Transcript

Thank you. Thank you very much. Can I welcome all attendees and those watching or listening in on the webcast to this meeting of the planning and likes of Wake City and Wednesday 24th of April 2024. The meeting has been broadcast live on the internet to enable the public to innovate. Recording will be archived for future listening and made available on the County Council's website. Apologies for accidents. Unfortunately, we do have a number of members who have had to get apologies today. The Vice Chairman, Councillor NOLAP, King's, Councillor Janet Dunton, Councillor Ian Gibson, Councillor Jay Mercer and Councillor Brian Quinn. But I am pleased to say that Councillor Charlotte Kenyon is here as a substitute member, so thank you very much for your attendance today in Councillor Kenyon. We're also missing Councillor Ashley Batella at the moment, but maybe he's on route and will join us. Can I also put on record our thanks to Councillor Peter Morrison, who was a member of this committee for a number of years until he became chair of the County Council last month and therefore stood down as a committee member. I think we all appreciated his wisdom and knowledge as a member and he really did give a sterling service, so I would like to place on liquor or thank you. Councillor Hangar's done has been appointed in his place, but will not be taking his seat until he's been able to undertake development training as he's required under the County Council's constitution, so we will also record apologies for Councillor Dunne. If I can introduce our officers today, this is rather floodgates, the City of Solicitor, Mr Mike Alkington, Head of Planning Services, Mr Andrew Sierikovsky, Inchon County Planning Manager, Mr Edward Anderson and Planner, and on my right this is Tracy Guinea from Democratic Services who is the plant of the meeting. I, some one on the formal agenda, is declarations of interest. Does anyone have any personal or pecuniary interests that they need to declare? I will declare a personal interest because I'm the member for Camp Hill Division, which borders the application site and residents from my division are likely to be affected by the application that we're considering this morning. I am sitting in my capacity as a chair of the Committee and as a voting member for the Committee, rather than speaking on behalf of residents, but obviously I will make comments regarding the application as and when we get to that point, when I've heard everything was being said by all our residents, are there any other decorations of interest? No. But I think we have all by Mrs Guinea received lobbying material on behalf of residents which we sent yesterday on planning application we're considering. Can I just ask if anyone hasn't received that? Councillor KAiden. I did copy. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Because we normally do a blanket declaration, but we can just go check out the meeting. I don't know if she's not going to make that. Right. That takes us on to, if there's nothing else on declarations, that takes us on to item two, minutes of the last meeting of planning and life's wake and it's a meeting. We have the minutes of our meeting held on the 19th of March 2024 which is contained in your pack on the Queen page. There's pages three to 22. It's quite a long set of minutes because it was quite a long meeting. Is everyone happy with those as an accurate record? Okay. If that's agreed, I will sign those after the meeting. That then brings us, I'm sorry, items three urgent matters, there are no urgent matters. That brings us then on to our main item of business sort of this morning, item four, planning application for quality goods yard, erection of a row of concrete batching plants with associated and silvery structures and facilities, including HgV and car parking, a variation of condition number six of planning commission WSCC, stroke 0 and 5 to stroke 19, to allow 24 hour operations at the site Monday to finally, for a period of five years, at land of Corley goods yard, red, gap with Corley WSCC's RH 10, 6, 9 and I will be here. Well, there's Councillor Patel who's just joined us. If I can remind, sorry, I should just break, ask to ask Councillor Patel, do you have any interest to declare? No. Okay. Thank you very much. If I can remind everyone present that this is a meeting held in public with defined protocols for the number of speakers permitted to speak. It's not an open public meeting with unrestricted rights to speak. The application concern is subject to the report contained within your pack. On pages 23 to 51 of the agenda, if I can introduce Edgar Anderson as planning officer who is going to introduce the report, Mr Anderson. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, members of the committee and public here at tuning in. And then we are planning application reference WSCC in

1. This is on the land of the Corley goods yard. And we've got a variety of Corley. As you can see at the top of the presentation there, the application description reads direction of a rail bed, concrete batching plan with associated and considerate structures and facilities, including food and pastry beer and car parking. The variation of condition number six planning commission reference WSCC 05219. Now it's allowed for 24 hour operation to the site. On date on date. Friday for a period of five years. Next. Thank you, Chairman. So, the site location, identified by the two plans on the site. The application site is located within the Corley goods yard in Dushua state. As part of the wider, in the industrial site between Gatwick and in the Corley town centre. You can see on the, she has Gatwick to the north and Corley town centre to the southwest. The wider area is characterized by industrial and employment man Jesus to the north and west. Residential areas are located to the site. It is beyond the railway line and forward wood. And to the south along Tinsley Lane. The north and north of Corley goods yard and within the Manor Royale area. Railway lines east serves minerals to the application site and other sites according to the yard and a safeguard for its current use as minerals to infrastructure. Next slide. Here we have the application site with the land ownership boundary and balloon application site in red, red. The application site is accessed via a junction on the east and side of Gatwick road. Site extends to approximately 0.31 hectares in area and sits centrally within the Corley goods yard industrial site. That is between the Semex site which is located to the north and the aggregate industries south and southwest. Site currently operates during weekday hours as well as limited weekend hours. Mission to extend these hours to allow for night time operations over a three year temporary period was approved in 2019. It was approved in 2020. This was subject to restrictions as per the agreed conditions. However the arrival of the mission was not implemented and has since expired. Next slide please. So this is the most laid layout. The application site comprises the mix of building and farm with three cement. There is a batch control cabin and a mixed tower located centrally within the site. As well as a batch container with aggregate storage bins running east to west so that is along the southern part of the red line boundaries to see there. There is a washout pit, a washout bay, a drying bay located at all the eastern site boundary, or the plant at the southern end of the site is the prices of the aggregate fed hopper. The northern boundary of the site comprises the viservice yard and parking access areas and the office has met facility. The entire site is laid to hard sounding and is fed by a train via the rail sideings to the east of the site. The facility is accessed via a shared access to the northern boundary of Crawley goods yard. Next slide please. So here we have a satellite image of the site for some context. It shows all the goods yard in relation to nearby developments including the Fort Wood residential moment which is located some 220 metres to the east of the application site beyond the railway corridor. You can see the same as the lane. It is 360 metres. I should know all of these locations are on the plan in the White Oxus and then you can both or pass which is the closest residential receptor and that is located some 65 metres to the north of the site. In preparation for this application the applicant has provided an updated noise impact survey which takes these receptors into consideration. The yellow box on the plan shows the monitoring locations. Since the previous application which was made in 2019, the residential development at Fort Wood has progressed. It shows that on this image you can use commercial building along the western boundary of Fort Wood so that is just to the east of the railway. You can make out a long stretch of commercial building for employment. Part of the intention of this was to aid in the mitigation noise on these residences among the menoroyal area and the railway corridor. You can also see to the south of the lane. Just so you are aware there is only an application being visited by quality bar accountel for 138 dwellings on that site which is allocated for such use. So here is an erring photo looking east with just a further context. You have a three-day view here looking east with towards the Fort Wood site. I will just note that this image is a bit further behind it was taken before the commercial buildings were built out and still provide some valuable context. You can see both or pass on the left side of your image to us to the north of the application site. And this was converted to residential under PD roads. In between both or the application site you can make out a BA or a B-class land use between this receptor and the application site. In the left of the lane and over residential properties can be seen to the south to the right-hand side of the river. Exciting. Exciting location. The proposal seeks to vary condition at 6 of WCC05219 to allow for 24-hour operations of the concrete batch of facility Monday Friday for a total period of 5 years in the late new commission. Existing restrictions and limitations as per the 2019 application would be retained. These restrictions and limitations include no more than 18 HTTP movements each night. No more than 4 HTTP movements per hour. No materials being fed into the concrete batching plant. No deliveries of cement. No audible alarms or sirens being used. There are no changes proposed to other conditions. Provision of a 6 meter high closeboard wouldn't be used in cement would be an important part of this application and that would be installed across the northern site boundary. The temporary period of 5 years is required due to the return and investment associated with the installation of this acoustic barrier and to attest the acceptability of the site. So here we have a term denoting the location of the proposed acoustic barrier that you will see across the northwestern site boundary. Measure of 20.2 meters in length and stand at 6 meters high. This barrier is required to ensure that nighttime operations would not result in an unacceptable increase in noise level or experience at the way of house. Next slide. Next slide please. Then with regard to consultations and representations, we have no objections received from statutory consultees, subject to the retention of all other conditions as a proof under the 2019 permission. There are 15 objections received from third parties. These cease divided matters relating to dust, light and noise pollution impacts on physical mental health, the cumulative impacts of the development