Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Please ensure your mobile phones are on silent or switched off and that your laptops are switched to silent. I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing. The whole of the meeting will be recorded except whether a confidential or exempt items. If you make a representation to the meeting, you will be deemed by the Council to have consented to being recorded. By entering this meeting as a speaker, you are also consenting to being recorded by the Council and to the possible use of those sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. The Council members of the public and the press may record, film, photograph or broadcast this meeting when the public and the press are not lawfully excluded. If you intend to do so, please could you inform the committee clerk. If you hit the fire alarm, leave the building immediately via a fire exit and make your way to the assembly point at Ipswich Town Football Ground. Follow the signs directing you to the fire exits. Do not re-enter the building until told it's safe to do so. So first of all, we have some introductions. We have the members of the Council on my right. They will be the people making the decision. On my left, we have, from this end at the front, we have the case officer, Alex Scott. We have the area planning manager, Gemma Walker. We have a heritage officer, Kathleen Fisher. Behind them, we have our legal adviser, Ian Duprey. We have governance officers, Claire Philpot, and Alicia Norman to make sure that everything runs in order. So can I move to the agenda, please? Number one, apologies for absence and substitutions. Thank you, Chair. We have apologies from Councillor Hoddingham and Councillor Davies is substituting. Thank you. Item number two, to receive declarations of disposable pecuniary interest and other registrable or non-reg eligible interests by members. So I'm going to hand over to Ian Duprey regarding this applicant being a relative of Councillor Hoddingham. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So I think to state the obvious, all members of this committee know the applicant's close relative who's a member of this council. That is understood, noted, and it would not, could not allow things to be disrupted because that's an inevitable fact in these situations. I do believe that one member, Councillor Mabson, wishes to declare that he knows the applicant's relative, Councillor, rather better than just the fact that the... Yes, I have fellow members for a year, so I'll let him speak. Yeah, I've known Hoddingham family, an order car farm for a rather longer and living in need of market. Obviously, I'm in the shop every couple of weeks as well. So it's a personal and non-reg eligible interest, I understand. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm quite a Councillor Mabson sensibly spoke to me before the meeting. It seems to me that's a knowledge of the person friendship declaration that we often make that doesn't disqualify him. But I think one or two other members want to say that they might be familiar with the premises. And if so, if anyone doesn't need me to say that, yes. Councillor Penny? I'd just like to say I've known Nick, Nick and Joan for about 20 years, too. And my parents-in-law are not neighbours. I'd like to answer all boys. Yes, following on from that, I know the applicant and I know the premises. Councillor COOK. Yes, just that I've been to the premises a couple of times. Just as a user of the cathedral. I mean, I've certainly been to the premises on at least two or three occasions, but not really that recently. And I'm guessing we've probably all been there at least once. Because it is a home to the public. Just as, you know, as members of the public, you know, that's why I've been there. Madam Chair, just to add, thank you. I've noted all that. I think, I mean, whenever cases have gone to court on this sort of issue, it's been said the business of government has to be gone on with them. I'm sure we could replace all eight of you with eight substitutes who'd make exactly the same declarations. So, I'm content that we carry on. Thank you. So, item number three, declarations of lobbying. Well, I received an email. I suspect it went to everybody, did it? Councillor Penning. Number four, declarations of personal site visits. Any specific site visits to declare? No, thank you. Item number five, MPL 2330 confirmation of the minutes of the planning committee meeting held on 10 April, 2024. Are there any points regarding the accuracy of the minutes? Can I have a proposal? Thank you, Councillor Harding. I'm having them. And Councillor Matheson, you're seconding, are you? Thank you. So, the governance officer will now conduct the electronic vote. Thank you, Chair. Members, that vote is now in progress. Thank you. Thank you, members, Chair. That's eight votes four. That's carried. Thank you. So, the minutes of the meeting have now been confirmed and will be signed at the end of the meeting. Item number six, to receive notification of petitions in accordance with the Council's petition scheme. No, received. Thank you. Then we move to item number seven, the schedule of planning applications. We just have the one application today, DC 2302158 at Aldecar Farm, St Mary's Road, Creting St Mary. And the ward member, Councillor Lawrence, will not be participating in the debate, which is why he's sitting away from the other members today. But he will be speaking as a ward member. So, I will now invite the case officer, Alex Scott, to introduce the application to committee over to you, Alex. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, members, as explained, this is item seven a on the agenda. Planning application reference DC, oblique 23, oblique 02158 at Aldecar Farm, St Mary's Road, Creting St Mary. And the site is adjacent to the northeast of the town of Needham Market. Now, the application before you six full planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to form an additional parking area. And for the sitting of a refrigeration equipment, including a container associated with the existing farm shop. Now, the application is retrospective with works already having been carried out on the site, so just to make you aware of that. And this first slide shows the location of the parish of Creting St Mary within the district to the north of the town of Needham Market. In close proximity to the A14 trunk road as well, and I'll just highlight that there. And this is the approximate location in red here of the site within the immediate area. And access to would either be through a high street Needham Market and via Hawks Mill Street and across the across the bridge here. Or direct, excuse me, from the A14 through Florida Road and then round the back via St Mary's Road. This is a aerial view of the wider site showing the relationship with the town of Needham Market here. The application site is edged in orange and purple hatched. We then have a closer aerial view of the site. This is the constraints map and the site lies outside the settlement boundary, which is denoted by the brand line here. So it's in the countryside as set out in your ports. And the majority of the site is within environment agency flood zones two and three, where there's a higher chance of flood risk. However, this is addressed at paragraph 7.2 of the report and your officers consider that consistent with your policy LP 27 and the MPP F. At a site affects the setting of agreed to listed building over here at the old hall. And other buildings within the order car farm property are considered to be heritage assets as well. So there's some group value as well and that's all set out in the report for you. This is the site location plan submitted with the application. So the site specific to the application before you today is highlighted in red and in blue there is the wider older car farm property, which is within the applicant's control. Here we have the proposed block plan. So the area of the proposed car park is edged here. And as you can see there, it's existing grass with no surfacing and that is the proposal. And that lies adjacent to the what's termed the existing car park, which is does have a hard surface to it. And there we have the location of the proposed refrigeration container. That is on the point of access and the neighbour does have a right of access through this way into their property. This is the proposed access plan showing the location of the container in a bit more detail for you and the proposed native species. Hedge, which is proposed to screen that and the parking area here. And this is a manoeuvring plan showing the manoeuvring of delivery vehicles into that parking and loading bay. And it's a view of your officers that can be achieved without obscuring the shared access. So access would be maintained at a point of delivery and I do have some photographs of that later on. And this is the proposed elevation showing the elevation of the existing building. And this is the proposed refrigeration unit, the location of the proposed loading bay here. And all the existing cooling units associated there as well. These are the elevations of the proposed container, which is different to what exists on site at the moment. So just to make you aware of that, it is proposed to be clad with horizontal weatherboarding. And there is a new condenser unit proposed adjacent and shows you the relationship with the proposed screening hedge there as well. On to some photographs, these are some historic photographs provided with the application. So we can see here how the site was in 1964 and then 1984. And then from the opposite direction in 1999 as well. It gives you an idea of how the site has evolved through time. This is the photograph of the internal courtyard. And some photographs taken up the point of access from St Mary's Road. So looking towards the area of the proposed car park, from the existing heart standing car park, looking back up the access towards the highway. And then looking round to the area of the proposed car park and there are a few vans on there when I visited the site. This is looking turning away from that towards the existing buildings. This is looking towards the proposed site of the container and you can see the container there existing. And then looking from the access road back towards the car park or the proposed car park see in the background. And this is just looking from the farm gate back across here. So the proposed container here, the proposed parking and loading bay. And this is the rear of the proposed, no, it's not proposed, sorry, correction, the existing cycle parking, which isn't proposed to change. That's part of the application. And this is the existing shared access road going through the site and past the proposed location of the container, which is there existing. And this is the proposed parking and loading bay of the delivery vehicle. And then you can see it actually in use. This was provided by the applicant. And again from the other direction. And this is from that, looking back towards the building, the access road in