Transcript

Transcript

As this is a multi-locational meeting, we have a number of members present in the room, as well as others who are joining us remotely. If anyone wishes to speak, please raise your hand physically to be noticed, and could remote participants please raise their virtual hands to indicate when you wish to speak. When it is your turn, I will say your name and you will need to unmute your microphone. Please switch off your microphone when you have finished speaking. As well as members of the planning committee, we also have a number of non-committee members in attendance. These members are entitled to speak at the start of any particular application and ask questions when they are invited to do so, but they are unable to vote on any of the items. There are a number of officers in attendance, including the committee officer who will be acting as the Zoom host to the members who are joining us remotely. This meeting is being recorded and will be published as soon as possible afterwards. Please can I ask remote participants to make a note of the meeting ID which will be of assistance if you experience any technical difficulties and you need to join the meeting by telephone. It is important to note that the microphones in the room will be unmuted at all times to enable the remote participants to hear what is being said. It is therefore imperative that you only speak when you are contributing to the meeting, as any other background noise will be clearly heard. All of the microphones will be muted during the meeting when you are not contributing. Please ensure that mobile phones are switched off and that any background noise is kept to a minimum. If we need to adjourn the meeting at any point, you will be informed of the revised date and time. If it is a short adjournment, you will be able to rejoin this Zoom meeting. Otherwise, a fresh appointment will be sent out. In the event of a fire alarm sounding, you must evacuate as quickly as possible using the nearest available marked fire exits and congregate in front of the main Guildhall reception. If it is safe to do so, you should evacuate through the main doors of the meeting room and leave by the Guildhall reception front doors. If we start firstly with apologies for absence, I have apologies for Councillor Jeremy Newton and Councillor Andy Williams. I think the only one that is not accounted for is Councillor John McOsker. Thank you for that. That accounts for everyone, doesn't it? And could I just welcome Councillor John Jolly to his first meeting of the Planning Committee who has joined us after the AGM. I told him he has got to behave himself. He has been warned. Welcome, John. I understand you have had your first bit of training as well, haven't you? Thank you. We are going to agenda item 2, confirmation of minutes. These are the minutes of the meeting held on the 7th of May on pages 5 to 10. There is one correction under also present, Councillor Hugh Jones was also present in the meeting. His name has been omitted. So with that correction, are you happy to remove the minutes? Yes, OK. I haven't got them here. OK, so we are now on to declarations of personal interest, if there are any. Declarations of interest. No. So we will now move then on to the development management applications, of which we have three this afternoon. We did have three speakers, but one doesn't seem to arrive. So we will start with 4A, 4C and then go back to 4B, unless they turn up in the meantime or appear on screen. OK, so we will start with 4A and this is P2023-0260. And we have Amber Johnson coming to speak to us in support of the application. There we go. Welcome to the meeting. Please feel free to make a start. Hi, I'm Amber Johnson. I'm from Mersey Design Group and we are the agents for this application. This application is for the demolition and replacement of existing dwelling and up to nine additional properties. This is an outline application with all matters reserved. The site sits within the settlement of Rossett and is considered a small windfall site. Rossett has good accessibility by non-car modes and a wide range of services, including a primary and secondary school, a convenience shop and a regular bus service to Wrexham and Chester. The site is outside the local conservation area, with the wall adjacent to Chester Road forming the boundary. The details of the layout, scale and appearance, access and landscaping will be established through a reserved matters application and therefore don't form part of this application. We appointed a highways consultant and undertook pre-application inquiries to establish the most suitable location for the new access to the site. Various positions were considered and reviewed in terms of safety, visibility, the impact on trees and the existing boundary wall. Together with Chester Road and Holt Road, the current site access forms a crossroads junction. Concerns were raised that using existing access could have an adverse impact on the safe operation of this junction. Taking all of these elements into consideration, the new access will be positioned directly off Chester Road and further away from the busy junction. This new access is a better option to serve the proposed development from a highway safety perspective and also offers the opportunity to close up the existing access. Whilst there has been some tree works to the site by the current and previous owner, there are still 54 mature trees on the site. Combined with the existing mature shrubs, the site retains strong green boundaries as seen on the photos within the committee report. A full landscaping proposal including tree planting will be submitted as part of the detailed design. This will also include a tree protection plan for the existing trees on site. A scheme to provide a net biodiversity gain will also be provided as part of the reserve matters application. This will include proposals for native hedgerows and bird box provisions. The side wall adjacent to Chester Road forms the boundary of Rossett Conservation Area. The boundary wall has been subject to a number of alterations over time, including reduction and increase in height. The wall is also in need for immediate repair. The new entrance will sit within this wall and be constructed using original bricks where possible. The width of the opening will be kept to a minimum and comply with Wrexham Council's highways design policies. To mitigate this new opening, it is proposed that the current entrance to the site at the busy junction is blocked up and the wall reinstated. This will increase the continuous linear length of the wall by around 10 metres. The closure of the existing access and associated reinstatement of the boundary wall alongside general repairs will be an enhancement to the appearance of the conservation area. The final details of this will be subject to a reserve matters application. The proposed development would deliver a net increase of nine dwellings, therefore the requirement for affordable housing and open space on site are not applicable in this instance. Rossett is a sustainable village. The site is within the settlement boundary and is therefore an appropriate location for residential development. The construction of up to nine new houses whilst not a large amount will help towards the LDP housing provision. The application is in accordance with local policy and the further details of the design will be established through a reserve matters application. With this in mind, we look forward to a successful outcome for this outlying application. Thank you. Thank you for that. I think a lot of what I was going to outline has been covered already, but just to summarise some key points initially, the site is within the settlement limit in the LDP, so in principle redevelopment of the site is acceptable in accordance with policy. There are no LDP policies which provide or prevent the demolition of unlisted dwellings outside of a conservation area and the subsequent redevelopment of the site at a higher density. As has been mentioned, the boundary wall forms a boundary of the conservation area. We do have policies which obviously seek to protect or preserve and enhance the conservation area, but it doesn't set anything specific in terms of how that's achieved, so the key thing is in terms of the actual details rather than in principle. So the impact on the conservation area is something which is covered later on in the report and I'll touch upon that shortly. The application, everything is reserved for subsequent approval, so that's layout, appearance, scale, landscaping and access. The application is accompanied by an indicative layout plan that is very much I think an exercise to demonstrate the site could accommodate ten dwellings. The indicative layout isn't something which we would support if this was a full application or reserve matter stage. That said, we're not committing ourselves to that by granting permission this evening and those detailed matters would be looked at further at reserve matter stage. The site certainly is large enough to accommodate ten dwellings and provide all of the other requirements, garden space, parking, turning and also take account of the site constraints which include the trees. The applicant's agent has mentioned the provision of a new access that would result in the loss of approximately 18 metres of the existing boundary wall, albeit to offset by a new section of around ten metres at the southern end to close off the existing access. On balance, the conservation officer is content with the proposals, particularly having had regard to the comments from the highway officer. As has been mentioned, the proposed access, although full design details are reserved, the plans show the new access being at the northern end of the site, whereas it's currently at the southern end of the site. The advantage of the new access is that it would reduce the potential vehicle conflicts which can arise at the junction with Holt Road where the existing access essentially forms a crossroad and for those who are familiar with that area, in particular there's historically been issues with access to and from the co-op exacerbating potential vehicle conflict there. So the access is an improvement and as an on balance, the conservation officer is happy with the new arrangements subject to full details of the design of the boundary wall being secured at reserve matter stage. One issue that has been raised with us in particular has been the trees and loss of trees and as is set out in the report, the tree works have taken place in two distinct phases, both before and since the current applicant owned the site. None of those were protected trees so there was no approval required for the removal of those trees and in terms of how we apply the policy, we can only apply the policy any three of the LDP on the site as it currently exists in terms of tree coverage. The report does refer to the fact that the tree officer has raised concerns about the indicative site layout but that is again, it's a matter which can be looked at at reserve matter stage and we would expect the reserve matters application to demonstrate how the site has been designed to avoid both direct conflict during construction and future conflict from occupation with those trees. Since the application was submitted and certainly since the applicant has done the works to the trees, there have been changes to national policy, in particular an expectation that applicants don't carry out any preemptive site clearance works prior to submitting an application. However, I think it would be unreasonable to apply that retrospectively to this application given that the applicant could very justifiably say that they couldn't take account of a policy which didn't apply at the time. This means that baseline for net benefit biodiversity is the site in its current condition. We've had ecology surveys which demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on protected species subject to measures which would be secured by condition. Green infrastructure or green network proposals outlines measures to enhance the net benefit to biodiversity which again, has already been outlined. This would include the planting on site and also bats and bird boxes. In addition, the applicant does own the fields to the rear of the site and the outline measures indicate the planting of four trees within that as well, which would enhance the rural landscape as well as providing the additional benefit to biodiversity. For amenity point of view, that would be considered a reserve matter stage, so there's no issue really. The site is certainly large enough to take account of the relationship with neighbouring properties in terms of impact on light, privacy and visual over dominance and avoid any of those issues in terms of unacceptable impacts. Touched upon highway safety, again it's been an issue that has been raised with us. Highway officer doesn't express any objections to the application. The access would provide adequate visibility in both directions. It's in an area in a 20 mile an hour zone and that precedes the changes to national speed limits in terms of 20 miles an hour. It's been a long standing 20 mile an hour area, so the new access is appropriate. It would be safe, subject to the detailed design matters in terms of its geometry, which would be considered a reserve matter stage and which we would seek advice from the highways officer on. A very small part of the site, as is illustrated on page 26, is in the flood zone, but the application does accord with planning policy details in terms of the site would make a contribution towards windfall housing supply. It would constitute previously developed land development on previously developed land and Rossett is an appropriate development location for development being a tier three settlement and has a reasonable range of services. The applicant has also demonstrated via a flood consequences assessment that the risk of flooding can be mitigated or managed rather. NRW have raised no objection subject to a condition regarding minimum floor levels. And again, the layout of the site can have regard or should have regard to that at reserve matter stage foul drainage. There is capacity within the wastewater treatment works in the wider network, so there would be no adverse impact on the River Dee and Balla Lake special area of conservation. Again, this has been outlined by the applicant's agent. This is a net increase of nine dwellings rather than 10 dwellings. Entirely notwithstanding that 10 dwellings are proposed. Net increase of nine. As a result of that, the open space policy doesn't apply. Policy H two in terms of on site affordable housing provision also doesn't apply whilst acknowledging that policy H two does set an expectation for commuted sums for developments of less than 10 in a number of areas in the borough, including this one. The policy does explicitly say that in line with details in supplementary planning guidance note at the moment, we don't have that SPG, so we're effectively not able to apply that part of the policy, so there is no obligation requirements to provide affordable housing as set out in the recommendation. One of the minor point there's been a couple of issues raised on procedural matters by objectors in terms of this needing to be referred to Welsh government under the notification direction. This application does not fall within the notification notification direction because it is within the settlement limit, so it's not a departure from the local development plan. So subject to the conditions which are set out on page 29 30 and 31, the recommendation is that permission be granted. Thank you, Matthew. Now we've got the two local members who wants to go first. Ross, you want to go first or are you not speaking? Yeah, thank you, chair. I'd like to object to the plan going in on a number of grounds really. No affordable housing. Affordable housing again hasn't been included to meet the needs of local residents yet again. The scheme, as we've heard, is on the edge of the established conservation area and will affect the boundary wall and other aspects of the conservation area. There's a lot of concerns from residents about the highways. As people know, the new one-way system has been put into operation without those parts to try and help that. But obviously