of the site and surrounding area, highway safety, impacts on local wildlife and the visual impacts of the development. Next slide please. Next slide please. The key issues of the development are the need for the moment and the impacts on public community and health. With regard to the need for the development, principal and principal reopening operations at the site. The site has been accepted previously under the 2019 application, WCC-052-19. This application seeks five years' temporary permission instead of three years as previously approved. The need for the need for such operations to take place for a temporary five year period has been justified due to the economic benefits in offsetting the cost of the acoustic fence and would allow the site to continue and increase the supply of concrete to the county and local area. Therefore, the need for the development attracts great positive weight in the planning balance. With regard to impacts on public community and health, context of the area has changed since granting of extended permission in April 2020 by the 2019 permission. As a result of the construction of houses in relation to the forge with development, there are no changes opposed to the previously imposed controls on lighting, noise and dust. The temporary period of five years would allow noise impacts on local residential receptors to be assessed for any potential negative impacts. This attracts little, negative weight in the planning balance. Next slide. Therefore, in conclusion, the proposed development had caused a statutory competitive plan and read as a whole and no material consideration in the suggested situation rather than in accordance with the statutory development plan. Therefore, on balance, the benefits of those opposed to our weightiness benefits end. As such, the proposed development's constitutes a sustainable development has defined in the national planning policy framework. Next slide. Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission be granted. Planning and planning application WSCC 04523 is subject to the conditions and end of borders. That's out and mix one. Thank you very much. OK. Thank you very much, Mr Anderson. If I can now introduce the order a number of speakers, there's one speaker in objection to the application and one speaker in support. Then we have Councillor Brenda Burgess, the local member, who will also speak on the application. First of all, we come to speakers in objection to the application. We have one speaker, Councillor Tina Bellman, or we call it by a Councillor from the Pound Hill North and Fort Wood Ward, who is attending on teams. Unfortunately, there is a technical problem this morning that we are unable to hear Councillor Bellman. So, her statement, she has also submitted her statement in writing, and unfortunately that is going to have to be read out by the Department, Mrs Guinea. We will just try one more time, Councillor Bellman. I can just ask him to say something just in case it's working now. OK. Good morning. Unfortunately not. I'm really sorry about that because it is a great shame. But obviously, we do have Councillor Bellman's statement exactly as she would have said it. So, I will ask Mrs Guinea to read that out now. Thank you, Chairman. If you'd just bear with me a minute, Councillor Bellman has asked me to show you a Google map of the location as part of her statement. So, I'm just going to bring that up on screen and then I'll start with Councillor Bellman's statement. Thank you. So, this speech is, as the Chairman has always said, is on behalf of Councillor Tina Bellman, who represents the residents of Poundhill North and Fort Wood on Crawley Borough Council. She says that some of you may be aware that Fort Wood is the newest neighbourhood to be built in Crawley. It has a gap week on its northern boundary and the train line to the east. Just over the railway is Brett's concrete plant. Brett's were first given plant permission in 2016 with conditions attached on which limited to hours of operation to 7am to 7pm during the week, one day to Friday and 7am to 1pm on Saturdays. In 2020, before most of the like likely to be affected residents' homes in Fort Wood were built or occupied, Brett's were granted temporary permission to operate at night. I must stress that none of my residents' homes were built then and so did what very little opposition to this application. Conditions were attached to ensure noise levels were monitored, but unfortunately for whatever reasons, Brett let this permission lapse. So, we have no data to actually judge what levels of noise the residents just across the railway line will be subjected to. All I can say is that we all know constant noise disturbs us during the day and how it seems to be so much worse at night. Back of sleep affects our physical and mental wellbeing. A lot of these residents have young children that already have enough stress in their lives that our children being working up by reversing lowest several times a night. Two of my residents currently suffer, loud crashing and beeping noises at night, so I've asked them to keep barriers and record noise. I've also, of course, asked probably by our environmental health team to investigate. One resident described the disturbance as, I would hear rumbling noise that fall through the night and would wake up in a panic and run downstairs to check my daughter and check the noise as it was so loud it will sound like someone is tearing through the house. Both residents have recorded loud crashing noises at 4.45am. Both have also recorded alarms going off. Finally, the acoustic fence looks as if it is going to help stop noise travelling in the northwest direction, not due west, I believe that is, where the nearest Crawley residents actually live, which is in the new forgewood development. Council of Brenda Burgess, this near Crawley town centre yet can still hear similar crashing and banging at times. Please do consider the local residents, the local people who may suffer untold misery of broken malleagues. Thank you. Just point out with the Google Maps that you can see, Councillor BELLman would specifically like you to note how close 400 development is to the application site. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much, Mrs Gillian. Thank you to Councillor BELLman for that statement. We now move on to speak in support of the application. We have Ms Tito, Ms Seide, who is an associate with first-planned planning consultants, the agent for the advocates. Similarly to Councillor BELLman, you have five minutes to make your statement of form now. Good morning, members. My name is Tito, and I'm planning consulting at first man. First man I'm instructed by Brett and Green, speaking support of the planning application for you, which seeks amendments to Brett's existing corporate batching on operation of Crawley Couture. The various you saw is to allow night top operations for a limited number of lights per month, and for a temporary period of five minutes to allow monitoring. The Couture is an established ground-fed aggregate step-out and safeguarded rail ahead. The site supports key mineral infrastructure and related development. The Brett facility at the Couture is geographically extremely well-located to supply infrastructure projects in the area. As a rail service plant, the majority of material we used to make concrete is a limited plan for you to be joining rail ahead. The ability to serve night-time work is to allow Brett to do this whilst making use of the staple source of supply materials. Brett and Green's batching plan was originally approved in 2016. It was supported by a range of information and assessments, which demonstrated the proposals that operate with that adverse impact and surrounding area. Plus, the 2016 admission includes a number of conditions directly ensuring the control of the operation to minimize any potential impacts, if you noise lights and dust measures. It is entirely relevant that in 2020, consent was granted for a very similar night-time operation as now sought. The application was discussed at length with West Sussex and Crawley County officers as well as the Crawley Barrett E.H.O. The admission granted the night-time operation for a temporary period of three years, and included further control on the night-time operation to provide solutions. This included the requirement for a reduced expense between the nearest residential sectors, both with the house. It confirmed that Brett did not implement – it is confirmed that Brett didn't implement the 2020 Commission largely due to COVID and other costs, and no night-time operations have taken place by Brett. It is noted that other operators will have had permission for night-time operations to take place at the good yard in the past. The only difference between the current application and the 2020 Commission is that a longer temporary period is now sought. Other than a change from a three-year temporary present to a five-year temporary consent, there are no alterations proposed to the political operations or the conditions. The temporary five-year period is sought to allow the council to assess any potential impacts or surrounding immunity, and to allow Brett to review the costs associated with the acoustic burns. To write a commission of this application, Brett again took extensive preparation of engagement with the poorly borrowed E-H-O. As part of the pre-application engagement additional noise survey work was undertaken and an updated noise assessment submitted at the application. It is considered that the updated noise assessment provides a robust assessment of any potential impacts of the proposals and noise terms. The conclusions of the report are clear that with the mitigation information proposed by Brett, such as the acoustic burns, there is no adverse impact on nearby neighbours in terms of noise. Indeed, the proposed conditions presents the appendix 1 of the Committee of War, reflect the mitigation as approved by Western City County Council in 2020, and as agreed again now by Brett. These conditions include restrictions on the maximum number of night time operations per calendar, month, and number of nights as well, limits on HDB movements per night and per hour, as well as a noise management complaint procedure and a noise testing survey to take place. Reminding that these are applied in full, i.e. that there are no changes as I said out in the appendix 1, it is considered that development proposals should be considered acceptable and approve the same work previously. Additionally, the five year temporary period will act as suitable trial period for the county council and local council to assess the impacts of the night time working by Brett. We urge members to approve the application of the call to the office of the report provided. The process will allow for a sustainable form of development, a mineral development, which complies with Western City County Council and the Board of Trustees Council aspiration it. Thank you for the opportunity. Okay, thank you very much Ms. I will be sorry for your presentation. We now move on to let the local member, Councillor Brenda Burgess, who is the member for the Three Bridges Division. And as the local member, you are not subject to any time limits, so you have unlimited time to address this on behalf of your residents. So thanks to Councillor Burgess. Thank you, Chair. I just want to ask the question for clarification. If Brett didn't do night time ops, does that allow if they have the original mission to do it? I'm not sure when we deal with that. Can we help stop the system? I leave that with you, Chair. Perhaps we could proceed with