between. And then from the existing building to the proposed container, you'll see from the proposed plans this is proposed to change. And there are proposed conditions if you're minded to approve any other recommendation to ensure that's carried out. And then from the back end of the property, so I have my back to the neighbours property at the old hall. And that's looking back up the access road, past existing buildings. And then looking down towards the old hall, which is here, by standing on the older car property here. So that concludes the presentation. There are several items in the table papers for your attention. We have the latest response from your environmental protection officers clarifying aspects relating to the noise assessment and confirming no objection subjects to a condition. We have additional representation received from a third party and a deferral request, which has been assessed by your officers. And we have the latest comments from your heritage officers and an addendum to the planning officer report and the planning balance and conclusion, which should have been provided to you in paper form this morning, I believe. We're going to do that now. Okay. So I believe there'll be a five minute period to review this. So if we just take five minute break to read these papers that are just being handed out. [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] As everyone finished reading, there had enough time to digest another minute for the council matter. [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] All right, thank you. Is there anything else you need to add in your presentation, Alex, or is that it? Well, just to summarize the final paragraph, really chair of that addendum. So in conclusion, your officers recommend that members resolve to grant planning commission subject to the conditions are set out in the office report, and in the updated comments from environmental health. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from members? Council having them? Thank you. I mean, the obvious one is we've just read about these up to seven containers. Are there any idea where they're going to be cited? Well, they're already on the site at the moment. I don't have a, yes. Can you point them out on eight on one of the plans you had in your presentation just so we know where they are? I'll try chair, I'm not into my chair. Or a proximate location like that. [silence] These are very old aerial views. Apologies. I don't believe we have anything to show their location. Maybe we can ask the applicant. What are those things there? Yeah. They may be. I'm not 100%. I think we might have to ask the applicant. But can I just, are they lawful development, the other seven containers? Or are they subject to another planning application? Well, as I understand, it's part of an ongoing enforcement investigation at the site. It's not part of the planning application before you or within the red line site. But is a material consideration as said out in the addendum? Yeah, I'm suspecting, I think it does. It is sort of significant. At the top of page 24, the very first line, therefore significance of the old hall is contained. I think is that supposed to be confined as a typo, perhaps? It is significant significantly different. And confined would sort of make more sense. Yeah, I think that's just a typo area. Any other questions? Councillor OK. Thank you. It was just to clarify a bit on the additional addendum, the part four on section. I think it's 11.3. Sorry, 11.2. I just wanted to check it understood correctly. There's a sentence that says, Other containers on site should be considered in cumulation with the application proposal as a worst case scenario. I just didn't quite get what that last bit was meeting. Thanks, Chair. Essentially, I suppose we've got two cases here to look at in that the containers on site are not part of the current application. So we have to, to a degree, look at the application in front of us. As Alex has mentioned, they are subject to current view with our unfortunate team and may need planning permission. At which point we would assess this proposal, assuming we were to grant it, plus that one. However, we do also have to accept they are there, and so we should also have some regards to the fact that they are currently there, but there is that sort of two-pronged issue. And so we're looking at it in both terms, is cumulatively on the basis they're currently there. Nonetheless, there may also be a future planning application where we still have to also consider it cumulatively. Can I ask a follow-up? Thank you. Thank you. And so the Heritage Officer has said that taking that cumulative picture, it would be considered to be a low to medium level of less than substantial harm. At the moment, I really don't know enough about the other six containers to give a definite harm rating. So I've just given a broad range between lows and medium, considering that there's a principal issue with the use of a shipping container in this setting, which has already been chosen. We've already been discussed with regards to one shipping container. So the accumulation of up to six more is obviously going to increase that harm level to some degree. Cancel more boys, and then I'll come back to you. I think my question is actually an answer, but I'm assuming from this is the containers we're looking at today are permanent installations, whereas the other containers are not permanent. I suppose there's always a question of containers with the degree of permanence they are, so I think the