with an extra junction in the vicinity and more traffic coming onto the road, that's only going to exaggerate the concerns I've got and other residents have got as well. So I think members might benefit from a site visit which would help them to see the setting, the plan and the concerns myself and other residents have of this plan going ahead and they could see for themselves how it would affect the centre of Rossett and the difficulties and the concerns many people have shared with me have. Thank you. Thank you. Hugh, do you want to come in next? Thanks, Chair. Obviously this is a prime location at the very heart of the village and as such is the focus of a lot of interest. The Community Council overwhelmingly opposed the application. As Matthew Phillips has pointed out, the principle of development on the site is not in doubt because of the location, the nature of the site. I have a number of concerns. One, the highway concern that Ross has referred to. We're spending a lot of time at the moment with highways and discussing the impact of this particular junction. I think my other concern is in terms of the nature and the design and the layout. And if I understood Matthew correctly, he said that the indicative layout would be supportive. But I do agree with the comments that he's made in the report, that the situation, the siting of the houses reversing onto the road would be totally inappropriate in that particular area. So my view is that a committee would benefit from a site visit. I also believe that given the sensitivity of the site and the significant number of reserve matters that are sensitive, that those reserve matters would need to come back to committee for final determination given, as I say, the sensitivity of this site. And for that reason, I think that the committee would benefit from a site visit, and I support Councillor Sheppard in that request. Obviously, like him, I've got concerns about affordable housing because affordable housing is desperately needed right in the heart of the community. And if anywhere is going to have affordable housing, you'd want to put it in the centre of the community where people have easy access to public transport. But again, because we're not at that position, I understand that the comments being made that we cannot insist on affordable housing, which is a shame. And it demonstrates the need for us to get our supplementary planning guidance into place as soon as possible. I also have concerns about the trees. As it's been transpired now, the previous owner of the site demolished a huge number of trees. And whilst they weren't listed trees or, yeah, they weren't listed trees, they did have a significant impact on the nature and the character of the environment of the village. And that's what really concerns me about this site, given that sensitivity. So just to summarise, Chair, my request is for a site visit and for reserve matters to come back to the committee. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jones. I'll ask Matthew just to respond to some of those points. I think, you know, quite clearly the reserve matters application will be advertised as a normal planning application. And if there are sufficient objections or whatever, and or a request from the local members, it would come back to committee. And I'm sure there will be observations put forward. I just wonder whether the site visit is better at the reserve matter stage when, you know, we're only dealing with the principle that now we're not dealing with anything on the detailed side, such as the access, the layout and so on. I think to clarify, Matthew did say that the indicative layout wouldn't be supported. Yeah, it wouldn't be supported. And that's quite clear, because they're obviously, as you quite frankly pointed out, there needs to be turning within the site and so on and so forth. I won't steal Matthew's thunder on that. I'll ask Matthew to come back. But as you say, because it's just the principle we're dealing with. And as you said, the principle is not in doubt. We can't really. I just think it would be more beneficial to see the site, have a site visit without preempting the reserve matters when we see what layout we've got and where the access is likely to be. But Matthew. Just in terms of the reserve matters, as the chair has already outlined, you know, if we had a sufficient number of objections or if either of you as local members requested that to come before committee, then it would. And I suspect that we would, given that the same neighbours would be notified as we're notified about this application, I think it's probably likely we would end up with a with a similar number of representations anyway. So I think it's highly likely that that application would come before before planning committee in due course. And just just in terms of that layout, I understand the issues. And yeah, the position is that we wouldn't if that layout if we're dealing with a full application of that layout was proposed as part of reserve matters application, it's unlikely we would be supporting it for the reasons that are set out in the report. But we have an opportunity to have a look at that again in more detail at reserve matter stage. Granting permission tonight doesn't commit you or as a committee or us as officers to a particular layout. There are a number of issues that would need to be addressed at reserve matter stage. One very clearly being the relationship between the remaining trees on the site and also with the boundary of the conservation area. The report suggests it would be far more preferable to have dwellings fronting onto that part of the site, given that's really the key character of of of the center of Rossett, really where where development fronts onto onto onto highways and key roads. So that's that's something which we would want to insist upon. And certainly if that didn't happen, then it's very likely that the reserve matters will be recommended for refusal. So that's something which would be very key at reserve matter stage. The other are issues which the Highways Authority have raised just in terms of the the design of the access, but also in terms of internal layout to ensure turning, particularly for the service vehicles, refuge vehicles in particular. But all of those matters can be dealt with at reserve matter stage. The site's big enough to be able to accommodate that. And if you grant permission tonight, you're granting permission for granting permission for a net increase of nine. So a maximum of 10 dwellings, which, again, we're not committed to approving that number at a later stage at reserve matter stage. If a different number is what is needed to make the site work, that is what would have to happen in order to address those design issues in terms of the highway safety. Again, I can understand given particularly given the existing junction arrangements, the Holt Road and Chester Road junction arrangement, which is complicated by the access to and from the co-op, which is awkwardly located. And that's very much why the new access is proposed versus the reuse of the existing access. It would eliminate one potential source of vehicular conflict. And although the new access would serve more dwellings, so there would be an uplift in traffic compared to the existing situation. In reality, a development of this scale will generate only a modest amount of traffic at peak times. And similarly, throughout the rest of the day, the access is onto a very straight stretch of road. The visibility splays can be provided in both directions. And as I mentioned initially, it's a 20 mile an hour section of road as well. So that very much reflects why the highway authority hasn't raised concerns about the safety of the access. I appreciate that the centre of Rosset and certainly Chester Road is a relatively busy area in the village. But when considering a new access, the key thing, whether it's safe or not, is whether it provides adequate visibility, whether it's geometry is appropriate and whether there are any other issues which can't be addressed through design. All of those matters can be addressed at reserve matters stage. So I think we would struggle to be able to justify a highway safety reason for refusal, particularly as that's not something that's not a concern colleagues have raised. I understand the issue of the trees, but again, that would be a reserve matters issue in terms of protecting those existing trees within the site. And we can also secure through the net benefit to biodiversity scheme, which you will see is covered by condition six. That would also be something which would secure additional planting in and around the site. And just to reassure members as well, in terms of a number of those conditions, the scheme of boundary treatment, which is required by condition five, the net benefit to biodiversity scheme, which is required by condition six, would be matters which the wording of the condition requires those details to be designed as an integral part of the reserve matters. So you would have an opportunity to review those details as part of that reserve matters application as well. In terms of highways, I don't know if there's anything that colleagues in highways wanted to add to what I've already said on that. But overall, I think, you know, I think we have an appropriate scheme in principle here, and the details will be a matter which you can give further consideration to at a later stage. Thank you, Matthew. Mark. Yeah, on page 28, it explains there are no contributions expected for affordable housing. As there's no supplementary planning guidance in place, that's been raised. And it's also mentioned that it's in conflict with future Wales 2040 policy on this matter. Although again, it's explained that there's no stipulation about the numbers of affordable housing that's needed. I guess what I'd like to ask is when will the supplementary planning guidance be in place? Because I think we're missing a chance here to make sure that we build up a fund for affordable housing. We did have supplementary planning guidance from the UDP. I'd imagine it would be a fairly simple matter to adapt that without too much trouble. So it would be really useful to know when we're going to have an SPG in place so that we don't miss out on this size of developments, because we were in danger of seeing a lot of developments of nine homes otherwise, to avoid this sort of contribution. I think that was something I raised a call over. Have you got any timescale on the SPG? Because we are losing out on affordable housing on the smaller scale. I'm not able to give you a definitive timescale, but a draft is at a relatively advanced stage, but it's not just an affordable housing SPG. I think as members of the policy panel will recall, it has been done as an integrated infrastructure SPG, which includes education. And although we did have the basics of some drafts quite some time ago, they've had to be revisited in light of the latest census information. There is also more up-to-date figures in terms of the contributions the education department will be looking for. And those figures will also have to be considered in terms of how that affects the overall viability of affordable housing contributions as well. So it's not a straightforward update of what we've had previously. We have to make sure we're coordinating all of the infrastructure requirements to ensure that we don't undermine one of the requirements by doing something else with the other. What I have asked the policy lead to do is to convene relatively soon an update following the previous policy panel meeting that we had I think in February to give an update in terms of progress with SPGs and update timetable. So it's not imminent, but I think we are making quite substantial progress towards having that SPG. Thank you, Chair. I was pleased by the points that were raised and obviously the response to those points as well because I was concerned about the indicative site layout because normally with the outline planning you don't see that detailed here because a lot of that is health and reserve matters. I wouldn't support a site visit because I think the issue of highways, and there's a lot of detail in this report about highways, they've identified all the problems, haven't they? And there's information in there about when we see the full planning application. There's leaning towards a highway crossing and various things like that. So I think a site visit potentially if planning committee are minded at the time of considering that full application of a site visit, I think there's a lot of information that we can get assurance on at that point. I think it's premature really to have a site visit now. I think the discussion on affordable housing is an interested one, and I really welcome the comments from the lead member for planning because this SPG work is a heavily resourced piece of work as well. So if there's a commitment there for that work to be resourced and prioritised, I would really welcome that. We're going into a performance report at the end, and we know the department is really struggling with resources because, yeah, we have missed out. There's a 30% requirement in this area for affordable housing, and obviously I think we do realise that the saga of the LDP has delayed that SPG work. You can't put SPGs in place until you have an adopted LDP. That's how it works. The only other issue as well, and I would ask if I don't believe there's a need for an applicant's note here, but I would just ask the applicant to take note of the three officers' comments in this report because that's where the crucial objection is, isn't it, and if they can take that away and work on that because that is the concern that I had with this, but I was heartened by the officers' confirmation regarding where our local planning authority stood on that indicative site layout. So thank you. But based on that, I'm happy to move the officers' recommendation. Thank you, Chair. Is that seconded before I carry on with the debate? That's seconded, okay. Thank you. Who have I got next? Councillor David Bitter. Thank you, Chair. Questions on flood issues. What percentage of this land covers the flood plain? And I know you're set at 0.2, I think in the report, 0.26 metres above the lowest part of the site. So how many roughly how many dwellings would be affected by the flood risks in this area? Thank you. Well, it has been put to NRW. I've got no objection to what's being proposed, but, Matthew, if you want to. The plan on page 26 shows the extent of the area, which is covered. I appreciate that maybe you don't have it as a colour. I don't know the exact percentage, and without getting my scale rule out, I'm not able to give you that, but it's probably it'd be less than 20% of the site area, and it may be in the region of around about 10%. It's along the very north western edge of the site. So it's that sort of shaded area in the northwest corner of the site and a few small areas around that boundary as well. But just in terms of how many dwellings would be affected, then we have an indicative plan. So it would be possible to design the site layout to ensure that no dwellings are affected by that area and also the requirements recommended by NRW are taken account of in full. So, again, that's something which would be looked at at reserve matter stage and the report very much sets out really an expectation that that's something which the applicants would consider again at reserve matter stage. So there's no reason to conclude that any of the dwellings would be at any significant risk of flooding. Again, it would have to go back to NRW at the reserve matter stage for their final scrutiny and look at. Okay, Graham. Thank you, Chair. I'm afraid on this occasion I have to disagree with Councillor Davis as regards a site visit. I think a site visit is an integral part of this particular application and I've taken on board the comments by the two local members, Councillor Jones and Councillor Sheppard and I'm also observing what's on page 13 as regards access, site layout, visibility, vehicle tracking, parking, road safety. I don't envisage an issue as regards the sustainable transport options. I've also noted page 14 the comments raised by the conservation officer and also the tree officer. And with that, Chair, it would be favourable as far as