that. Okay, my office is asked. I'll ask other questions. Okay, thank you everybody for listening to me. I'll still try and be brief, but if you understand this is quite a limited subject. So to begin with, when this company first applied, I mean, running some years ago, the former council of Bob Burgess, yes, he was my husband, he was the cast of the area at that time, objective on their behalf. His objections were overruled and since then my residents have had to put up with noise, nuisance and dust from the aggregate side, which can be extremely destructive. Putting forward objections on behalf of residents both in forward and forward, the newly developed neighbourhood in the vicinity, which was not in place, an aggregate company was first granted a mission, and also from my residents of Tinsilane, who have protested tirelessly over the years regarding the problems experienced because of this company. Point went to on page 27 clearly states that plan commissions granted in 2016, long before forward, which was developed. Zoomability of the committee would have read this, so please note permission was granted with the 11 conditions which included dust management, air quality mitigation and noise surveying. I'm just going to say here that one resident has had noise beyond 7 o'clock in the morning, but there we go. I see that in 2020, companies granted a temporary licence to work from 7 at night to 7 in the morning, for up to 20 to Friday for three years, and their revised conditions appeared to include a provision of a 6 metre high acoustic barrier. I've just lost my nose. Sorry, I have to go to my last nose, just to check. I don't know why we take your time. Is this on page? Brenda, it's on the reverse of the page you were just reading. No, it isn't. Oh, it is. No, it isn't. Mrs. Gillian, could you help me? Oh, I've got it. Sorry, I have found it. Sorry about that. Where was I? Thank you. Thank you for being patient. Right. A little confusion here. There's a little confusion here. The required acoustic barrier is not erected due to the cost. This must must be that this condition was not a due to. I'm pleased to be operating my entire variety, 7 to 7, as a nuisance diet afforded residents indicate quite clearly this is a small exception. I've found it low in your notes. They're also videos available. Why is this company operating when the conditions have not been a due to? But the potential before this committee, page 28, gives a list of controls. For example, second bullet point mentions four lorries and our operating. And these make it well need to reverse plus less using flash in reverse in night, speed being, etc. That's all is already here to be waiting residents. And then the night, I believe reversing nights and beating can be switched off by the banks many providing six big bullet point mentions are keeping a record. Are these looked at regularly? Are they publicly available? Oh, it's all to a point two mentions the restrictions and limitations on night time working as I've acted in the application of 2020. Bus management is mentioned. The operation on the site gives rise to much because the need to move materials. Conditions were put forward to prevent such situations as detailed in condition one of the planning issues stated in 9.24 and page 35. This included a dust management plan and air quality mitigation stage strategy. If it passed a day, these needs must be implemented, especially overnight. You see, I'm not. An action on the company must be taken. It deep down a dust regular water spray could be used on dry days required. Rest in question that this is done as this is already done. Therefore, dust management at the moment is over, not in place or is inadequate. That is so. First thing is what it is doing and will continue to do for people themselves and well-being. All these children have a higher average number than asthma and air quality is very important to some parts of my board trying not to lose the next page. 6.8 on page 30 gives a key policy directive. Noise. It expects this dates. You stage
2. Do the development results will be required to protect future, I would say, all residents from unacceptable exposure noise from various areas, including the goods yard. The last last sentence states effective mitigation is required to ensure noise impact is made acceptable. I would, if you insist on permitting this application, add to an admission be withdrawn if these measures are not implemented effectively and within a suitable timeframe. 9915 clearly states the concern. I would think there will be impacts and problems and I call upon this planning proposal to be rejected outright unless you can honestly hold your hands up and promise policy M.A.T. and J.M.L.P. can be admitted to. Conclusion. It is expected that the plan is seen as essential of source. All the works are currently there to protect residents from excess noise and dust. Such households must be implemented and permission withdrawn if the levels of dust and noise are exceeded. If this planning application is permitted, with conditions attached and it is imperative, all conditions are adhered to within a suitable timeframe as mentioned previously. Therefore, this must mean it has to make regular monitoring of the conditions and records would be accessible, please, to ensure their compliance. Finally, please submit it that I want to stress again that I have some strongly opposed this application being granted. I don't think enough thought has gone to the rest of us. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Vergis. Can I now ask if planning officers would like to provide any, so could you just ask, can you just tell me more about it? But I first think asking if planning officers would like to provide any factor of clarification on any matters raised by any of the speakers. Mr Sarah Cops. Again, Chairman, if I may come in. I think this is part of what Councillor Vergis is raising in her initial point. In current statement from the ancient day, the previous permission was not, in fact, implemented. That actually raises the question of whether or not that permission can then itself be amended, which is what the applications for. But in fact, under the previous permission, and can be taken as implemented, because it was possible when you get a plan for permission, you don't have to undertake a full development, you can simply have to take part of it. So in that particular case, even under the permission of the existing permission that's been granted, although it allowed night time working for a short period, if the applicant chose not to implement that past the permission, they are a little bit to do so. It doesn't mean they can't continue to operate under that permission for the rest of their time working. So in that respect, permission can be considered to have been implemented, but it's just that it wasn't implemented in relation to the right time end of the working, which may seem a strange thing, because that's essentially more of a previous permission sort of to do. But it's not a basis in itself to say that the permission wasn't implemented. As I opened up the possibility of further variation of the previous permission, can be granted as a bit of a ten-accounting. There is a thought about it, because if you took the view that the previous permission hadn't been implemented, when you'd fall back to the previous permission, what would the application then be for is a variation of the previous permission, because that could still be considered as a permission thing. It's a bit of a ten-count of things. Thank you for that. Could I just ask a clarification on that then? Because what we're being told is, obviously, the 2020 planning permission has not been implemented. But the 2016 one has. Does that mean that the 2021 has now lapsed because of that not been implemented? That's the very point. What I'm trying to explain is that although they didn't implement the night-time working end element of the 2020 planning permission, there is no reason at all where they can continue to operate under that new permission just without the nighttime element that we're working. One thing that is worth noting is that there's the conditional there about the installation of acoustic barrier, but that condition is written in such a way that barrier only had to be installed prior to the commencement of the nighttime working. So if there was no nighttime working, the condition of requiring the installation of the barrier wouldn't have cut in. So the permission couldn't have been construed as not having been implemented. The barrier wasn't installed, which is one of the things that's now proposed. I think that makes sense for you. OK, thank you very much. Right. Now I'm now going to open this up for questions and comments, but before I go to other members, I have two questions I would like to ask. One is regarding the 2016 planning permission, which obviously has been implemented, permitted the hours of working to be 7am, 7pm Monday to Friday, and 7am to 1pm on Saturdays, i.e. date I'm working only. Now, what I want to ask is there must be some reason why those particular hours were specified in the conditions, presumably at the recommendation of the Crawley Bow Environmental Health Officer or someone else. There must have been a rationale for that. So can I ask what the rationale for setting those hours as day time only was? Because clearly if there was a rationale for doing that in 2016, that rationale would still be valid today. Thank you, Chairman. In response to that, the application was applying for the operation of the plan during the daytime hours. Night operations wasn't applied for under that 2016 permission, and essentially that one. I think Michael open to Mike wants to elaborate. Thank you, Chairman. I think that might be a point of clarification, but I don't think that's material to the consideration of the current application. The current application is solely to vary in condition 6, which is to do with the nighttime working. So the hours that were in 2016, there was obviously a rationale for that that was put forward in the application that was assessed at the time. That's the extent permission. So I suggest that comments were made by third parties about the daytime working, but quite clearly that's not a matter for consideration here. I suppose I just wanted clarity that that was all that was applied for and that it wasn't the case that nighttime working was applied for 2016, but only eight times would be the same thing. Thank you for clarifying that. The other thing I wanted to ask at this stage was that Councillor Burgess talked about conditions being a dear to and permission being withdrawn if they're not, but my understanding is that permission, although action can be taken if conditions are not applied with, that can't result in a permission being withdrawn once it's been granted. I suppose the other question that I wanted to explore was that there's a lot that's mentioned in the report and in the applicant statement about the temporary period of five years being set so as to be able to ascertain what the effect of the noise would be on local residents. And I suppose what I'm trying to get at there is that am I right in thinking that if permission were granted for nighttime working for a period of five years and it would have become clear after say three months that the position for local residents was unacceptable. Nothing could be done about it and local residents would then have to endure that situation for another four years and nine months before the application would come back. Am I collecting that? So it's a condition set and talks about noise management