plan with the refrigerated containers, it would be planned and would look quite significantly like a building. But nonetheless, there is a degree of the fact that you can lift a container up on a lorry. So I think permanence, it's still a shipping container in that regard. That's my current one. The others, I believe, are just containers and could also still be moved, and then there's the question over how temporary or permanent at what point does planning come in on those. That's obviously still under review with our enforcement team, investigating that and considering doing any planning permission. For this one, they would like to keep it permanently, and once you get into permanently, that's the point in which you need planning permission. Were the others moved or removed? That would be different. I hope that helps. Can I just come back on the heritage point briefly? It was just so what we were looking at is making sure we covered the worst case scenario in terms of heritage harm, so that we know that's what we think the worst would be. We can balance up against that and take a judgment accordingly. I just wanted to point out that's what we're looking at doing. Thank you, Chair. Was that okay, Councillor Wabose? Did you have anything else? I'll go to Councillor Haddingham. Thank you. Obviously, the one we're talking about is the refrigeration unit. You can see why there needs to be close and all the rest of it. So they're just being used for storage. They could put anything anywhere. Is that what we do we know that? Again, I haven't really looked at those because it's not part of the current proposal, where they are. Apologies. Thank you. I've got a few questions of my own, actually. In the additional papers and the lobbying that we received, it talked about a dove cut. So can you just point out where the dove cut is on the plan in terms of its relative location to where this container is going to go? I've got some other questions, but maybe just do the dove cut first. I'll leave it in this location. Is it cartilage-listed or is it listed on its own benefits on its own? It's listed in its own right. It's now a dove cut, by the way. It was originally a post mill, so it's the bottom of the post. So it was a mill and it's now being used as a dove cut. Yes, and it's also moved at least three times since 1900. My other question is about, I think it's in the conditions. You talk about the screening for the air conditioning units. It says that's one of the details I've got to be agreed with you. I just wondered whether how that was going to work, how you can put screening around the air conditioning unit and make it still function properly. Also, is there any detail of the colour of the cladding or the end result? What the cladding is going to actually look like when it's finished? Is there a condition about what colour it's going to be or what finish it is? Anyone can answer this? I can feel that. If you're minded to approve, we could potentially control that by way of condition. The materials, the colour, we don't have that specific detail with the existing application, but there is a landscaping plan also in the list of suggested conditions as well. We get more details of that and the staggered rows. It's just a bad line at the moment really. If you're minded to approve, we can get more detail and agree with that. I just want to clarify, how can you screen an air conditioning unit and still have it function properly? Does it not need air flow around it? I'm a bit worried about whether the screening is actually going to screen it. What's the air conditioning unit specifically? I believe that's the hetero, which is directly in front of it, so that would screen it across the landscape. The container itself would be clad. The air conditioning units you can see from the trackway, and they're just there and they're a bit blatant. Is there any intention to screen them from the driveway? I think Pat Puffley. Hi, yes. I did suggest both screening in the form of timber cladding going around to the containers as well as hedging. I don't believe that there is much of an argument that they don't work with screening if you simply Google air conditioning screening units. You can buy them readily on the internet and we have conditioned it in the past on air conditioning units against, say for example, listed barns. They seem to work effectively and they mix quite nicely, particularly against a cladded background, which is where they are proposed to be at the moment. That is some sort of screening between the trackway and those dark air conditioning units. That is what I have requested. Are there any further questions? I think I was going to ask about the dovecock also. I think we used to hear from the Heritage Officer a little bit more about that. The report seems to reduce the significance because it's been moved. I kind of knew that it didn't live there originally. I didn't realize that it had its history was on the sides, but nevertheless that's reducing it. Is there any visibility between the refrigeration unit and the dovecock even? I feel as if there's a building in between. I just wonder how much the dovecock is actually confusing our issues here in terms of heritage harm. Yes, I completely agree. The dovecock has moved a few times. As such, the contribution that its setting makes to its significance has been eroded already because it's out of context on its original position. It has also altered significantly over time. As you've said, it has a degree of separation between the shipping container, the refrigerated unit