the committee is concerned to have a site visit. So I'm proposing a site visit, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Graham. I think as far as the members are concerned, there's no problem with a site visit, but the timing of it is the important thing. And we've got nothing to look at. So we haven't got an access arrangement in place. We haven't got a site layout. They will come in at the reserve matter stage. So that to me seems a more sensible time to have a site visit, basically, because all we're looking at is if you like a concept. We haven't got any details. We haven't got any site layout. We've got no access arrangements. All that's part of the part of the reserve matters application. And if members are concerned that we won't get or there won't be sufficient objections put forward, I will give the two local members an assurance that if they wanted to come to committee, I will support that and it will come back because it is a sensitive location because it comes within the delegation. If there aren't objections, it comes within the chair's delegation. But I would support a site visit if it's required at the appropriate time of the reserve matters stage. But Graham, if you want to put that as an amendment now, I'm just thinking we're not going to see anything or have any plans to see because we haven't got the layout. We haven't got the access arrangements. I'm just thinking the reserve matters is the key really, but it's entirely up to you. Thanks. Thanks for that chair. Yeah, I can understand where you're coming from and I can accept what you're saying. However, if you can provide myself with the reassurance that some later stage, if need be, a site visit will be incorporated. Yeah, I can give you that assurance. Thank you chair. Okay. Anyone else? Yeah, Trevor first, I think, and then Brian. Oh, sorry. I didn't see him. He's behind me screen again. Go on Brian. You have to have a little hand on a stick that you can send around. I need some clarity chair. And I know that Matthew has made some comments about the trees and that, but reading the bottom of the last paragraph, page 22, it mentions PPW 12 and it mentions the last sentence actually states that where the site's been cleared prior to development, inspired diversity value should be deemed to have been as it was before any site investigations or clearness took place. I know what you said about the amendments in October. Was it just the amendment to paragraph 6.4.16? Because if it wasn't, I would regard, yes, it says that the applicant purchases the site in October 2021 and any works before then, you could not blame him for or her for that, but it wouldn't be there. If PPW 12 applied, the work undertaken since October 21 would be in the responsibility of the applicant. And so you can excuse the pre amendment, but you couldn't excuse the amendment after October. So therefore, does that mean that the biodiversity value should be deemed to have been as it was before any site investigations or clearness took place? Confused. The amendment to PPW 12, which introduced that advice in terms of not carrying out preemptive site clearance works, came in as part of the update in October 2023. So it would have been after the applicant had purchased the site by some two years and it was some months after the application had come in. So what we set out in the report is because of that, it would be unreasonable to apply that paragraph retrospectively because I think the applicant would very much have a reasonable defence, as it were, by being able to say, well, if I'd have known about that at the time, I'd have acted differently. They couldn't have known about that and acted differently because the amendment to the policy came in sometime after they purchased the site, sometime after they'd submitted the application, and certainly sometime after they'd done the works. Can I come back? You could argue that they would have been aware of the pre-amendment, couldn't they? The amendment was published in October 2023 and the site works were carried out, I think, sometime after October 2021 and certainly before the application came in, probably just over 12 months ago. So I'm not sure we could argue that they'd have been able to have taken account of the policy. The policy didn't come into force until October 2023. So I think we would be I think we'd be getting ourselves into quite a bit of difficulty by saying that they should have taken account of something which wasn't in force at the time they did the works. Thank you, Mr Chair. I can't help thinking we're putting the horse before the cart here because we've had so much concerns about the access to the site and yet we're saying let's go ahead and grant permission and then we worry about it afterwards. It says on page 20 something, 25, that the applicants have submitted an amended plan. Wouldn't it make sense for us to have cited that amended plan and then we can be comforted that the access is as it should be? I've listened to the local members and they seem to show concerns about the access and I'm going to second Graham's proposal that we have a site because it's now so that we can be reassured that the access is accessible. Otherwise, yeah, we need to explain. Graham withdrew on the assurance that there would be a site visit if required at the reserve matters stage. Yeah, but he hadn't heard me speaking then. He had another second. The issue that the highway authority raised with the plan was that although there was a visibility requirement in both directions, it showed the visibility splay crossing one of the proposed boundary walls. The reason why that was the case is that actually drawn the splay slightly longer than it needed to be. The amended plan is or the extract from that amended plan is shown as plan two on page 21, which shows the required visibility splays and shows that they are achievable largely within the adopted footway, actually, other than just within the mouth of the access itself. But yes, that plan is already before you. But bear in mind, it is an indicative plan. It's there to show that an access is achievable, but the finer grain details of that access will be before you as a reserve matters application. It will be something which we will be consulting colleagues in highways on before determining whether to support an application or not. And clearly, we would work with colleagues in highways to ensure that they're satisfied with the detailed design of that access before recommending that reserve matters are approved. It might well be, Trevor, that, you know, at some point, because of the location of the trees, the orientation of the houses until the reserve matters is in, that access might be shifted slightly one way or the other. So that's why it's difficult at this stage to come to any other conclusion. Are we going to come back? Just to thank Trevor for second in my site visit, but under the circumstances now we've had a reassurance. I'm quite happy chair. Have I got any other speakers? Anyone on screen? No. So the only proposition I've got is for grants, the officer's recommendation with an assurance that a reserve matter state, should there be still concerns outstanding, a site visit will take place or it will be, well, it'd be referred back to committee. It'll be up to committee to decide whether the site visit goes ahead. Okay. So, uh, all those in favor of the record. Second speaker hasn't arrived. So we'll go now to application four C. And this is P 2023 0 7 5 6, Ingle Dean, Wednesday lane, Marford. And we have, uh, Mr. Cameron Roberts coming to speak to us. Welcome Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chair, I'm Cameron Robson, as you've, uh, as you've mentioned, uh, one of the applicants and a thank you for letting me discuss this application for the erection of one new dwelling. Um, you've, you will have read the report and a notice that a recommendation, uh, be the permission be granted. So I'm not going to discuss that. Um, I understand that this application has been brought to you because the community council has raised a single objection. So I'd like to discuss this with you, please. When we made our original application, um, the new dwelling faced Wednesday lane and the community council raised 11 objections. We received advice from the highways, trees and ecology officers and the case officer Sharon Holman, uh, which I'd like to thank the council for. And we've reached a point where the case officer considered that we'd satisfied all the planning issues. However, the chief planning officer felt that its position in the street scene was cramped and not spacious. Accordingly, we moved the dwelling location to face Marford Hill in a 17 meter wide space. And on re-consultation, the community council stated in their minutes that they appreciated the work and changes that we'd made. And they reduced their concerns to a simple objection that this proposal constitutes overdevelopment. Um, firstly, before we discuss that, I'd like to point out that the new location that we've moved to is much better ecologically. Planning policy for Wales 12 has come in and it has a stepwise approach to reach reducing ecological impacts. Step one is to avoid damage and step two is to reduce it. The policy states that the applicant should maintain the largest possible area of existing habitat, supporting biodiversity and functioning ecosystems. The ecology officer was happy with our first proposal, but the new location is much, much better than that. It reduced the amount of garden that we're proposing removing by 35%. Returning to the community council's worry. I know that the local council would like you to have a site visit, but they only have one objection at the moment, which is overdevelopment. And my understanding is that overdevelopment relates to either overcrowding the site or having a negative impact on the local, uh, local neighborhoods' amenity. In relation to the site, Wrexham has rules to prevent overdevelopment. The main one requiring a garden area of at least 50 square meters. We are delivering a 175% more garden area than is required. And the case officer says that the proposal does not overwhelm the plot. And so I suggest that it's not overdevelopment. In relation to the local area, uh, I would hope that introducing one more dwelling, uh, doesn't adversely affect the amenity of an area which has many, uh, local public services. In fact, we do bring one significant, really significant amenity improvement. Pedestrians, in particular school children, pass in front of the current access point for Ingleton. They can't easily be seen by drivers. And I've noticed this myself because I parked, I parked there, um, because of the garages and walls, there's no visibility. And they even risk being hit by the gates and the doors, which open outwards into the roadway, which is a road that they can walk along. It's not really a road and a path that's separated. It's just all one space in that cul-de-sac. So this proposal removes all those garages, all the walls, all the gates. And the case officer states that this improves visibility and is a benefits highway and pedestrian safety. I hope therefore that you will agree that this revised proposal is not over development, but delivers ecological improvements and local community benefits. And so Mr. Chair, I hope that you and your committee will be happy to grant planning permission for us. Uh, thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Robson. Um, Matthew, John to come in. I'll either take the credit or the blame for the suggestion for the amendments, depending on how this goes rather than, rather than David. Um, but, um, I'll just, uh, cover a few points, um, principle of development it's within settlements. So, uh, no issues there, um, from design point of view, then certainly this isn't, this is an improvement over the, the initial scheme, um, by citing the dwelling in between the existing property and, and, uh, the red lion. I think the, the photo, the photographs or the elevation plans rather on page 53 show there would be a similar style property, uh, to, to both the red lion and, and the existing angle Dean, it, it fits well within that gap in terms of spacing and, and, and overall scale. Um, additionally, um, as, as the applicant mentioned, the, the garden space for both the existing property that's retained, um, is, is meets or is more than, than our, our minimum guidance standards. And there would also be a, a substantial garden remaining for the, or rather secured for the proposed dwelling. So it meets all of our amenity standards and, and certainly meets those standards in terms of relationship with neighboring properties. So it's an appropriate design. There's no adverse impact on, on neighboring amenity. Um, so, so in terms of all of those issues, um, the scheme is, is, is appropriate. The, um, the applicant touched upon the, the, the existing site constraints really in terms of access. And I think the photograph on page 54 illustrates those quite well, really, um, the, the property has a double garage, um, which has a vehicular access directly onto, onto the, the highway, which is really a, it's a, it's a, uh, a sort of stubborn connection between Chester road and Wednesday lane, which is now predominantly only used by pedestrians, but you would have vehicles. If, if, if those garages were used, you'd have vehicles potentially reversing straight out with minimal visibility, the existing boundary wall, um, in front of the parking space, which is, um, on that photograph is immediately to the right of the garages, um, is also, would also, um, inhibit visibility, both not only from a vehicular visibility point of view, but certainly more critically, perhaps given its location close to a primary school for pedestrians. So both of those, the garages and the wall would be removed. That area would become more open to the highway. It would serve as, as parking or rather access to both the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling, but the, the, the benefits in terms of improvements of visibility really far away. Um, what would be a modest additional increase in, in traffic movement arising from a single dwelling so that the development definitely does cure some, some really some quite substantial benefits in, in that location, in addition to being appropriate in terms of scale location design, um, from an ecology point of view and tree point of view, really as the applicant has already touched upon, um, there's, there's no concern from our, from our tree or ecology offices and the development office offers opportunity to cure enhancement through additional planting as well in terms of phosphorus. Then there's no concerns raised there. The, the, uh, site would drain to the last treatment works, which has the capacity, um, as does the wider network to accommodate the development without, um, without adverse impact on the SAC. Um, and in terms of affordable housing, then really the, the, the consideration and the issues are, are really identical to the application, which you've, you've just considered in, in Rossett. So, um, subject to the conditions, which, which are recommended in the report, um, the, the recommendation is to grant. Okay. Matthew, um, Madam Mayor, do you want to come in? Thank you, chair. Um, I would ask you if you would consider a site visit. Originally, the applicant was very keen to have a site visit. He thought they were done automatically, which they're not, of course. And I think you would benefit from seeing the size of the plot, whether you think it would accommodate another house. I also have, do have concerns about the access. It's an incredibly busy place, particularly in the morning and the afternoon. I don't know that the access is good at all, but I would like to welcome you to come along and have a look your experience, your knowledge, and then you will have a good idea of what the site is like. And that is the request from me today. Thank you. Okay. Uh, any other non-committee members? Okay. So I'll open it up to committee now then, uh, council David Beto. Thank you chair. What's a provision for parking on site? Is it because I understand this single yellow solid, solid light, solid lines, solid lines, either side of the highway and that's area chair. So can I have some understanding from the highways or the planning officer, what they're proposing to