complaints about the procedure being put in place to record those. This condition needs then talks about a noise survey within three months of first overnight operations and then talks about measures being required to address those complaints. So there are mechanism, there's a mechanism there to address concerns if they are emerged in that period. Yes, I appreciate it, but what I'm guessing is if it became clear that the situation was unacceptable and there was a feeling that nighttime operations should be ceased, that couldn't happen until the five year period of elapsed, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Right, if I can open that up to other members now, who would like to speak, Councillor WILD. Thank you, Chairman. I've just got a couple of concerns. I did see one about the acoustic barrier, but I understand that now. I'm a little bit concerned because we've got apparently a new housing development coming into a silly lane and I think it was quoted as 120 houses. It's 130, just to be clear, that's a pending application to Crawley Borough Council. It's actually on hold at the moment due to the water neutrality issue, and it will be considered at some point in the future. I think it's also worth pointing out, as Mr Anderson pointed out, that site is allocated for residential development in the local plan. So the principal of residential development development on that site is all the established through the allocation of the local plan. Yes, because that's the other thing I wanted to come onto that I'm a little bit concerned because it says that the land of Tinsley Lane is for residential sports and open space, and that is a local plan. I'm a little bit concerned that we've got that going on on one side, and then we're going to have a sports facilities on the other side. So I'm a little bit—they were my concerns. Councillor interjecting. Other members? Councillor KENYAN. Thank you, Chairman. Just a point of clarification, if I may, and that's an observation that I wanted to explore. I'm sorry you mentioned that I understood you correctly, but I do have enough to know correctly. So I understand it's difficult what you said that night-time operations weren't being carried out by a brat at all, and yet some of the submissions have been. Councillor BERCH has said that some residents are hearing noise in night-time hours. Yes, please do come in. No, sir. I'm sorry, we can't ask one of the speakers. Councillor interjecting. We have to ask one of the officers to clarify that. Councillor interjecting. Sorry, if I continue, because then the suggestion was raised that perhaps these were other operators and if so, so that's point of clarification. So it's really are night-time operations being carried out at the moment, or not an if so, by whom? It shouldn't be by brat, because there are conditions against them, so thank you. Councillor interjecting. Okay, not. Who would like to answer that? Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Do you like me to answer the words first, then we come on to your point. Councillor interjecting. Yes, sir. Okay, great. Sorry, I should have called somebody into us. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. We'll take it into the next one if there are any further questions after. Councillor interjecting. So, yes, in response to Councillor Wasp's question, which was broadly in relation to the allocated site for residential and sports development at Kinsey Lane. We were consulted as the middle of a waste planning authority on that application when it came in 2021. Councillor interjecting. We were aware of proposal and subject to it not having an adverse or preventative or prejudicial impact upon the operation of the mineral site, which is safeguarded, so ideally the quality goods are larger. There's a hole in the mineral site with the safeguarded railhead, then that would be acceptable. So, there's a degree of great thing in tandem with us to ensure that the safeguarded site is not prejudiced much like this application must be to ensure that there's no substantive impact on that area, as demonstrated in the noise survey. So, on the presentation there is the yellow. Councillor interjecting. I want you to see that that was in the middle detail of the area. So, that took the baseline. So, hopefully that answers that question. We'll leave on to Councillor Kenneen's question that looks like Mr. Sierich, I'll see if we'd like to answer that. So, Councillor Kenneen, in response to your question, Mr. Sierich, what other operators are currently operating during night time hours? So, there was Cemex who got permission for night time operations. So, quite similar to the 2019 permission. There was a three-year temporary trial period to ascertain the level impact on local residences. That was approved in 2018. And that is, you know, that site's not normal and operational as far as we're aware. So, I can't comment as to whether they're committing night time operations currently. But they said any application to do so, not everyone or their operational is another story. So, there we are. So, and then there's day aggregates and agri-industries, and I believe agri-industries, when he knows. So, they have a 24-hour permission Monday to Sunday. We've spent a holiday working. It could be agreed in writing. That was approved in 1995. So, they do use that essentially that operational permission to operate during night time hours, when it suits as, you know, their allowance of their original planning application. So, I imagine that to be on an actual basis, it could be one or two nights a week, or one or two nights a month. But that would all be operational within the agreed plans and conditions that were associated with that 1995 permission. And also, the site's environment of permit, which would restrict noise to a degree of the satisfactory to the environmental, environmental agency. So, who had a view of the issue of that permit? So, actually, that provides some kind of clarity on those matters for you. OK, because I think we just need to be clear, because some of the dynamics that have been submitted by residents, which have been sent round to us all yesterday as part of the lobbying email reference, particular dates in the early part of this year. So, clearly, there are some operations going on somewhere in that vicinity. But we can't be certain which companies they're coming from, or what we're saying, just in that way, and then give some indication. Councillors, I've got a button. Can I ask a question in relation to what we're talking about? Yes, I'm just going to, I'll bring you in first then, I'm just going to ask Councillor Kenne if she wants to come back, but Councillor M a dole. I'm sorry, it does all relate to this, but the plans we've got, there's this railway line that runs it. Is this a mainline railway line, or is it, you didn't mean London to buy a railway line? Well, between Gatwick airport and things like that, that must be running all night then, isn't it? Well, so, a lot of noise. A lot of noise. What impact is that we talk about noise here from the industrial estate, which I am familiar with the industrial estate, because I haven't learned that, but I had to take stuff here to work. The railway line, the main London railway line, right next to it, must operate 24 hours a day, because we've got to express it, so they get real out all night. And we had the impact from, does anybody mention the impact to the railway line? We would need to check the times, because the Gatwick Express wouldn't go down there, because it would come down from— Councillor interjecting. Has he got a fright? Councillor interjecting. It's certainly running, but originally the Gatwick Express went through Victoria just to Gatwick, and this is south of Gatwick, but it's on the same line. Okay, but we would need to see the application of it. Trains operate on that line every day, must start at 5am, because they're just going to run every day, and we're just going to first train, which is working at 5am, and then go to 1, 2 in the morning? So, I don't give back. I'm just interested in whether that's the impact of the noise, who's saying nothing's hacking on the site, or on that site anyway. Well, I'm sorry. That may welcome two of you, but I don't know if office has had any answers to that. I don't suppose you would have any answers to it. Okay, I've got a number of speakers. Can I ask Councillor Kenny if she wants to come back? I've then got Councillor CASSIDY to tell Councillor JUNT and Councillor OE. Thank you very much, Chairman, and I think that was the point, because when we're looking at this application, we must assess it on its own merits, and it's important that we understand if objections are being made, whether it was actually a particular application. I also note that there was a comment making some of the feedback about reversing noise this day. It's just been assured that it's actually carrying a lifetime operation, but also that's part of the condition that no wonderful alarms or sounds are being used. That doesn't mean that they're not happening in a similar or very close location, which is a problem for people in all sorts of residential areas. I did have some other observations. Actually, there was one of the acoustic fence, if you mentioned the acoustic fence, I can do that, and then I'll come back on. So I noticed the conditions were going to be really important, and I had the same concerns as you did, Chairman, but then I read Section 89, and I thought, okay, so we talk about corrective actions, additional measures to reduce noise, and in AD, however, I note that the acoustic fence was placed near to Beaufort House, which is what, 65 metres from the site slightly close, but not forward wood. And AD talks about, from the point of which compliance is demonstrated, monitoring of noise at the band of Beaufort House, although I'm taking a very good look. I think if there was concern about the residents of Beaufort Wood, there might be a possibility to look at those conditions so that it speaks of them as well, just a suggestion, just a thought, but I just thought I'd put that out there. If I'll sit her in the view on that and otherwise I'll give way, Chairman, come back there, Chair. Okay, thank you. Do officers have any questions? I'll come back on that. I think you make a very good observation there. If you read the wording of the condition date, and you request a good position as well about your location here, clearly there's activity going on currently, which is unrelated to the current application, which in itself is not a factor in the determination of this application, but in relation to looking at the impacts of noise, you'll see the way that the condition date is worded. And this is a general rule of law about noise conditions, is that based upon undertext, establishing what existing background noise levels are on the site, and then looking at the impact that a particular development has set against that background, so that if you impose a noise condition or planning permission, it actually takes into account the context of what's there. So if you're not, if it comes to enforcement, enforcing the relation to the other activities that are going on, you're actually enforcing the relation to the impact of the activity for which, from the planning permission, you'll see that's exactly the condition date worded, which I think actually covers both accounts, okay, and actually counts them, but on the point about, you know, potentially there are a lot of the activities going on there. Okay, thank you. It just, just on that point, could I just clarify? Because I'll go off to 9.30, one, the 9.35 deal with