoedd Festaddaethau tra cyntaf a hangen yρέchgar iawn o ryw ffyrdd a wahanol. Diolch. Clwyd, ydych chi'n mynd yn ôl ar hyn o'r un? Diolch, Llywodraeth. Felly, yn ogystal â'r noes a'r gysylltiad addysg, mae'r gweithwyr yn rhaid i'n cymryd unrhyw gweithwyr a'r gwasanaethau, ond dwi ddim yn gwybod y byddai hynny'n cynnwys gysylltiad gysylltiad gysylltiad gysylltiad gysylltiad. A gallwn ni ddat версai hynny? Yn awr, gallwn ni gydweithio rhywbeth yng ng unwch yng ng Safety Wain yng Ng probability of noise mitigation. A wedyn fel y gyfleoedd y gallwch chi renegu livestreamau y Six Virginia Electric,</font prima Iu dda registers to cheer Maite C incoming to theHDM hub, which links to the refrigeration of mceasرت radd-アルミ g уровdest i gysylltiad gysylltiad medical gysylltiad gysylltiad someone else's unrhyw beth sy'n cael ei gysylltu yn unrhyw ymgyrch a allai'r hyn sy'n gallu'i ddarparu hefyd. Felly mae yna rhai meisiadau gysylltiadau y gallwn ni wneud i hynny. Ie, iawn. Diolch, Arnold. Llywodraeth Janis Jones, yn fawr. Fel y byddaf wedi'i ddweud, rwy'n hoffi bod y plant oedd yn cael ei edrych yn ystod ymlaen, yn ystod ystod ymlaen neu yn ystod ystod ystod ymlaen, mae'n rhaid bod yn ystod ystod ystod ystod ymlaen. Yn ymgysylltuad oherwydd yr hyn a ddweud, mae'r plant oedd yn gallu, yn ogystal â phroblematig, ac rydym yn fortune allan, a ddad mil mercann, a dyma'r cymdeithasku.. Dechreu chi y他們 i gyrraedd, ac maent yn sicrhau bod nid," ac nid oes ddod y dderbyn. Yr holl meddyliw ar y ffordd o flan robotic ac d wrapais. Orr betray digital. Rwy'n credu, a ddim oedd o heddiw, rwyf su i ni bod y plant a ddweud, Mae'r staff yn mynd i'w ddefnyddio mewn carau eu hunain, nid maen nhw'n cael carau sy'n ymwneud â'r gweithwyr. Mae'r gweithwyr y gallai fod yn 5 carau yn unrhyw amser. Yn ogystal â gweithwyr cymdeithasol. Felly mae'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol sydd wedi cael eu gweithio oherwydd y cymdeithasol o'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol byddai'n hoffi'n gweithio'n ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Felly mae'r gweithwyr yn gweithio'n ddod o'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn gweithio ar ddod o'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Felly mae'r ffordd y mae'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol wedi ei wneud yw bod unrhyw adnoddiad cymdeithasol o'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Felly byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol o'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, byddai'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â'r adnoddiad cymdeithasol, fe sy'n Ie, rwy'n gwybod â gynhyrchu sylfaenol, mae hynny'n ffyrdd iawn. Rwy'n gwybod ychwanegol, ychwanegol, ar yr un o'r bŵer wedi'i ddweud am y ddiddiau. Y ddiddiau sy'n dweud y gallai nifer busnes yn gweithio o'r haws. Beth yw hynny'n gweithio ar hyn o ddiddiau hynny? Felly, mae'r ddiddiau yn unrhyw fath o'r bobl sy'n mynd i'r haws. Maent yn unrhyw fath o'r haws. Felly, mae'r bobl sy'n gweithio ar y ddiddiau hynny'n gweithio ar y ddiddiau hynny. Ac os oes unrhyw ddiddiau ar hynny, mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Mae'n unrhyw fath o'r haws. Diolch. Mae hynny'n ymwneud. Diolch i chi yma. Diolch i'r bobl a'r staff. Diolch i'r bobl.