park parking on that location? Yeah, the, the parking provision for the proposed dwelling meets the maximum standard. It's a two proposed two bed dwelling, and there would be two parking spaces proposed. There would also be two parking spaces retained for the existing dwelling and in accordance with our local planning guidance, no garages don't count as parking spaces. So the existing dwelling actually only has one parking space. So there's, there's an improvement for the part in terms of the part number of parking spaces for the proposed dwelling as well. So overall, um, there is a, well, there's adequate parking and probably an improvement over the existing situation. Yes. Can I just have some clarity on page 51, please? Um, there was one represent, um, representation from a neighbor expressing concerns, but am I right in understanding that when the, um, varied design was submitted, that there was that application was, um, that objection was not carried forward. Was it with withdrawn? Um, and also as well, um, I wish we had some representative from the community council, to be honest, because I'm trying to understand the term overdevelopment when it relates to one property. That's really confusing. Can, can you offer any, um, support with that, uh, any advice on that, please? My final question is, um, with regards to the other matters, it talks about, um, planning permission, uh, planning condition for gigabit capable broadband from the outset. Can you just put that's a new planning condition for me, to be honest, can you point me to it in, in the conditions so I can flag that for future? Thank you. In terms of the, the neighbor objection, then, um, what we will have done with the amended plans is re notify them. Um, what we, what quite often happens is even if, um, a neighbor, you know, even if an amended plan addresses a neighbor, neighbor, neighbor's concerns, but they don't choose to make a further representation, either saying, I withdraw my original comment or my concerns have been addressed. We don't know whether they've, whether their comments have been addressed. And even if we think they have on the basis of the amended plan. So, you know, we would always err on unless, unless, uh, you know, a neighbor or group of neighbors explicitly tell us their comments have been, um, been withdrawn. We would probably always work on, on, on, on the, from, you know, from a perspective of caution that they're, they're, they're still objecting. So that's why that's, that's referred to there in terms of the community council. Then, um, they'll have, they'll have had their deliberations and come to their own conclusions based on, on the plans. I think all I can really do is reassure them and reiterate to you. And I think the, I think the plans in the report, both at the site plan on page 52 and the site and the, the street scene plan at the top of page 53, I think really illustrate, um, that this isn't a sort of overdevelopment of the site. I think the, if, if, if we had a concern about overdevelopment of the site, it would be because, you know, the property is crammed in and you couldn't provide either parking or adequate garden, or there was as a result of putting an additional unit on the site you were creating, you couldn't do it without adversely impacting upon a neighbor in some way. Um, all of those issues are, are really addressed and are acceptable in terms of this particular layout. So the community council have raised their concerns and, you know, and, and, and, you know, it, it's reasonable for them to express that view. Um, but, but I think, I think it's clear to me, certainly from, from the plans that have been submitted that those, those concerns are not really born out in the detail. Um, and certainly compared to the initial scheme, this is, I think this is, this is a much better development. And I think, um, you know, it will fit comfortably both in terms of the street scene and, and sort of our technical requirements for this type of development as well. Chair has just found the condition is condition nine. It will have also been, um, it should have been on the, on the other application and it will be on the final one, which we'll discuss as well. It's something which is, um, it's come in as a result of, um, future whales. So it will be something we'll be trying to ensure goes on every similar developments as this in future as well. Yes, thank you. Um, it would just, just for me in that, um, over development objection, it would have been, um, beneficial for the policy reference because looking at, um, you know, green space size and, and that in policy, um, this application more than complies with that. So I'm trying to identify, well, I'm trying to get in the head of the community council to understand the argument, to be honest. And I'm just, I'm just finding that, um, that difficult. So I think from a community council point of view, what would benefit us as planning committee, if policy was referenced so we can properly, um, and informatively consider that going forward. Um, I, uh, but, you know, on the responses that we've had and the, um, and the detail that we've had in the introduction, um, I'm, I'm happy to move officer recommendation and the report. Thank you, chair. Before I take other speakers, is that seconded? That's seconded. Okay. Uh, right. Matthew, did you want to come back? I think, uh, I think you're right. Uh, and it's perhaps something which going forward, um, when some of the staffing issues are not so pressing as well, maybe that's something we work. We need to do with the community councils going forward. So, you know, we have done that in the past in terms of having, uh, workshops with them and, and, and going through the planning process, um, and, and advising them on, you know, what, what they can and cannot, or should, or should not include within, within representations, you know, to help them engage with the process. So, um, point noted. And so I think that's something which that that's worked for us to have a look at with and engage with the community councils going forward. I think in terms of, although they haven't mentioned the policy, um, you know, we've assessed it under DM one, which covers that issue really in terms of really design issues. So I think if, if, um, if we were in a situation, I mean, we had a different scheme and we were agreeing with the community councils objections, we would be advising that as a conflict with, with that policy. So we just set that out in the report, but I think, yeah, that that's something which we can take up with, with the individual community councils, if they want that additional support, um, to, to assist them in, in terms of, uh, content of their responses, that that's something we can, we can certainly do Trevor. Thank you chair. Can I ask, is there a sufficient room to pull in and turn before you go out to the property again, or will one of those actions have to be reversing the access arrangements would be having a reversal onto onto that section of road, but it's not a through road as it were, it's really used in terms of vehicles. It will be used mostly either as a parking area for people during the school pickup and drop off period. And for anybody, um, just casually parking in the area or using it as a turning area, but, but the existing access has that, has that arrangement already. So, um, it's no different than would occur. Um, you know, if this development didn't go ahead, you would have vehicles reversing in and out of that access at the moment. Councillor Graham Rogers. Thank you chair. It's unusual. Again, I have to disagree with Councillor Davis. It's very unusual, but that's life. Unfortunately, I'm looking at page 54 and in relation to four lines on page 55, which reads as follows, the existing garage and boundary wall would be demolished to alter access to serve both the existing and proposed dwellings. This would improve visibility and be of benefit to highway and pedestrian safety. I'd also like to address the point that's accounts that ID Biffle made in relation to the bend. So consequently, for peace of mind, I would propose a site visit. Thank you chair. Okay. Is the site visit seconded? Not seconded. Okay. Second up chair. Thank you. Right. So are there any other speakers before I take it forward? No. Okay. Well, I've had to, I've had the proposition for the officer's recommendation and an amendment for a site visit on the grounds of highway safety, presumably. And, uh, while we're there, we may as well look at the effect on the street scene in terms of, um, that aspect as well. So can I have a show of hands, please, for those in favor of the amendment, which is for a site visit? Two, three, four, five. Those against. Right. Are you sure? Can we take the vote for the site visit again? I don't want to be accused of one, two, three, four, five, six. Six for a site visit. Those against. One, two, three, four, five. We can do some extensions. Can we just take the four for the office for the officer's recommendation with it? No, we're dealing with against the site visit. Right. Those against the site visit. Please, please make it clear. I start there. One, two, three, four, five. Right. So the site visit is six, four, five against. So the site visit is carried. Okay. And the abstentions on that one abstention. Okay. So there will be a site visit that will take place on the 14th of June. Uh, time to be determined. Okay. Can you please, um, bearing in mind, we have to have a quorum of eight. Can we please make sure that at least eight at present? Okay. So that's that one. So we now go back to the other application, uh, which is on pages 33 to 48. This is application P-2023-0662, Versham Sports and Social Club, Versham Road, Versham. So Matthew, if you want to introduce it, please. The site's within the settlement limits. So in terms of principle of development, um, it's acceptable. Um, we do have an LDP policy, which, which does seek to resist loss of community facilities, which obviously this development would inevitably do if the develop, if it went ahead. However, there are certain criteria, which, which much need must need to be met. The applicant has put forward evidence that the existing business is, is not viable. Uh, in addition to that, there are a range of other facilities in the, in the nearby locality. So on that basis, the requirements of the policy are met from a layout and design point of view. The scheme very much, um, is in an area where there was a mix of styles, although the gable roofs are a predominant style, the style of dwelling would, would reflect that in particular. And again, on page 39, we've included some elevation plans for the, the two dwellings, which would front onto Bursham road. And they really, uh, accord with the general character of the area in terms of their design and scale. So from that point of view, the development would make a positive contribution to the appearance of the site. The site's not within the conservation area, but it is, it is on the edge of, so it would also make a positive contribution to the, the setting of the conservation area as well. So it would accord with the relevant LDP policy. They would need to be a scheme of soft and hard landscaping and appropriate scheme of boundary treatment, but that's something which could be secured by an appropriately worded condition. In terms of residential amenity, then the relationship with neighboring properties is appropriate and would accord with our adopted standards. So there'd be no concerns in terms of overlooking loss of light or overbearing impacts. There would be no loss of significant trees. There's no objection from the tree officer or from the ecology officer subject to a number of planning conditions. So no tree or ecology concerns in terms of highways. The access would be provided with adequate visibility in, in both directions. This would be a new access and it would replace the existing access arrangements to the site, but the highway authority have confirmed that the visibility would be appropriate. It's also a sustainably located or relatively sustainably located site in terms of accessibility to, to public transport. There are a number of concerns that the highway officer has raised in terms of really clarification on the, the, the, the, the, the need for vehicular access to the substation or rather, or particularly in terms of the frequency for that, which I think is very likely to be for maintenance only. The need to relocate an existing bus stop. So that would be something which can be secured by condition and the turning head within the development is marginally below the, the adoptable highway standards. So that there, there's a point of clarification for 0.1, 0.2 could be dealt with by condition. 0.3 is a matter which would need a very small change to the, the, the existing plan. So I'll cover the other issues and then sum up on, on that particular point. In terms of drainage, then surface water will be dealt with via the SAB arrangements. There's adequate capacity at five forwards on the wider network to ensure the development wouldn't adverse the impact on the River Dee and Balla Lake special area conservation. As I mentioned earlier, there's no ecology concern subject to some measures being secured by appropriately worded condition. This isn't an area where policy H2 requires affordable housing, either onsite for larger developments or through commuted sums subject to the SPG. The education department has confirmed that financial contributions will be required that could be secured by an obligation sites, not within a flood risk area. So the recommendation is subject to the submission of the amended plans to address the highway issue and the planning obligation. The permission is granted. We're requesting delegated authority to grant the application subject to consulting with highways upon the submission of those, those really what a minor amendments and also subject to the conditions outlined in the reports. Thank you, Matthew. Is this one of yours, Mark? You don't want to speak on it. Okay. Councillor Paul Pemberton, are you wishing to speak on this one? You're joining, aren't you? You're okay with it. Okay. That's fine then. So I'll open it up to committee. If any members wish to speak. David. Can the officer clarify on page 38, the site plan, you've got a blue section there. What can you identify? I can't see what it is on this poor mapping system. Can you tell me what it is please? Is it play area or what? The shaded area to the rear of the plots on the right-hand side or between those plots. That's the area which would be set aside for surface water drainage. So is it possible to have a flood plain there, is it? It would be something which would be dealt with in detail via the, by the SAB application, but it's, it's the area where the, the applicants would, would put their surface water drainage infrastructure to comply with, with the SAB requirements. Okay. So you're not, are you requiring any future plants in the trees there? Because it looks a bit bland as the sites to me, you know, it needs to enrich the area with more trees there, I would have thought. There's a condition to require a hard and soft landscaping scheme, which would include tree hedgerow planting as well as boundary wall features and, and such like. And then Graham. Yeah. Can I just ask, with it being a sports and social club, are we aware of any covenants on the land that could impact the development of the land? Would that be a consideration? Covenants wouldn't come into planning as such. Okay. Thank you. Graham. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. I'm just looking at page 40, 43 with a two recommendation recommendation and recommendation B and going back to the point that Mr. Phillips has made reference to as regards bullet point three on page 41, that the dimension of the existing turning head being made marginally below the standard suitable for, for adoption by the highway authority. We're not having this information at hand. May I suggest where the committee and where the yourself as chair will be in agreement, but could, may I suggest that we defer this matter until we got some more meat on the bone as regards bullet point three. Thank you chair. I don't think Graham it would, it wouldn't be granted without that being resolved. That's the whole point of recommendation. They it's subject to the additional information coming in. So we would have to have that before planning permission would be granted. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Any other speakers? No. Anyone prepared to move recommendation officer's recommendation? You're moving it down. Yeah. Apologies. Um, move office or recommendation chair. Okay. Anyone seconding it? Yeah. Okay. Other than the amendments, no amendments. Okay. So remember if you're not supporting the application, you need to put reasons forward. Um, that is our normal practice as we have to. So the, uh, proposal is, uh, for granting in accordance with the recommendations shown on page