the issue of cumulative impacts, which have been raised by residents, and we're told that policy M22 of joint minerals level plan talks about permission granted, if an unreasonable level of disturbance will not result, either individually or as a cumulative effect, so surely we wouldn't be able to take into account the other uses that residents have raised if it would consider that that electro-accumulative effect. Is that not the case? Well, it's the position you've got to a position where, potentially, there was a breach of the noise level setting condition, including you can only enforce against the permission, the operation, the operator for which you've got the permission, so if there is other activities going on in the area that may give rise to an impact, okay, we can't enforce against that in the context of permission. But you need to look cumulatively at the impacts that they're going to be with the development that you've got after the planning application for, and that will be reflected through the background results that are actually established through the noise setting. So it is there, and it does, it is part of the equation, if you're identifying what's the appropriate background levels and then the noise levels, the new setting, relation to the activity you're consenting, so it does their factors into the equation as well. Okay, thank you, thank you. Councillor Patel, thank you. Oh, sorry. Just before you can leave this level to us, just come in on. You need to come back to the train times. So, using train line, this is just in terms of right to London, Victoria, so trains from sort of London Clock at 9, just called midnight. The next one is then at sort of 4, 12 minutes past 4, 6 minutes past 5, 15 minutes past 5, 20 to 6. So I'll give you one second, right? And they go 24 hours a day. What is the least one in Victoria? Oh, okay. So, yes, I was doing the next question. Okay, thank you. Sorry Councillor Patel. Thank you, Councillor. Just for clarification, pulling from the Chairman's point, instead on the idea to the conditions we've put in, we're still going to operate for five years, with respect of not the variance. Yes, obviously, whilst you've granted the permission, permission will stand for five years, but the way the conditions are actually written, particularly in relation to noise, there is a mechanism built in there in the potential fraud going monitoring, and that the condition does give us the opportunity to go back to and say, if you're in breach of limits that are inset, then clearly we can go back and we can say that you can't continue to operate on the basis of the noise you're making if it's succeeding the levels that are actually stated in the condition. So, yes, they can continue operating, but also we can push the limits that we've set in the condition. So, we do have a mechanism that's not just going to leave them there to carry on for operating in breach of the limit, if they're in breach of the limit. Okay, thank you. Councillor JUN >> Thank you. Yes, I think it should be noted that railway line is a very busy line. I don't do, I think, passenger trains travel up and down that line at all times of the day and night, but also, so do, it's Twitter's trains as well. As you'll notice that this is a good, I think, a rail freight site, which is the description. So, therefore, there will be aggregate trains full of aggregate coming to the site throughout the time. Of course, there's also a question about ambient noise. Of course, we can't forget that we're quite, well, this site's quite close to Gafford. And as many people know, there are noises and then from Gafford getting from Gafford with the planes coming in and out. Thirdly, I'd be very interested to know what the planning conditions are with regard to the industrial or warehousing units surrounding this site. We saw an aerial photograph, and you can see the big sheds all the way around it. Now, I don't know what their restrictions are, if any, on timing, because I know from other land or dormancy, in my constituency, or as far as turn up at all towns of the day and night, and they do set off these bleepers as they have to reverse, that can be quite a disturbance to people. However, it is clear to me that this is part of the Manner Royal Estate. This is, for my purposes, this is an industrial or an employment activity area. All thought would development site and, I think, possibly a chairman, you may be able to help us on this, I think, Fortwood planning consent, granted some time ago, because the build-out of it hasn't been that. It has done over a number of years. So I feel that the decisions that are proposed seem to be adequate for such a site operation in this location. I do know that both Corriba and her and Corriba Barra Council environmental health officers have had no objection to the proposal. And I also know that despite the Councillor's emotional and very, very, sweetly pleased this morning, a plan of planning colleagues at Corriba Barra Council have no objection either. Thank you, chairman. Well, to be fair, in terms of Barra Council planning, it was actually no comment, not no objection, it was no response. But you're correct, the environmental health officer raised no objection. Were there any comments, Councillors, what was its name? E.R. We weren't the planning authority for the purposes of the fraudulent element, but I'll build to make a general observation of where you get planning applications come forward like that. It will almost certainly be part of the information submitted with the application forward to it, which will have been a concern with the fact that our building, a mixed-user residential commercial development on a location where there are adjacent noise sources. And it's very common in that kind of permission to look at that impact on future residents' building mitigation. And I've done it myself before and where I've done it with the fact that I've done it on the way in front of the planning authorities. So you would, I don't know if that was done in this case, but in all likelihood, I would stifle, if I didn't consider all of that, what did it done as an exercise? So it's essentially when you're building that kind of new development next to an existing source of noise, clearly, I'm going to be concerned about the impact that existing sources have on that development. So I'm going to assume that probably did happen in this case. I don't know who did it, because we're not taking off that issue. Just one of the points I mentioned, I think, on page 49. We just, we were just talking about this. I'm just suggesting just in addition or possibly for an amendment to it, conditioning, is that you've got the noise sensitive receptors marked yellow on there. And it's quite common for noise conditions. That's what we're in, in addition to mine, all that has been asked, and we have already conditioned on it, and so far, and as we've made reference to the lower house, you define the point of which the noise then measurements need to be taken. And you can specify those. And we've got one written at the moment. Could have put us in addition and say, I'll put in these other locations. I meant, for example, when we're writing information for mineral extraction sites, it's very common. You'll get a noise assessment, and it will identify, you know, it may be half a dozen or a dozen of the nearest noise sensitive receptors. And if necessary, you set the limits in addition to each of those. So we could expand on conditionators, and additional safety grants, saying, Not only have both four paths, but I think these are not locations, these are the noises that can be measured at the bottom, but those locations, too, to provide an additional safeguard. The other two yellow dots in that panel are actually further away, so the chances are noise level aren't as high, but you can't be certain than that. But it's something, if you'd like to put additional safeguards in, it's going to specify more locations under condition. Okay, can I switch up? I wonder whether officers are able to comment on my observation that the joining employment uses the sheds that we can see in that area in place. I mean, how many restrictions was regard to their operation during the night time? That, I don't know, was a really, really growing position, so... I understand that. But in the sense of noise that's emanating from activities, this is located in the middle of an industrial estate, an important industrial estate, the economy of the crawling, and for West Sussex. And I just find that I thought it was a very busy area, very often times at night. But you remember a lot of those units around there do actually service the airline industry, which does work on a 24-hour basis. I mean, you'll be flying in the middle of the night, but you can be sure as hell, and they will be supplying goods and services during those hours where the planes have to be looked after, and also other facilities at the airport. I think it's very likely, if there's plant operating in those areas, very industrial units, it's very likely there are a lot of noise limit conditions on the dimensions. Obviously, we've been brought to my group about a counter-cancer rather than a counter-cancer, but it's a fact. Can I just, can I just clarify something on here? The answer with regards to the noise was sexist, and how about we deal with the tradition. How is it possible, given the number of different noise, noise generates activities around there, when monitoring compliance, how is it possible to prove that the noise that is evident to those on those noise of sectors is actually coming from one particular activity rather than another? You're basically identified as a problem, particularly in this type of urban location, where you do have multiple noise sources, and the only thing you can really do is try and look at when there are noisy activities coming into a particular site, and take the measurements in relation to those activities, when you know they're taken, you'll be like, they're going on, but it is a very difficult thing to do. The other thing is just before we move on, just perhaps to help Councillor JUNK with his question about the planning commission for Forgewood, and in terms of what may or may not be taken into account, or may not be taken into account, I can't comment on the detail of how that was assessed. So, just as a bit of background, the original Outline Planning Commission for the estate was submitted in 1998, to call the Borough Council. There was then a direction from the Secretary of State or the Deputy Prime Minister, as it was at the time, that development should not be determined, that applications should not be determined, because of a moratorium that he was placing on it because the possibility of a second long lake out of care boards. That moratorium lasted for a number of years. What then happened was that the proposed developers of Forgewood then appeared against non-determinate, on grounds of non-determination, and the planning commission was granted by the Secretary of State's inspector on the grounds of non-determination, and I have never been able to understand how it could be granted by an inspector on grounds of non-determination, when the only reason it wasn't determined was because the same government department had put a moratorium saying it couldn't be determined, but that was a bit of a circular argument, but because of that, it was granted on appeal by inspectors rather than determined locally by the Borough Council. So, for that reason, the conditions that they're working with are conditions laid down one inspector, and any assessment that was made by inspectors rather than by the local planning authorities. So, it's just a bit of background, that development came about, but that was the outline plan. It obviously reserved matters applications since then have been dealt with by the Borough Council's planning authority. I've got Councillor OAK in next. Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman. One word in point, if you look at the condition of six, it basically limits the days on which you're not working for the current Monday's to Friday's, but condition three accepts no operations shall take place on bank holidays. We just confirmed there's no inconsistency that condition six would allow overnight working on bank holidays. I'll first comment on that one. With regards to the noise monitoring of overnight activities, incanditionate, it's not clear to me as to why what regime will be set up to ensure that there was regular noise monitoring post the three monthly initiative, three month report. Just one understand whether within condition eight or other conditions, you actually have something that says, after that initial three month report, this is the noise monitoring regime that will be taking place on a regular basis to ensure that activities on these overnight operations do not increase over time to an unacceptable level. It'd be quite easy for the first overnight operation to be carefully controlled and managed, but over time, practices become looser and more intensive. In the many cases where we have existing noise making activities, and then we get residential accommodation being proposed or occurring afterwards, after the use is established at the site. What we are able to change is to what degree should the new residential accommodation around this site actually had to do its own mitigation for the noise that's within the site. Even though this is overnight working given, there's a lack of knowledge of what other overnight noise is going on within this industrial area. One comment I will make about later on is that the way you've got a railway in between stations and the trains are running smoothly through, there is very little noise. The number of residential sites right next to new residential sites right next to railway is where this is not really much of a problem. It's only where you've got available movements that are sidings etc, where you've got the movement of the wagon bumping accommodation and that's when you get your noise, so you get a bit noise from them. My final point is on lighting, the existing open up lighting, what I'm not quite sure about, is lighting associated with vehicle movements on the site, where you get removing vehicles, some with but not quite high up in the vehicle moving around the site and providing producing significant light spill out of the site as they're moving around and quite often for disruption of sleep. It's that change in intermittent change about that area of lighting that can be the disturbance. What control is there over that sort of light still? Okay, who's going to answer that? Mr Elton. Well, there's a number of points there, so we'll try to make sure that we cover them off. I think with reference to bank quality working, I think you identify something that there needs to be correctly in condition six, so the starting position three says with the exception of overnight operations, so therefore we would need to say in condition six that there should be no working on the core public photos, that would come with that at all. I think you queried about monitoring after the first three months, so closed city of condition eight talks about subsequent monitoring. Is your question about what time frame that will take place over, and would that be over the rest of the five years? Does that make your point? Councillor? Yes, what is the definition of subsequent monitoring? That's where is that defined? What defines that subsequent monitoring regime? Mr Elkington. Thank you, Chairman. What might be better in there is rather than talking about subsequent monitoring and then there's been a question about over the rest of the five years and how frequent that should be. So again, we could look at that, again, members of the minor intercom permission that we could say that way and look at whether we specify the frequency of regular monitoring at that point. I just want to just talking about condition eight, and again, I think there's a little bit of tightening up that could be done at the start of that condition, because it talks about noise as it's being undertaken, but to the right time to undertake that survey is that there's actually a bit of activity being undertaken on site, which comes back to the point now, being able to distinguish between the impact of them to the team on site. So I think there's probably, again, if we could have a get delegated authority to start at supporting about, talking about within three months of the first open operations and when activity is being undertaken on site, then they should be undertaken and we're going to identify the impact specifically of operational operation at this site. So I would suggest that's maybe something that could be taken forward. Okay, Councillor interjecting. Would it be a way of getting it to a larger condition application that the monitoring ratio shall be agreed? So you do that, but the definition of what the monitoring ratio is, there are no details we've discussed about what is actually going to happen to ensure that there is an appropriate level of monitoring. So that throughout the five years, there is a sufficient monitoring to ensure that which complete within the site doesn't breach unacceptable noise levels. And use that to show how condition you're in if you like. Mr Elkington. Again, I think that's something that we can take away. It refers to the survey being submitted. It doesn't talk about the survey being approved or as you should suggest that sort of monitoring ratio that might need to be put in place being approved by us. So again, I think that's something that we can get tightening up. I've certainly come across conditions of practicum. I've written one reason myself did exactly what you've just said, where essentially the condition was the submission of the noise management strategy, which incorporated the survey that results in the subsequent monitoring to ensure that the action had compliance with the limits that it's something that's possible. Okay. Sorry Mr Chairman, let's not allow that. Yeah, I'm sorry. I can't, I won't take that on board. I can't actually allow speakers to come back. Sorry. At the end of the course, it does talk about the monitoring to repeat it, and associated time late to be done, it goes to be agreed in writing, and it certainly caused the results of being submitted. It doesn't talk about sort of our sign of fault though. So again, I think the points are covered, but probably a little bit tightening up. I mean, just on council, can I just on council have these points about about loud noise? I would concur with that point about noise between stations when trains are simply running as normal because I live a very short distance from a railway line, have done over 50 years, and you just don't hear this because it is simply running back and forth. It's when the sort of shunting and that type of activity that round noise becomes a problem. Right. Councilor he wants to come back. Yeah, there was a smart point about lighting, vehicle lighting movements, and also the agent to change principle. That's something we touched on. We touched on the issue of agent to change before, because clearly that raises the context. And very much as we've gotten this site, we've not only got the application in front of you, but you do have other surrounding development, it's an area where there's more development going on. As I said in one of my previous responses, you're getting into that territory there of clearly when there's planning applications come forward for that development. It's quite right that you look at what the impacts of the noise are in the existing noise environment. Obviously here you have an example of a planning application coming forward where we've had both new development, we've got current planning applications and potentially we've got further future development, and obviously the extent of which the noise from the specific operations, the concern of this application, the extent they're not operating or having been operating up until now, so we want a future that we assess in the noise assessments, but we don't have to take an innovation plan. In the development that's happened, but the clear word is part of the future consideration. So it's quite right that at any particular point in time, you take into account the entire environment in terms of the source of the noise. It's very valid point, but it's something that is factored in at the time that future levels come forward. In relation to lighting, we've got a conditional on here which is about external lighting. Lighting is one of those areas where you do very much need to look at it in the context of the site you're talking about. We haven't suggested any additional conditions here, particularly in relation to the mobile and light sources, but it's really because of the context of the site because you've got an existing area there which does operate at night, which already has a relatively high degree of illumination. That is the context within which the decision was being made clear, if we had a site here that was in a rural area where no other development around it, there were no existing light sources, the concern would be clearly understandable, and it really wants to keep it contained, but in a location like this where there are already substantial light sources, to start getting all old, regulating sources of light from vehicles going into and out of the site, property isn't going to be something that's going to achieve an awful lot of this, but it's probably going beyond reasonably what we can attempt to regulate. I don't need to diminish the point, I think it's something that's a correct point in the right console location, I think in this particular instance, because of the context of the setting, it's probably, it's something we don't reasonably need to get into. Okay. Are there any other comments or questions on this stage? Council, can you? I sort of, where I'd sort of go with this at the moment, and I think I can understand that living next to a goods yard is not perhaps what many of us were thinking of this idea, but to Council at just point, it is what it is, it's that mixed environment and those choosing to live there, choosing to live the goods community for work, whatever, and I just feel, you know, there is this much precedent in terms of the issues that were given, and I think although we could have an interesting discussion about those points, I think one can infer the intention to manage the noise issue, which for me would be the major question mark, so, you know, I would, I would concur with the officers at this point, it's my feeling thinking. Okay. Right. If there are no other comments at this stage, I would like to make a few comments. Now, obviously, as Chairman of the Committee and as a voting member, I've had to avoid making any comment on this previously, including to rest and explain the process. But I, you know, I now, having heard all of the comments made this morning, having heard the submissions, having read what's been sent down by residents, et cetera, and taking all that into consideration, I would like to to state the view that I've reached following that, because obviously it is, although Councillor Burgess is the local member for the division where