and also the air con units, which are pointed in the opposite direction. Whilst it is significant and it is listed, the contribution made by its setting to its significance is somewhat reduced in comparison to the old hall, which obviously is still in its original position and it still maintains quite a dominant scene within its setting. Thank you. Any further questions from members? I'll check Council launch. I've got questions as well. Right. Oh, he has. Yes. Council Lawrence. The graphs of the road, because I'm a little bit confused on what we're actually looking at in the context of the application in the minute. Joe, the roads have passed the container showing air conditioning units on the left-hand side and the container on the right. Here we are. That'll do. Thank you. I just wanted to be clear that we're talking about screening of the container. We're not talking about screening of those air conditioning units on the left-hand side of that road. Oh, are we? I don't believe that's part of the current proposal, so that's not proposed. Sorry, that was my concern about the Chair's question and I thought she was talking about those three white chilli units or air conditioning units on the side of the building. I think those are to be screened, don't they? I've got confused. The air conditioning units on the left-hand side of the driveway, you're talking about putting screening around those. When I first suggested it, I suggested screening for the AC units and screening for the container separately. So yeah, that would include, I believe that there is now a very small level of fencing that blocks the view from this direction, but it hasn't been fully clad in any way at all, not that I'm aware of. Councillor Larkin. Thank you. It was just to clarify about the sound. I think in one of the supplementary papers, there was an object of comments suggesting that the sound monitoring had the background noise. The background noise monitoring had taken account of noise from the kitchen, which is part of a separate investigation or complaints. I just wondered if you could clarify what the situation with that was, whether it was taken into account in the background noise and if it was, should it have been. Thank you. If I could direct your attention to the late papers and the latest comments of your environmental protection officers, which they conclude that they consider that to be part of the existing background noise they've taken into account in terms of the British standard, and that is their recommendation. Okay. Councillor Davis. Thank you, Chair. A note on page 21 that the western side of the car park is proposed to have some hedge screening. Is it correct to assume that sort of native speech is of hedging and the second question, I guess, is if we wish, could we specify the planting of some trees along there to help provide shade for the future? Well, the information we have is it's really an outline form at the moment. Part of our recommendation is that we have a full landscaping plan submitted. Should you be minded to approve and yes, we could control trees, hedges, native species, staggering of rose, that sort of thing. So that finite detail would really be for your officers to negotiate. But yes, if you have any suggestions, we'd be happy to take those forward. Okay, any further questions? If not, I will now invite the public speakers to address the committee. We don't have anyone from parish council. We have an objector, a minender, so he, if you would like to have your three minutes, if you press the button on the microphone and I will start a high tech timer. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We are from the old hall. As there's been a discussion about this, there are actually three heritage assets within the group. There's the old hall. There's the Dubcope, which has actually been on site since before 1880. So once it's moved from the back to the front, that move was in 1996. It has been on site since before 1880. So it is firmly a part of that setting and the place. The other, the final part is the 19th century bonds directly known designated heritage assets as determined by the heritage officer and our own report. So there are three heritage elements within that group. Now, basically, we have serious concerns about the approach being taken to considering cumulative effect. The laws were clear on this as a national guidelines, the NPPPG, which is that it's the cumulative harm that is to be determined as part of an application, not the cumulative applications. So the assessment now has to be of the cumulative harm as is taking all historical harm down to the heritage assets. It is not to wait until the next application and the next application and then assess the cumulative harm. So I think there's a fundamental error in the approach being taken in the heritage assessment. Perhaps the lawyers will wish to comment on that later on. But in our view, because of that, the heritage assessment as it stands is actually not representative of national or does not comply with national policy or historic England guidelines, which LP 19 does require this committee to follow. And it is for that reason and number of other reasons that we asked this committee not to determine this application until the complaints process that we were going through to that being one of the key points has concluded. Okay, so going on from that, it's not just these seven containers either. There is a commercial kitchen, which is not local. There's commercial extraction from the kitchen, which directly is directly facing