1. All those in favor. Six, seven, eight, nine, 10. Those against abstentions. 10 and three. That's it. That's 13. Okay. So that's granted. [inaudible] We now move on to agenda item five. Do you want a five minute break now or would you rather have it once we dealt with this item because we have put a couple of members that are here just specifically for this move on. Okay. Okay. Who's taking this? Is it David? Right. This is probably really a new thing for us in that we haven't had this development in national significance regime has been in for a number of years now. We haven't had one under this regime in Rexham before. Um, just to clarify before moving on though, we don't, oh, there isn't an application before, before, well before PEDU at the moment. Um, there is an application which is likely to come in and the, the, the timescales we've been given were early June, although it hasn't yet been, or we haven't had notification from PEDU that that has been submitted. Um, but just to clarify in terms of process this, because of the scale of this development, it will be determined by, by ultimately by, by Welsh ministers. Um, the application will be submitted to PEDU. We will be notified about it, uh, both as, as a local authority and also, uh, ward members would be made aware of it, as part of the consultation process and given an opportunity to comment. Um, the, um, inspector appointed by, um, by the minister would consider all of the representations submitted, all of the technical documents that have been submitted, all of the response from technical and statutory consultees, as well as the local impact report, which the local authority are required to prepare and ultimately make a, uh, uh, or rather submit a report with a recommendation to, um, to Welsh ministers. The decision to grant or refuse planning permission would ultimately be made by the Welsh ministers. Um, so, um, in terms of the, the DNS process, um, once it's submitted to PEDU, um, we, we will be published. We are made aware of it at that point. There is a five week publicity period, which would commence at that point. And during that period, letters will be sent to consultees, to community councils and to any other interested parties. Press notice would be, um, would be displayed and notification sent to nearby owners and occupiers very much in a similar way to how we would deal with, with, with planning applications ourselves. Um, the local impact report is something which we as an authority have to complete within five weeks. There's a, so there's a very strict deadline for us to be able to do that. And paragraph 3.2, uh, sets out and 3.3 sets out really what the expectations are, uh, for, uh, for that local impact report. In addition, um, if we complete the local impact report and submit it to PEDU within, um, within the five week period, we get an application fee or we get, we get paid a fee of, um, 7,750 pounds to do that. If we miss that deadline by 14 days, then we, um, we would only get half of that fee. And if we missed the deadline by more than 14 days, then we wouldn't get the fee at all under the current scheme of delegation really very much reflect in the fact that this isn't something we've had to deal with before. Um, the, the, uh, the scheme of delegation doesn't cover a local impact reports for developments and national significance at all. The reason for requesting this now is very much in anticipation of having that application sometime over the summer. Um, and given the time periods within which we, um, which we've been, we work for the committee cycle, the committee reports are prepared, um, by the offices, some, some usually around about two weeks before each of these committee meetings. Um, so we would be under a very tight time scale, particularly over the summer when, when we don't have a meeting in August to be able to meet that, uh, five week deadline, um, which clearly not, not doing that would have financial implications to the service, but would also, um, potentially have an impact on the overall determination of, of this application as well. So what we're outlining is a, um, is a recommendation that we are given delegated authority to undertake that local impact report and submit it when the, when we're made aware of the application that would be subject to consultation with the chair and vice chair and having also notified the local member for the relevant, the local members rather for the relevant wards. Um, members should be aware that that process is actually very similar to the one that we currently use for environmental impact assessment screening and scoping. So it's very much borrowed from a clause already in the, in the delegation scheme, but just to reassure, um, members about this process, we are not giving a view on whether the proposals are acceptable or not in, in the round, although we do have to indicate whether certain impacts are positive, neutral or negative. That would be a technical assessment undertaken by offices, probably, unfortunately myself, um, in this instance. Um, so that, that's, that's what, that's what we would do, but it wouldn't, um, prohibit or, or prevent individual local members, both for the wards concerned or for adjoining wards or the wider County borough from engaging in the consultation process and expressing their own, uh, views on that as local members, it wouldn't prevent the wider community councils or local residents from, from similarly expressing their, their views. And depending on, um, the, the matters considered by the inspector and, and the issues that are raised during that consultation process, the, the inspector may well, um, undertake a hearing or an inquiry, um, for those matters for matters raised in representations to be considered. Um, and again, local representative, local, local members, uh, community councils and local residents would be able to participate in that, in that, um, process in due course as well. So it doesn't inhibit, as I said, it doesn't inhibit people from expressing a view, whether that's in support or, or objection when, when the time comes. Uh, so I think, yeah, I think that's a good summary of what's in the report. Do you want to add anything David at this stage? You're all right here. Uh, I mean, the thing that's concerned me to some extent was because I've, I've been through one of these on the Rexham industrial estate, but the gas fired power station, when that was being proposed and we had a three day hearing held at red with a tower. Um, and of course they, they do pick up on what's been submitted by the County borough council. So I was just a bit concerned until Matthew was giving me the reassurance that we're not actually coming forward with a view to say, yes, we're in favor of it. No, we're objecting to it. It's just an objective report in terms of factual information. The only one that's, you know, the, the local designations relevant to the site listing on the bottom of page 64, the history of the site, all those are straightforward factual information, which can't really be disputed. The only one that I have a bit of concern over is the likely impact of the DNS development on the area. And that can be more subjective, can't it? You know, what I think is perhaps horrendous, somebody else might think is acceptable and vice versa. So that's the only one that worried me, but I did check with Matthew before coming to committee today, whether or not if the council was so minded, they could, when it's out for advert in terms of consultation, the council as a body could actually support it or object to it depending on which way they would go. And that's a, that's a possibility which can be done, whether it would be through the planning committee process or whether it would be through the executive board as a political decision is something we'd have to look at, I think. But it's not as though tonight you're giving a green light for it or against it. It's just that that will give you the, as I understand it, will give you the opportunity when it's out on deposit to put forward a corporate view as a council. It doesn't stop individuals as well, obviously, but I was just keen on that because I don't want people to run away with the idea that whatever we say tonight is going to support it or object to it. Okay. So we've got a couple of local members, I think, uh, we've got, uh, Councillor Mark, Richard, Councillor Paul Pempson. Are you here for this one, Paul? You must be, I suppose. I think he is. Yeah. Well, I've only got a comment on it, then I can leave you in peace if you'd let me do it first. I've had a conversation with, uh, Matthew this morning, um, and I just want 100% reassurance that this, uh, isn't part of the scheme that forthcoming, which would be by the cricket club for the battery storage. I looked at the appendix seven on the maps and what have you, um, they're not very clear and they look a bit muddy and I just want, uh, 100% reassurance is not for that. And if it's not for that, I should leave the meeting. Thanks. Okay. Can you answer that one? The red line for this proposal wouldn't include the land by, for the battery storage area by the cricket club. That's subject to a separate application. That's that's with us for consideration at the moment that application will come before this planning committee for it, for its own decision in due course. So the two are, um, the two are not directly linked in that sense. So, um, this wouldn't, so, you know, so if you decide to give us the delegated approval to carry out this local impact report, you're not inhibiting this committee's ability to consider, uh, that applicant, that separate application on its own merits in due course. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, mark, do you want to come in or, and I've got, uh, Anthony wedlake after you. Thank you chair. Thank you committee for allowing me to speak this, this evening on this application. Can I say I'm surprised that the recommendation 5.1 is in front of us here this evening because the first I knew about it, uh, is when I seen the report that the local members, uh, having been informed by, uh, by offices, uh, couple with exclusion, ponky and Ross Ward. I think we should have been spoken to first because we are the local elected members through the democratic process. And I'm disappointed that we went, but I'm sitting here in front of you today to raise our concerns. Coming back to the recommendations. I won't support them, but it isn't in my gift. It's in your gift. And Matthew, the planning officer has said, uh, this is the first one to come through. You're quite right. And we're setting a president here and what concerns me chair. And I went to all the presentations, uh, in the community hall and what they were saying, the applicant that they're working in partnership with Rexham council and Rexham council in fully support of the application. So I'd like an answer on that because if you are, you're not impartial. And it says in the report, you've had conversations with them. Now, what concerns me here? You're diluting the elected members opportunity to have a discussion because if you read the recommendations carefully, which I do, and the wording is very important, uh, give a delegated authority, uh, to the chief office, the economy and planning, um, to prepare and submit a local impact report following consultation with the chair and vice chair. That's fine. And having informed the local members from Kapoor exclusion, punkie and Ross, in other words, we're telling you, and we're going to submit it anyway. I hope that the planning committee here this evening, uh, don't support it and request that everything comes back to this committee. If you look at what's being proposed in front of you, it's a gigantic development. Let's not underestimate that. And it concerns me the ecology, biodiversity, highways, everything, which should be part of this, not in front of us. So why would we want to, as elected members, give delegation? I think it's dangerous. It frightens me actually. And the planning process is here and the planning decision should be made at this committee. And I don't like delegations powers because in the past history tells us that once the officers have delegation and run away with themselves, they, they do not bring it back to the committee and development proceeds. And that's why I'm sitting here in front of you. So can I ask, I did ask a question early on with regards to the input. It says in the report you've spoken to, they're making it clear that in the public domain, you made it clear in the presentation that they were working with Rexham council and Rexham council support it. So I'd like an answer on that, but also with regards to the delegation, you know, it should come back to this committee and to be Frank, the money and the finance doesn't wash with me. You know, you've put it in the report as a justification why you should do it. Look at what they're proposing here. Shouldn't money shouldn't matter. It really shouldn't. And it does concern me chair, but I think I've made me point. I won't support it. I'll be pushing hard against it. It scares me and it should scare all of you in this room. It should come back to this committee. You're diluting the, the planning committee's decision-making process and delegation in this instance. And I understand the delegation with regards to a small extension or building a garage, but look what they're proposing here on who knows this better than the local members or local impact report. We know I've lived in North Sutherland exclusion, Bursham, Averary, Pinchbrook and army life, Paul was the couple of members. We know it better than anybody. And I did say earlier on, I was disappointed. There's been no discussion with myself, all the other elected members. They can speak to themselves about this report. The first I seen it was when it come in front of us, we will have an opportunity in the future to make representation with the five weeks. What you've said is correct, but now is the time for this committee to take control of this planning application and really get to grips with it and understand what's going on here. I could go on chair, but I want, there's so many unknowns here and there's a lot of unknowns. And I think it would be foolish to move forward until we know what we're supporting. Thank you, chair. Okay. Thank you for that. Councillor Wedley. As I can only speak once, can I just defer to hear the answer to that first, please, if that's possible chair. Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. What did you say? Sorry. As I know, I'm only speak once. Could I defer until I hear the response for Councillor Pritchard's questions before I speak? Cause I can only speak once. I think you heard what Councillor Pritchard said. I mean, obviously it's not a matter for the committee to determine the application. It will go back to Welsh ministers, but um, could you just explain the tight time scale we've got for responding with this, um, with this LIR? I think it's five weeks. Just to be clear, this isn't, this report isn't a planning application. We don't have a planning application before us and you as a committee, even if you don't accept this this evening, you won't have a planning application before you to consider. That's not how the, the, the, the development of national significance process works. The DNS process gives the, gives the power to determine the application to a planning inspector and onto the minister. Um, so the, the, the, when the, the, the process that we've gone through for all of the other applications this evening, that's effectively undertaken by, by, by PDU and the, the, um, the substitute as it were for the committee process would be ultimately would be any hearings or inquiries that the inspector holds to consider specific issues. So, um, if you give us the delegated authority this evening, you're not giving approval for an application nor actually are you, nor actually are you refusing. That's not, that's not what's been asked. Um, in terms of, um, what, what's been communicated to the, the applicants, we did deal with a pre-application inquiry, I think probably as far back as, uh,