this proposal is taking place, and she obviously represents people in both Hoppock House and Tinsley Lane. Equally, I represent people on the Fort Wood side of the railway line, and I have to take into consideration their feelings and their views as well. Having heard everything that I've heard, I can't support the recommendation to permit this application. I asked the question earlier about the rationale behind the original permission having a 7am restriction, so it's only excellent during the day. And I accept, obviously, the advice, I'm skipping by officers, that that was because that was all the applicant requested at that stage. But, clearly, there must have been a reason for, initially, proposing daytime only working because that would have been considered reasonable, as opposed to 12 nights a month of nighttime working. And again, following on from the other question I asked, I have very serious concerns notwithstanding what's in condition 8 and the proposed revisions to condition 8 about the noise management regime and the noise monitoring. I have very serious concerns that once this is permitted, it is permitted for five years, and the residents in those areas will have to live with the results of that for five years. And if this is felt three months down the line that the situation is unacceptable, it may well be that mitigation measures can be put in place, but the operations will still be able to continue for another four years and nine months before anything can be done. And I also wonder about precedent because I think if planning permission is granted for a temporary five-year period, I think it would be very difficult to then withdraw that and not renew the permission at the end of the five-year period, even if substantial harm was demonstrated to residents during that period. I have to say, I was very surprised and disappointed by the comments from the Bureau of Council environmental health officer. I wasn't expecting them to come back and say what they said. I mean, obviously that's a matter for them, but it wasn't what I would have expected. And I do think it's not really something that's been mentioned much this morning, but I do need to refer to the fact that they seem to be placing a great deal of emphasis on the existence of the industrial commercial warehousing building, which runs down the east inside of the railway line between the railway line and the Fortwood residential developments, because yes, that building was specifically planned as part of the Fortwood master plan to provide an inclusive barrier between residential developments and the railway line and the industrial development beyond that. But there are three things I would say about that. Firstly, it was proposed to provide a barrier to try to mitigate the effects of the noise from the railway and the industrial side. It was never expected that it would completely obliterate that, but obviously it was only going to be a mitigation. Secondly, it was intended to mitigate against the existing level of noise from the railway and from the industrial estate on the other side of it, not to mitigate against future uses. And obviously, this would be an increased use going into the future. And the third is that it was anticipated that it would be that part of the reason that long building, which extends all the way down the side of the railway line, would act as a barrier, is that it would be subject to a large amount of activity. It's 14 or potentially 14 warehouse units joined together. There would obviously be a lot of coming and going. The buildings would be full and that in itself would act as a barrier. In actual fact, the developers have had huge amounts of difficulty actually letting any of those units and at the moment all 14 are sitting empty and may continue to do so at some time. So there isn't the level of activity going on there that was anticipated. Well, it's a very interesting channel, but I'm not quite sure it's got to do without panic. Well, let me finish and I'll get there. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not sure with the level of activity that's there at the moment and may continue with a lack of activity over the coming years, that actually that building and its activity is providing the level of mitigating acoustic barrier that it was intended. So what I'm trying to say is that I think for a variety of reasons, perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on that by the environment of health, obviously in these conclusions. Now, we've heard that there is a large amount of noise from other sources on the goods the art site and adjacent to it and clearly a lot of the noise that Councillor Burgess has referred to and residents referred to going on overnight is coming from other sites within that area, but that doesn't, from to my mind that doesn't prevent the cumulative cumulative effect of the additional noise that would be created by grants in this permission for night, time working on 12 calendar days per year. Forgewood, I would have to say, is a very newest state. It's a very young estate. There are a lot of families there with young children and actually creating an additional disturbance for those families overnight. I believe it would be detrimental to their well-being and on that basis and on the basis of everything I've heard, I can't support the application and the world's permission and I will go to get obviously what other members do is a matter for them, but that's my position having listened to everything that I've heard and having taken that into consideration. Other members wish to speak, or if not, then obviously we'll move to a presentation. Councillor Matergally. Sir, should I have a problem with this? In my division down in Whirling there is an educational establishment and it's not similar in looking at this and a whole number of houses have been very close to the educational establishment and about a year ago the car park of the educational establishment has been changed into a bus carriage and residents have been closest to it are subjected to quite a number of problems with noise and it's directly related to this bus depot, how they have there now and residents say they didn't move in there, they moved next door to an educational establishment which was closed every evening, most of weekends, holidays, back holidays, now they have it the opposite way around where this garage is operating it was 24 hours a day and there's noise problems and families living close to it had lots and lots of problems. The difference between that and the applications have improved by object to it, it's approved by Woodingborough Council to move them in there and they want to now make brick built buildings there now. It's up for a game through a review in January, next year I object to that. If it's different between that, this is everybody who's moving onto this and this intensely lame estate, why I hope is that the developers and the estate agents, when people I decided to go and move there, say to them, you are moving right next door to a massive industrial estate, it's very important to crawl these economies, it's very important, it's right next to a main railway line and also right to just north of where you are, you have a concrete batching plant which you can produce dust, noise etc. So it's the difference there is, the people are moving to there knowing that there's an industrial estate there, whereas one that my division, people move there thinking of an education section so I've got a completely different view on this thing is that people must know that it's there, what goes with it, things like dust etc which apparently it's not just hacking overnight as part of this application it's a general problem that needs to be dealt with over the people who must know that they're moving next door to an industrial estate, they're going to get problems with it and you're moving next to a railway line and you're moving next to a concrete batching plant, so I hope that both of them can be really good neighbours of one another and work this one out but I am going to support the education because you know I can't so reasonably not to support it. Okay thank you, I did take your point, the only further point I would make of course when you say about people choosing to move next door to a 17 like this but with regards to both Fortwood and the proposed Oakwood sites at Tennessee Lane you are talking about 40% of those people who move in being social housing tenants who don't necessarily have a choice to move into a particular area but who are obviously I'm an obviously there made an offer but it's not quite the same as choosing to buy a property in a particular place and I think we need to bear that in mind but I'll be in Councilor Jupp and then Councilor Oakwood but then we probably need to move to a recommendation on one of the other Councillor Jupp. Thank you thank you gentlemen. There was some discussion earlier about erring the conditions, giving the office as some discretion or to these matters and we've got a form of words that we can when we come to vote on this that we could have in mind. I can help you with that, I've made a note of all the instances where amendments have been suggested so in terms of a recommendation if that's where you're going to move to in a moment it could be as per what it says already that planning commission is granted for a WCC at week 523 subject to the conditions and employment is set out at clinics 1 with authority educated to the head of planning services to add wording to the following conditions code on 1 condition 8 to cater for the following an additional um reference to noises assessment report receptors to be added a change from the subsequent monitoring to regular monitoring I think that was in um C and specify the frequency of that monitoring and then thirdly to add when the survey should be undertaken which is effectively when the activity on the site is undertaken and then to ensure the approval of the of that monitoring by the counter planning authority and then secondly to condition six which is to state that there would be no working on bank and public holidays those are all the amendments that I think have been referenced okay I've got council open in council canyon lots of the um debaters revolved around the effect of this site's activities and expanded activities all those residential combination and these regulations have changed principal power of 193 of the APF what I'm trying to get my head around here existing businesses and businesses you should not have unleasable restrictions placed on them as a result of permitted of development permitted after they were established and effectively the the new development has to mitigate the effects of the existing development now what I'm trying to understand here is the degree to which the activities within the concrete batching class have and are proposed to expand beyond what was there before and after the adjacent residential developments were permitted in other words use come first the expansion of activities on the industrial site in the residential accommodation who's going to escape what? need a servant so I think where you start is so who came for which which came first so good job that's been there for a long while I think what you need to separate is the data activity so those are from the under 2016-2020 permissions separate from the overnight work zone subjects the data working is there development residential development later the residential development needs to take account with the data working then if you're then looking at overnight working that then needs to take account of the change context which is the