2. Uh, and we've set out in that the key policy considerations, which would have been slightly different at the time because it was before the UDP was superseded by the LDP. Um, I think I checked it this afternoon. Um, I'm not able to, to give you the full chapter and verse of what was in it. It indicated that there was no objection in principle. However, there were a number of technical issues which needed to be addressed, including ecology, including trees, landscape considerations, and so on. Um, and that would be pretty normal for a pre-application discussion or pre-application response, but that response is given without prejudice ultimately to the minister's decision on, on this. Um, but just to come back and reassure you, you're not committing yourself to this authority's position. This is a technical assessment or a technical report that will be produced by officers. As I said, probably likely myself, um, to comply with the local impact report requirements. We have five weeks to deal with it. Um, the financial thing does concern me more than perhaps it does the council leader, but, um, that, that's obviously simply because budgetary considerations are quite tight and application fees are what fund this department's activities. Um, so it is, it is a, it is a consideration, but that said, we have five weeks and, and, you know, it's, it's there to ensure the process operates smoothly and efficiently. And we wouldn't be able to bring this if this application comes in over the next couple of weeks, we simply wouldn't be able to bring it to committee within five weeks. It would be unreasonable to expect us as officers to turn this around in two weeks or less to ensure it's on that committee agenda. You know, the earliest committee you would get this to would be September. Um, if, if that came in, um, over the course of the summer, um, but it doesn't, but in terms of the role of individual local members, it does not diminish that role in any way. All of the local members concerned would have an opportunity to make those representations. As I mentioned, the council as a political body also would have the opportunity within that five weeks as, as I've given the reassurance to the chair of, to come together and set out its position. That would be a political decision, not an officer, not, not an officer, uh, report, but it would be, um, the councils in the council's gift to be able to set out its position as to whether it's objects or not. And that, that wouldn't be in any way undermined by the local impact report. As I said, it's a technical, uh, assessment identifying which technical issues are relevant to development. Um, in addition to things like site history and, um, you know, and, and, and all of the other matters, uh, you know, it would look probably very similar to a committee report and it would be conducted in a very similar way to how we construct the committee report, but it doesn't diminish the role of the elected member in any way in terms of how they engage with, with this process. And, and just as an aside, you know, this, this isn't what, what, what, what's, what is being proposed here isn't sort of out of the order. It isn't something that I've, I've, you know, plucked out of thin air. Um, I've done some research in terms of North, North Wales and how we're proposing to deal with this is, is actually very similar to how certainly Denbyshire who have had quite a few of these over, over recent years deal with them. They have full delegated authority to do the local impact assessment, which, uh, or report rather, which knowledge is the tight timescales we have to submit them. Okay. Is that clear for you, Anthony? Do you want to come in now? Thank you, chair. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Um, I was a little bit surprised that I hadn't seen an earlier site of the document, but I have to say, and I should say for the record that every meeting I've had, and as you can imagine, both myself and Councillor Charles have been heavily involved, both directly in the consultation indirectly by talking to residents. Um, we've never had anybody suggest there's any, um, um, um, unqualified support from officers of this council for, for, for the development. I think it's important to, to emphasise that. And I think it's also important to emphasise, we've just been on a, we've recently had a workshop on, on, on regional energy strategy, and I would have thought this is a very important development to, not, not withstanding that I think my main point of coming today is to demonstrate both my, my engagement on behalf of the residents are quite, quite looking back, but also my intention to be fully engaged in the process, uh, going, going forward. Um, but what I would highlight and of particular concern to myself, uh, are the two main things that residents are concerned on. The, the, the first is that quite late entry of battery storage on this application as well. So it didn't form part of the original and preliminary consultation. And there's very limited information available during that consultation, uh, to, to what technology is used and how new it is. Um, and secondly, whilst the, if, if, if, if actually approved the impact on the creation of rat runs at rush hour and the like while the facility is being improved, uh, be being built. And I think they, they are collectively the main two, uh, uh, concerns. I think there are a number of other concerns that, that different groups within our community, uh, have. Um, but, but I will, I will ensure that their, their views are best represented during the process. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Anthony. I'll, I'll open it up to the committee now. Um, and we've heard various views and I can understand the reluctance and concerns on, on these sorts of things, but it is purely, it's simply the tight five week time scale, isn't it? Um, Dan, did you want to come in now? Yeah, thank you, chair. I've got to, we've got to be really, really careful here, aren't we? Because Wexham County Board of Council isn't the local planning authority. They, they separate. Um, and I understand we've got the local energy plan coming to exec board this, this month. And obviously strategic energy security, um, agendas form part of that, um, local energy plan and that feeds into the, the regional plan. So there is a question of, um, you know, when, when that debate becomes an all whales debate on energy security, it's where that decision's made. Um, and what the officers have, how I'm understanding it, um, what the officers are trying to explain to us with this report now is that there's a process for our local planning authority to follow. Um, and all we do now is basically given delegated authority to the chief officer as part of that local planning authority process. Um, so that, um, as the local, one of the local members said that consultation process and all those voices can be heard as part of the informed decision that ultimately the inspector makes. So on that basis, I'm more than happy to move that we give as a planning committee, the delegated authority to the chief officer, um, so that we can complete our responsibilities as part of the local planning authority process. Thank you chair. Okay. Trevor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We haven't even got a planning application yet. We don't know how it's going to affect who, what or where. Um, I really think this, this committee should have a say in the report that goes forward. I certainly won't be supporting the proposition. Um, why would we, why would we say, right, carry on. It sounds like we've been blackmailed into a corner here because we've got such a tight timescale and we're going to lose money if we don't do it. It's um, if it was a telephone call for somebody offering me central heating and you've got to do it, if you sign up now, you'll get this, this price sounds the same kind of con to me to put it bluntly. I don't even know who this light source BP energy is. Are they government led? Um, no, I, I, I, I've got too many questions to, to agree to this today. Um, so I'm certainly not going to support it. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Um, sorry. Council Bates. Can I just, can I just say, um, obviously Matthew has explained that the times type time scale, it's a reality. It's not blackmail. So can we just be slightly mindful of the words that we're using please. And the respect towards officers, if we don't mind. Thank you very much. Sorry. Can I come back? First it has said it says in the recommendations, should the DNS application for blast power be submitted. It doesn't say it's been submitted. So the timescale is irrelevant. Thank you chair. Well, as I understand it, the timesale will come in as soon as we receive it. So that's when the clock starts ticking. So if it doesn't come in until November, we've got five weeks from November. If it comes in in August, we've got five weeks from August. So that's how it will work. Um, in terms of dealing with that, uh, I just wonder, I mean, I can take your point. I can understand that too, but it won't be an application that we will determine. And that's why I was keen to say that as a council, either through the planning committee process or through the executive board, that we can have a view in terms of that application when it comes in, because this report is mainly dealing with, if you like a checklist of everything that they need to consider. We, until we get the application, you're quite right. We won't know what's in it, but that's why I wanted that assurance that we could submit a report either through the exec board or even homes and environment scrutiny committee, if there was time, but I don't suppose there would be, uh, all back through the, back through the, through the, through the planning committee. I just wonder in terms of the, cause it didn't sit easy with me at call over and Matthew can verify that, but in terms of the recommendation, would it be more acceptable if we took out, having informed the local members and just high following consultation with the chair vice chair on the local members for Coi Poi, exclusion, punk and row sports. In other words, not telling you that that's been consulted on with the chair and vice chair so that everybody is included in that consultation that would speed things up from the officer's point of view to get it probably within the five week period, which we're required to do. And would perhaps lay the fears from the local members, as well as the assurances from tonight that, you know, we can do it through the board or, or planning committee. Should members want to do that? Chair, can I just ask for clarity on the word? And so instead of following consultation ways, you're asking for in consultation ways. Well, the report is prepared and submitted following consultation. So I'm assuming that means following that, that the chair and vice chair would be consulted prior to its submission. And what I'm suggesting is if we take out having informed the local members and just leave those names, those, those words in as part of the consultation process, I think that might have laid the fears. Now, Matthew was nodding. I don't know what David's doing. He's more impartial. I'm happy to vary the recommendation of committee. I'm happy to accept those. I think under the circumstances, given what we're faced with, I think that would probably be the best way forward, but David, if you I'm asking you to come in tonight, so I'm not going to shout at you. Thank you. Yeah. I guess the, the, the important point here is that we're not the decision maker on any such application and nor will we ever be. So we're effectively a consultee. The local authorities is effectively a consultee within, within the process really. So I, for me, I think that's, that's an acceptable compromise is, is to amend it. So it's in consultation with the local members. I think that's to be, that's to be welcomed, but there's nothing, just to reassure members, there's, there's nothing untoward from officer's point of view as, as, as, as I think has been intimated. And this is about providing the information to, to PDU in the timescales that they've set, not, not that we've set. And I think the point is, if we took it through a committee cycle, then it is very, very unlikely that we will be able to meet that five week target that has been set by PDU, not, not us. I think that's, that's all I, I can say on the matter really. Trevor, you wanted to come back in? Yes, I did. I just want to make it perfectly clear. Matthew, I was not accusing you of blackmailing us. There seems to be a system in place that seems to, that you've merely explained to us. So it wasn't aimed at you, the blackmail comments. It seems to be at whoever is behind this. Is it Welsh government? Is it? I don't know, but normally we have much longer period to consider planning applications and make comments. And this is what we as a committee, I think want to do is to have the, um, the time and the ability to make comments, to feed into the, your report, uh, and perhaps ask you to change something in that report if, if we think that's appropriate. Um, I don't think that's, uh, unfair really. Um, I just, I just feel, yeah, pushed into a corner. It's like anything, if you, if you want a decision now, it has to be no, but if you can give me more information, it might be yes. And at the moment we've got absolutely no information whatsoever. So I just wanted to clear that up, but I was not accusing Matthew of blackmail. Thank you. So I think just, sorry, can I just come in? Because I think we've got to be careful here now because we've just deflected onto Purdue. We've really got to be owning our language here. And I know within an election period, but there's no excuse. Um, I'm just getting really concerned that we're going off debate on the blame game when really we're dealing with processing. What I'm trying to do is come to a compromise arrangement that makes people comfortable with what they're voting on. Now, what I think is if members were mindful to accept that recommendation reworded, as I've said, that allows for the, uh, LI article forward with consultation. Can I ask Matthew whether we will be getting, or can we get a further report once the application is in which can then give us the chance to respond as a planning authority or an executive board or both? I think given the workload demands, then I'm not going to be able to do both. Um, I think if, if the, and I think if, if the council as a political body wants to give their view on it, it would be, it would really be a matter for the council's political body to, to arrange for that, that to happen. Um, you know, from an officer point of view, we would be very much engaged in contributing towards the, the technical process, which is really what, what, what this is. So I think realistically doing, being able to do to both, um, you know, I, I've not been involved with this process before, so I don't quite know how much work will be involved, but I'm expecting it to be fairly substantial given, you know, given that it is quite a significant, uh, development. So, um, I, I can't give you the commitment that we'd be able to do both. Um, I can only really give you the commitment that, you know, we would undertake that consultation with, with the relevant local members before we, um, obviously before we complete an issue, the local impact reports. Having said that, if I, as chair put an agenda item on the planning committee, once you've had the application in or councilor Pritchard as lead member for the, uh, as, uh, as the chair of the executive board, put something on the executive board agenda, it would have to be serviced by someone, wouldn't it? Go on David. I think what we, what we have to remember is this is a, this is a technical report, so it's factual. So a lot of, a lot of it will be around site history, site