new residential development that's come along so I think the most important thing is to not think about the whole development and the existing operations in terms of the daytime because that came first from residential development where you just need to look at is solely the impact of that overnight working which has to take account of the change context which is that development versus then subsequent so that's the way I would explain it councilor fizzy do you want to come back yeah I mean that's the chronology of this is is key but then then we got to get our head around whether the scheme of mitigation the scale is going to happen so you're going to have such an adverse effect on the infrastructure operations maybe acceptable that's where I'm struggling at my minute okay I think that's all counts the canyon thanks Shannon um with regard to the conditions I mean one of the things that is often concerned for residents is actually what's meant to conditions poster and application being approved and I wanted if officers could give some comment about that reference I think specific example the use of audible alarms on the person was one particular point which obviously really breaks you know the night uh you say thank you obviously in the the context of the enforcement we have to operate within the this is the standard range of the enforcement patterns that we have as planning authority they do cause frustrations because it's more of a particular cause for notices otherwise the people say things do get stronger which I think always causes exasperations but we can only work within the legal framework that we do we do have no a range of different enforcement patterns made but since in situations why there's actually very often what's most effective is rather than serving enforcement notices if you've got built into specific conditions which send limits in your bridge so that's a search bridge condition notice they didn't have the advantage that there's no right of the people against them so you then drag it to map along the process frankly if you set a condition you know that we have to comply with a condition and they're they're they're they're effective very quickly in striking the prosecution and that that that if we can go the right noise condition written here or to get us the basis that we can enforce hopefully if we can get noise complaints okay mister thank you chairman I think it's also a way of pointing out that in majority of cases what you do is inform enforcement so it is a conversation with your operator to ensure that they understand the conditions that are in place and therefore they need to comply with them so it isn't about starting the fourth one in terms of serving notices it is about and it could probably in the 1995 percent of the cases that we did we did is about showing that they understand the conditions they understand how to comply with them and bringing things back into compliance it's only when that process in form sort of negotiation doesn't result the situation you then have to think about again what legal mechanisms can be used to try and bring them into compliance thank you for that but i i i i the difficulty i have when i still come back to this point that whatever action you take if permission is granted it's there for five years and and residents have to live with that for five years regardless of what what action may or may not be taken in terms of of enforcing conditions whether that be informal or formal but that's you know that's a matter we have to we have to decide um anybody else i'm conscious we need to move to a certain sort of showing with regard to that that point here but you could propose a digital play if you felt that was that's something that you want to do say rather than five years you can suggest alternative three years which is the previous uh mission um so you see the applicants provided justification it's not just about monitoring this is also about the um the uh provision of the acoustic barrier so this is two reasons for the suggested five years uh especially when we've been in the right to suggest an alternative or put put more in terms of right what this opens for committee to make somebody to make a proposal of one natural another council can't you all right sorry can i look like i'm just a couple of walking insects that was one of my first questions the acoustic barrier affects both all paths it doesn't affect anybody else so effectively we're approving planning the five years as opposed to three years against the cost of directing an acoustic barrier for one specific location and i just wanted if you could explain a little bit more just about the logic of that it's sort of about some real it doesn't affect doesn't do anything but a few different words so they've got two more years of trial all because there's an acoustic fence that's expensive that's affecting one property i don't know how many people live there can you tell me a bit more about that i think it's about 15 flats from off top okay so not quite sure the point you're making so i think there's yes in terms of mitigation one of the receptors there's the need for the acoustic fence and therefore there is the best impact that gives a mitigation for one of the residential receptors and then set up to that there is general point about assessing the impact on not only that residential receptor but all the others and that the nature of that period winter clarification was that the original application was for three years and violence read the book correctly saying we wanted for five years now because of the cost of that acoustic barrier which actually affects one location am i have i understood that correctly i understand in use the previous that element of the previous 2020 which was taken forward because it just wasn't economic to do so for three years hence the request of five years but that would be five years from now not five years including the three years because the previous one was not implemented council jump i do see if you could propose it for a vote on the recommendations of the officers subject to the amendments or the alterations that we have been just hearing well i suppose i suppose that that's that's where we would need to start from yes um assuming those those amendments i was agreeing that nobody has any objection to those other other than anyone who objects obviously to the application or both but in terms of the deeds out of those i'm very happy to prepare you so much okay is there a second of for those councilor donald right we then have to move to a vote and that is a vote on the officer's recommendation sorry yes yes okay um that plan permission is granted for WCCC of leak 04523 subject to the conditions and informative set out appendix one with authority delegated to the head of planning and services to add wording to following conditions that on one condition eight to cater to the following one additional noise assessment report receptors to be added to change to a change from subsequent monitoring to regular monitoring to and to specify the frequency of monitoring for it to add when the survey should be undertaken which is when activity is undertaken on the site and for to ensure approval of the monitoring by accounting authority and the second condition which is condition six to add no working on bank and public holidays okay so just so everyone's clear that that it's been moved by council judge seconded by councilor donald that we go to on the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission subjects conditions and informative laid out and also subject to the amendments to conditions which mrs. floodgate has just um has just outlined um can i ask for those in favor of the recommendation please show that's four those of those against that's two an abstentions one can i ask that it be recorded in the minutes the vote against um the recommendation on that thank you um right so anyone's clear near that means the recommendation has been approved by four votes to with one abstention um and the planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives laid out and the amendment conditions as outlined um that then brings us on to item five uh day to next meeting um the next scheduled meeting planning and night's break committee will take place at 10 30 a.m on Wednesday the 17th may so it went to the 50 today yes that's correct county board register if i can refer you to the um the the supporting report um pages 53 to 60 on your agenda plan um current planning applications current committee map modification orders telling village green applications and public path orders under investigation which lists all those um current applications that are being assessed by officers and will be coming forward over the coming months do we need to say anything about the likely applications at this don't believe we have anything to note at the moment at the moment um it's not likely that we're going to have any planning or rights away applications which are going to be in a position to be considered by the committee at our next meeting um and applications that will be considered due will be advised as the committee closed for the day so for that reason we made um it is likely that we will be canceling the main meeting but we need to just confirm that and obviously members will be notified um is anything anyone wants to base council jump yes thank you first off to thank the officers uh for their advice and their report today to well giving us additional advice with regard to those amendments but secondly perhaps more importantly for the term for the future of democracy this is the second week and i pretended a meeting in this chamber where the internet has not been working properly so that we did not hear from the people who were joining us on the team's meeting this happened last week it's happened again today i wonder whether or not you as chairman of this committee could report back or not ask democratic services to rectify these problems because it's not very uh impressive those are those few members of the public this we're listening in this morning well certainly it is you know in is very unfortunate that happened i don't know that i'm you know i'm not a technical person i don't know the reason why that happened and i understood that after after a similar situation occurred as you say performance of finance school committee meeting last week i understood that it had been rectified but um clearly something's happened since but we will we will take that back thank you council jump yes um we understood that it being rectified as well it was tested prior to committing meeting and everything was working fine obviously this morning when we come around to what experience our problems with the link uh the team's meeting into the the webcasting system uh don't worry council jump i already intend to take that back to uh to democratic services to see if there is anything that could be done about it if not what we'll have to do is consider whether we are still able to continue to offer a team's link as the alternative method of attending of course we still have the other alternative which is what you've seen today is the ability for somebody to submit a written statement that can be read out on their behalf so it's not like attendance is the only option in person we do have an alternative method that can still be offered even if we have to um say that we can only use the team link until until we know that it's definitely reliable hope that helps okay thank you anything else um if not if i can thank everyone for for joining um and confirm that the meeting has now ended um and i can ask this whole to stop the webcasting