constraints, relevant planning policy, and it will no doubt include, um, some key consultees like the highway authority, for example, and it will, um, have a consultation response from the highway authority. Now in consultation with the, with the local members, I can envisage a situation where the local members might not necessarily agree with, um, with the view of the highway authority. And I think all we could do in that regard is put the technical view of the highway authority and then beneath that put the local members view is this, and then it's up to pedu in terms of what, what they do with that, because we cannot ignore in a technical document, the technical view of the highway officer, but equally, um, what we don't want to do in this five week period, uh, is come to a standstill with local members. And I think the way around that is to report both, um, the technical and the local view within, within the report. I see that, that being the only way of not stalling the process, because let's be honest in, in this chamber in planning committee, we do get instances where members understandably don't share the view of the technical expert. Um, but it's a technical document. And as I said, I think that's the only way of, of, of unsticking that potential hazard in, in that timescale. Thanks for that, David, that's helpful. Um, in terms of the council as a corporate body coming to a view on the application, that was what I was trying to get at was a bit further down the line rather than stopping your LIR going in with the caveats for the local members being included. What I'm trying to get round or what I'm trying to think about is at some point, the council is going to have to come or should come to a view bearing in mind its own strategy on energy and so on and so forth on whether they are supportive or not. So it's that one I'm thinking about rather than stopping the LIR going in. A point of clarity on that, won't that discussion happen as part of the energy, local energy plan? If we've got the application in by then, if we haven't, it won't. The problem that we would have, or rather that the council have is that in terms of the, the council as a corporate body giving a view, it would also be five weeks, you know, so from the date the application comes in and the date the consultation period goes live, it's five weeks or less really. So I think in terms of our energy, pardon the use of the word, our energy and time, it would be entirely spent on pulling together the local impact report. Okay. Well, it seems the only option we've got then which members will have to vote one way or the other on is that we proceed with five, one amended to include the local members being involved with the consultation with the reports, including their comments, if there are divergence with the offices and the statutory bodies. Can I just ask for one further point of clarity? If we vote against this now, does that mean that all this work for getting that report to PEDU and those opinions to PEDU doesn't happen. So we lose a voice in the, well, voices from the point of view of the local authority and local members, we lose that as part of, as a consultee in the process, we lose that voice then. That's my understanding. So, you know, we'd be mad not to subscribe to the recommendation because then we get voices in the process. That seems a logical way forward, but when PEDU turn around and say, we're not giving you your seven and a half thousand pound fee, if you go fortnight over, they're understanding that we will or could go over, aren't they? Yeah. But I think what they're trying to do is keep it within a contained scheme so you don't get it sort of six months down the line. So you've got five weeks, the penalty hits in financially, which I'm more relaxed about that than you are, Matthew, to be honest. I think it's such a big scheme and, you know, you're tying land up for the next two generations. But I think if we could go along the line of 5-1 as amended, that would be a sensible and responsible way forward and doesn't actually cut across our own energy strategies, does it? Okay. Recommendation as amended? Yes. Sorry, Graham, do you want to come in? Yes. Thank you, Chair. In my opinion, for what it's worth, the money is secondary. You know, what are we talking about, not far of 8K. You know, in the years to come, you'll possibly won't be able to buy a beef burger or hamburger for that amount of money. The concern I've got, whatever the outcome is at the end of the day, whether it be in a month's time or six months' time, right, is the loss of prime agricultural land. We're talking about 136 hectares. Now, that's a hell of a lot, isn't it? That's my main concern. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, Chair. Okay. So we've had the 5-1 moved as amended. Is that seconded? That's seconded. Okay. Are there any amendments to that? Okay. So if it's not supported, it means it will have to come at some shape or form back to committee before it's sent off to Peddle. How we do that, I don't know, but it might have to be an extraordinary meeting of committee or something like that. Okay. So all those in favour of the recommendation as amended, please show. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight. What's against? One, two, three, four, five. Okay. So that's carried eight votes to five. But can I just say to any of the local members, if you feel as though you're not getting the information that you require, come back to me and I will take it up with the officers and with Councillor Hugh Jones. Okay. So we now move on to agenda item six, which is the development management performance update report. You taking this, Matthew? Yeah. Really just to outline the key sort of headings in the report, probably 2.2 being the key one in that performance is below the statutory eight week figures. That's been a case for a little while now. The primary reason for that is the staff resourcing issues and also workload associated with the ICT system, but principally staff resourcing. One positive on that is the new IT system has now gone live, although we're in a sort of steep learning curve using that. So certainly going forward, I hope to be able to bring more information in terms of the enforcement performance and also probably hopefully sometime in July be able to start bringing the delegated list back to members as well once I've learned how to do that. So that's one positive from that. In terms of the delegated decisions, then they are slightly below, but they're broadly in line with national trends on that or certainly national trends from the previous year. Committee overturns as well within the limits set by Welsh government for good. We're performing well on planning appeals. And there's also some details there of two prosecutions which have taken place over the quarter. There is actually a third case which has yet to have sentencing and obviously the necessary or the associated fine victim surcharge and costs. But we have been made aware that that's likely to be subject to an appeal. So that's why that hasn't been reported. But there's been three successful cases, albeit one subject to appeal. Just in terms of the resourcing really, which is really the biggest issue and the biggest constraint to the performance, we have got three post vacants in the team. We've not been able to recruit to those posts despite actually having with one of them having been out twice in the last six months or so and three times for the other. It's really difficult to market to be in really in terms of staffing. Having reviewed comparable pay grades across North Wales, that in itself doesn't seem to be a major issue. And also comparing us to West Cheshire as well, it doesn't seem to be a significant issue. I think having spoken to colleagues across North Wales, I think simply that the people aren't likely to be out there is a major issue. And that really forces us to look at how we recruit to that. We will continue to attempt to do that. We will be losing our team leader, Gwynne, over the next six weeks or so, moving jobs. So that will be another post that we will have to advertise and recruit to going forward. We have got support, both myself, I'm continuing to deal with a small, well, numerically development management caseload, but probably quite significant in terms of scale and workload. One of the policy officers has also provided some support, but there's limits to what we can do in terms of actually adversely affecting our day job, as it were, in that sense. On a positive note, we do now have two new enforcement officers in post, and that's been a very good appointment. They've made a really good start to the team, made a very significant contribution to that, and that's certainly been majorly beneficial on that front. So, yes, we're continuing to make efforts. A lot of what we're doing at the moment is really temporary recruitment. There's a number of temporary people in the team, and there'll be some more, including, unfortunately, having to revert back to some agency staff over the coming months as well. What that will do, though, is hopefully, you know, really buy us some time to be able to put something more sustainable in place, but more critically, and really that's probably my major concern, it's supporting existing team members who have exceptionally high workloads in the development management team. One of the team has a caseload of in a region of 90 at the moment, which is two and a half, nearly three times what we would consider a manageable caseload. So that's a major concern in terms of supporting those and ensuring that they actually see their workloads in a more positive trajectory and towards more manageable levels, and certainly if we can achieve that, then the performance will ultimately follow as well. Just in terms of the, to go a little bit further onto the IT system, so that is now live. It will deliver quite a significant change to how we process applications in a positive way. It will, it will hopefully make the team and individual officers within the team more productive and easier to keep on top of workload. It's been a very, very significant project in terms of time taken and also the amount of work that's had to go into setting that up, so that has had quite a significant impact on resourcing, but it will be something which over the course of the next few months, certainly and certainly towards the end of the year, I'd like to think members will start to see the benefits of that, and as I said, one thing that you will start to see going forward is a return of the delegated list. The one thing just to note for next month, the committee reports may well look a little bit different, and that will just very much reflect how the new system merges the document into a report. Without sounding more come a wise on you, everything that's in the existing reports will be there, just not necessarily in the same order as they are at the moment, but you will have that information. And obviously going forward, it's a new system, it's probably the most significant change to the way we've delivered the planning system in a generation, certainly in all the time I've been here, so we will be learning, and there will be things which we may have to tweak and improve as we go forward, but that's certainly one positive, and I think if we can address the staffing issue as challenging as it is, then obviously everything else that's reported in this report should hopefully sort of start to take a turn for the better. Thank you, Matthew. I'm sure I'd like you to express our gratitude to the entire team, really, because I know they are under immense pressure, and of course when Gwyn goes, presumably his workload is going to have to be dispersed amongst the remaining people, so it's a fighting battle, but I'm sure you know, and I'm sure David knows, that if it's anything I can do, but more importantly, probably the leader of the council and the lead member are both here, their doors are open, you know, please, please just talk to us about things if you need to, but I will ask if they want to come in. Do you want to come in? It's you and then Mark, yeah? Yeah, thanks. Can I just start by endorsing the comments that you've made about the debt that we owe the existing team, because the pressures that they're under are huge and very significant, and I know from the dates and times that I get emails that people are working weekends and bank holidays in an attempt, and particularly Matthew, in an attempt to bring the system forward. We're working with David, the chief executive, and the team to ensure from a leadership of the council perspective that if they need any resources, those resources and those support will be there to enable them to achieve the development and progress they need. We've talked about a scheme of grow your own, and that's something we've learned from in terms of social services, but again, that creates additional pressure because there has to be a training function, and the training function falls upon the senior people, and of course it doesn't deliver an immediate response. It's very much a long-term process. As Matthew's indicated, we're not alone. Across North Wales, an immediate neighbouring local authority is struggling equally as we are in terms of the numbers of staff, and when they're not there, they're not there. But we are working as hard as we can to support the team to ensure that we are able to recruit to the most effective way that we can. And so, you know, we talked about, and I talked about, and I recognised that the need for SPGs to be brought in as soon as possible, but then, you know, we're looking at the moment at the same people that are having to deal with the day-to-day processes. So it is not easy, it is incredibly hard. All of us as members, I get it, I'm sure other members get it, they get significant pressure from their residents about the time that applications are taking, and I think we have to be supportive of the staff in terms of the efforts that they are making. The leader and myself had a meeting today, we've discussed it, we're going to have further meetings in order to see how, as I say, we can support the team in their need to recruit and develop, and just to say our appreciation for the work that is being carried on in very difficult circumstances at the present moment. Thank you, Jack. Matthew, do you want to come in? Yes, thank you, Chair, for allowing me to speak on this matter. Can I just echo what you said, Chair, yourself and the lead member, and myself as the leader of the Council. I'd like to thank David and his team for all of the work and the effort they've put into this, and we know it's very difficult, and we do appreciate it, and as the lead member has said, we have had a meeting today with the Chief Exec, yourself the Deputy Leader, and the lead member for planning, and I think it's gone past the point of just noting the report. We need to have a plan now going forward on how we resolve this. I'd like to say to Matthew, I understand the issue with the ICT, I get that, but that's only to a point. You know, you mentioned the case numbers, it's unsustainable, I think we all know that, let's be frank, and you know, it isn't the early front in the room here, I think we have to address it now. What I'm saying is to the committee this evening, I hope that, you know, there's a challenge from yourself, because it's gone past noting now, you just can't note it. We all know, and I know that the Chair is fully aware of it, Chief Officer and everybody, we need to move forward here, it's unsustainable. So what I would like going forward, and as I said, you know, we're in discussions already, there has to be improvements here, and I know it's difficult, not just in Wrexham, across North Wales and Wales, but we can't allow this to continue, we have to move forward. Because otherwise, you're going to have planning applications coming through and they'll go through on non-determinations, etc. And once that happens, we've all failed. Thank you, Chair. So anybody, Frank, and then Donna. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I think from my point of view, whenever I've needed help and advice, unfortunately, for Matthew, it's always been directed at him first, and he's supported me through what is still remains a difficult area within my ward. So I can only say thank you. I've even had replies from someone, I think, at nine o'clock at night, from one of the planning enforcement teams, so I know there's a lot of effort going in, a lot of work, and hopefully, you know, you can get those extra staff you need and take that pressure off the team. But yeah, thank you for the support and help I get. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'm genuinely surprised, to be honest, by, you know, what's been discussed, because I think, you know, there is a recognition that the pressure that the local planning authority's been enduring and continues to be in, to be honest, during, you know, what's been the continuation of the LDP saga. I think as well, we as elected members really need to step up, because I'm aware that, you know, some elected members believe that, you know, officers have a loyalty to elected members, and obviously from a local planning authority that's formed on statute, that doesn't apply. You know, we've got our own code of conduct for planning, section, you know, 19 of the constitution, which I think, you know, requires a look at. My worry is, does the situation that is at the moment unique to Rexham affect recruitment in Rexham? Because I think if that is potentially a yes, then we've really got to do something quick about that, haven't we? Because not only is it, you know, affecting statutory responsibilities of the authority and our future functions, but also as well, we've got a duty of care to our staff. And I think we sometimes forget that as elected members. And we're not always, we don't always own our words and, you know, how we debate. And I think that has an impact. I've proactively supported the applications and the adverts that have gone up for jobs. And I've had people contact me saying they're really, really interested in the job. Their concern is the employer. And I don't know how to answer that because I really want talent and the opportunity for those in the local area to be able to work for the local authority. And it is, it is impacting the reputation. And I think we need to have an open and honest discussion about that. And we're not having it. And words don't really do it, to be honest, when I know there's other actions that are happening in the background that is undermining the local planning authority. My concern about this report is the staff resourcing. You know, we've got staff leaving. And we need to be careful about, you know, how we encourage staff to stay. And how is that incentivized? Do we need to look at terms and conditions? Do we, exactly what we've looked at from the point of view in social care. But it is a profession, isn't it? And, you know, temporary staff that we're talking about in here is just plugging a gap at this moment. It's not building that skills and knowledge and that level of skills and knowledge that we need in the local authority so that we continue with the work of the local planning authority. So, you know, my question to the chief executive is, you know, what's the short-term plan? And I understand we're looking at, you know, growing our own. But that is more of a medium to long-term plan, isn't it? But, you know, we're looking at redesigning services within the local authority. Are we having conversations with HR about maybe seconding, you know, where there's pressures in other -- where there's non-pressures in other areas? Are we looking at moving -- you know, what's the temporary? Because otherwise, we're looking at quarter one and two and three reports next year, just progressively getting worse, aren't they? Which then, under that flag of duty of care to our staff, you know, how do we then manage those stress levels? Because workloads are just going to increase. So, if there's any plans in place with regards to the short-term, and then we can discuss the medium and long-term, and anything we can do as well, collectively, to improve that, then I would welcome that conversation. Thank you. I think the report we've got is mainly a statistical report in terms of telling us the current position statement. It might be helpful, I suppose, taking up your point and Mark's point, if David could put a paragraph in in terms of what your proposals are for the future. So, at least it gives us a bit of something to debate on the report, you know, because I think we're all very concerned that things can't continue as they are doing, mainly for the staff's welfare point of view. And, you know, I see it firsthand. I mean, when Frank said he had an email at 9 o'clock, I mean, I've had them at midnight coming through from different people. So, they really are, you know, they are working all hours, God sends, to be fair. And I just don't think it's sustainable. And I guess there'll be an exit strategy for the senior member that's leaving in terms of July, in terms of whether there's a real reason beyond what's being said. And that's not for this discussion today, but perhaps it's something from those sort of lessons we can actually learn. Yeah, I mean, just in terms of that point about loyalty, I mean, my loyalty, I've been here 22 years, and my loyalty is to delivering the best planning service that I can. And as a more junior officer, that will have been individual applications. And in terms of, in my current role, it's ensuring that, but it's actually supporting the team members to be able to do that. So, that's my loyalty, and that's unchanged throughout. I think in terms of a short-term strategy, then what's outlined in this report and what I've outlined this evening in terms of the temporary staff and certainly the agency staff, that is the short-term strategy, because that's very much in terms of trying to take some of the pressure off existing team members to be able to, you know, the problem that you have when you have such a significant caseload is it becomes completely unmanageable and actually it snowballs and, you know, it gets worse and worse. So, it's to try and address that and get that capacity. We will be looking to replace the lead officer in the process of hopefully having just a minor change to that job description to come back from HR very soon so I can go out to advert. I think in terms of the point Councillor Davies made in terms of why we're struggling, I think certainly at the more junior level, at the planning assistant level and perhaps the officer level, it's a numbers issue and I think it's one which has been shared across colleagues across North Wales. So, I don't think we're alone in that. How much other issues are affecting, you know, are affecting recruitment, it's difficult to say because we don't have those conversations with people who don't apply for jobs, if you know what I mean. It's only possible to have conversations with people who are in the team and who are leaving. You know, I don't want to call too much controversy by saying this. I think it is at the more senior end. Certainly, you know, we have a vacant head of policy role. We shortly to have a vacant lead officer role in development management and we've had a long standing vacant senior officer role, you know, and all of those jobs progressively more, you know, have more political exposure but also would be dealing with particularly the DM lead officer and seniors would be dealing with the most controversial planning applications as well. So, I think it's certainly, you know, I think it's perhaps fair to say that some of the press that we're attracting is not the best shop window for people at that level. I appreciate and understand why we're in that situation. You know, it's not a position that I'd like to be in and I think, you know, it does have, certainly it does have an impact on team morale for people who've been involved in that process as well. But, you know, I think all I can say is, you know, we are where we are with that and it will run its course. You know, the medium to longer term strategy, certainly the Grow Your Own is part of that and that's certainly something which David and I have had active conversations on and will continue to have conversations on over the coming weeks. And in some of those, in terms of some of those temporary appointments, there may well be scope there that some of those could become permanent as well. You know, that would very much be the, if things work out and certainly what we do in terms of, you know, a long-term sustainable structure, it may well be that that's the case there. I don't want to commit to you to that because I don't want to be able to necessarily commit to the individuals as well until we've got there. But that's certainly, you know, that's certainly, you know, a possibility. You know, so I think that's as much as I can say at the moment, it's something, you know, perhaps we can put down in writing into something more substantial and bring before you. I think in terms of reaching that position, it is a long-term, it is a long-term game really. It's not, you know, we're not going to have a quick fix. If we bring in more people at a junior level with the view to training them, you are looking at several years before you would be in a position that their senior planning officer material, for example, and some, you know, some may not want to do that. Not everybody want, you know, a lot of people are quite happy reaching a certain level and staying there and that's absolutely fine. And I think our job then is to support them doing, reaching that level and doing that very, very, very well as well. But I think that's where we're, that's what we're going to look to do, but it will be, you know, it's going to be months and years, probably to, to hopefully reach a long-term stability rather than something we can, we can fix in the next, in the next, in the next few weeks, given, you know, given that it isn't, it isn't entirely an issue that you need to ask them. Can I just ask on the report chair, do we need to include, because I think looking at this report and looking between the lines, potentially where we're most at risk is on non-determination, would that be a safe, you know, sort of appraisal of this? So do we need to keep an eye on that area because, you know, there's, there's talk about, you know, deferring and, you know, in the wider discussion around, you know, everything that's happening. But all that does then is per risk of non-determination. And then if we don't determine within a certain period, then potentially we've got no control over what could be speculative development. So do we need, do we need going forward, and I don't want to per pressure on resources, but for me, is that the area that we need to be watching for, is that non-determination? And I'm trying to get, you asked Matthew about that quite regularly. We have discussions on non-determination, but there's no evidence to suggest that it's particularly high. I think in fairness to a lot of our regular agents and the bulk of applications, certainly the bulk of, you know, householder applications and, you know, small scale residential commercial developments, they are submitted by a handful of the same handful of local agents. You know, it's only the, you know, the agents we deal with less frequently will be the higher end of the application spectrum because we have fewer of those anyway. But they're aware of, they're aware of the position that we're in. And I think they, you know, they are, I wouldn't say tolerant of it. I think they would all like quicker outcomes, but I think they're understanding of it. And officers do whenever possible, the statutory thing is eight weeks or within an agreed extension of time. So, you know, officers are very much reminded by me regularly, probably more so than they want to be, that they, you know, they need to make sure they're getting those extensions of time and recording them so that we've, you know, we've got that. But in itself, it's not, you know, it reduces the risk of those non-determination appeals, but it's not solving the problem if we can't get the applications out in the first place. What we need to be arriving at is a situation where we, you know, we've got a consistent volume of applications going out, which more or less balances the amount of a number of applications that are coming in. So that's, you know, and that can only be done, you know, with additional people in the team. So I think if we get, if we can reach a position where the staffing situation is better, then the other issues would hopefully largely take care of themselves, really. Okay, final speaker, Steve. Yeah, I'd like to come in back in on what Dan has raised, that she was aware of individuals who would love to work in that industry, but unfortunately they wouldn't work for EXIM. That concerns me a lot, to be honest here, and it does concern me that we are losing staff, which is not good after, you know, we've got some good staff. It does concern me massively. Do we have an exit interview when the staff leave? And is that carried out with HR, is it? It's carried out with manager, so it would be with all the people who've left recently. It's been done with myself. The leaders touched upon requiring a plan for improvement, and there is a plan. The plan's the easy thing. The execution of that plan is the really difficult thing. You know, I've been involved in performance improvement in planning for a long, long time, and I'd like to think there was a track record there, but you have to have the bums on the seats in order to execute that plan, and that is the difficulty. We have the resource. It's not like there isn't the budget. What we can't do is get the people that we need, particularly, as Matthew said, at a more senior level, and that is a real challenge for us at the moment. So there's lots of things that we can do around growing your own, around paying course fees and things like that, and that's great, and that will serve us well in the long term, but in the short term, you're pretty much looking at your senior planning team here, with one exception, and that's not sustainable. So in the short term, yes, the sticking plaster is going to agency, because that's all we can do. We've been out several times for senior staff, and we just can't get them. So we're looking at a range of incentives around golden hellos and things like that, because our pay actually is comparable within the region. It's not like we're paying £5,000 less than everybody else. That simply isn't the case. So we're looking at a range of things we can do to attract people here, but we can't force people here, can we? So in the meantime, we are going to take the hit on agency staff. They're expensive, and as you all know, we always run a balanced budget here, so we take expenditure really seriously, but we're in a situation now where we've got to bite the bullet. If we're going to get some applications out the door, we've got to engage with agency staff, unfortunately, and we'll do that for as short a period of time as we can, but we've got no other option at the moment other than to do that. And hopefully in the meantime, we can get some more senior people in. But you touched upon seconding people from other areas. It takes five years to train a planner, six years for our TPI status, and I think members sometimes don't appreciate the level of education that it takes to put a planner through to chartered status, really. So that is the difficulty in terms of the supply chain. So there is a plan. The plan is actually quite straightforward because the infrastructure there is there in terms of the new planning system. Once that beds in, that is a real step forward. There's a full complement of enforcement officers. We have a full complement of planning assistance, but as you get a little bit further up where we really need help, we just can't get it at the moment. So the plan is the easy bit, the execution is where we're having the difficulty. Steve, you want to come back? Yeah, I was going to highlight the likes of Gwyn. You know, somebody like Gwyn are hard to come by. And to lose him in such a short time, something doesn't sound right. I'm sorry, it doesn't sound right. And that's why I asked the question, is it an exit strategy where you have to interview them, you know, and see where we are, where we're going wrong? Thank you. I don't want to stray into individuals because we're still on record at the moment. So just have to be careful. Okay, so I will now close the meeting. Thank you all for attending.