the old hall. So we get noise in our gardens all the time. Are you on your final sentence, because your three minutes are up. If you could just summarize with the final sentence. Okay, so basically, we're asking the committee to wait until our complaints are resolved, because we think the fundamental errors are being made in terms of the cumulative effect. And by the noise assessment, because it's misapplying the British standard. Thank you. Maybe our legal advisor can just explain to us the complaints procedure. How does the complaint or somebody could just explain how the complaints procedure works. Yeah, of course, I have to come back on both of those points. In terms of the complaints procedure, there's various steps. We've had a stage one complaint and we've replied, it then goes on to stage two, and that goes out to somebody outside of the planning team who look at the process. They'll come and have a conversation with us about the process, and then they'll respond to that. That's ongoing. I've been in touch with the complaint team and they had no objection to committee continuing and making the decision potentially today. And that process would continue. From our side on the heritage and the noise points, that's what we were trying to be really clear on today for you is that, yes, absolutely, we're looking at a worst case scenario with those containers in place with the harm that has happened. Today is that balance over the benefits versus the harm and the tests from the MPPF or not. That's the decision for members this morning. But at the same time, should those containers then have a planning application, we still want to do that same balance. As I said, there's the two signs to it, and the thing to do for the moment is to take the worst case scenario, and that's on the basis that we've had those updated papers on that discussion. Similarly with environmental health, they've taken away the point as far as the noise in the background noise assessment. Alex Master, on exactly the final details of that, but essentially looking at what is there at the moment, what has got consent at the moment and what to add to all of those things are quite to the background noise. They've reviewed, they've provided further comments, and they, again, are content with where we're at. I just checked, that was the point for environmental health, as far as you were concerned, it wasn't yet. I don't know if Ian had any more to answer. That's a question that we've heard about other containers that are not within the application site, that are being investigated by enforcement colleagues. Is it an open possibility that they won't need permission, or that they might have been there long enough not to have permission, need permission for immunity? Potentially they are temporary, so whether they are moved and can be moved, that might then equate to a temporary use of the land. And similarly, yes, if they wanted to apply to retain them and that was the outcome of the enforcement action, that might be a further application, but I don't have any update on that at the moment. Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the objector, Councillor Penning? I'd like to ask if you would prefer a building or buildings as opposed to a container or containers. First of all, there is no reason for the story. Let's call it that the cool storage facility to be there. The ideal story is that it is moved somewhere else, because the business objectives can still be achieved, which we can still operate. So, it's not going to impact the economic benefits if there are. I mean, we don't believe there are. The coolers, for example, do not need to be on that wall. They're on the wall of a heritage asset, and inside of a properties cartilage, they could easily be moved to the other side to somewhere else. So, from a heritage point of view, they really both the shipping container and the coolers, or the three coolers, can easily move to another part of the site, yet still serve their purpose. As it is, the coolers are actually inside our right-of-way, and the proposed screening, which is like the only proposed to be on one site. So, anyone coming to our property, including us or leaving, will still have full view of the three coolers, as they are, as well as the door side of the container, because that's not to be clad. So, really, the solution is to move them somewhere else, so that the heritage arms are removed completely. Thank you. Did you want to come back on that? So, I'd just like to clarify that you would be happy with the container, if it were in a different location. Well, at the moment, all seven containers are visible from public profiles. This one is really prominent in that it is representing the boundary of our properties cartilage, of our access. It is really, unless it was placed within our garden, it is as close to the old hall as it can get. It doesn't need to be there. That's the thing. And it's a heritage responsibility to look at the alternatives, to minimise harm, and that's really not being effectively considered. Thank you. That needs to happen. Do you want to turn your mic off, Councillor Penny? Any further, Councillor OK? Thank you. It was just a follow-up question to those, really, to ask if any alternative sites have been discussed that you know about. Well, we actually produced a paper for the heritage team and the planning team, saying these options, here are the options, and we actually did quite a lot of research in terms of the viability of the options. These would really reduce the harm to the heritage assets, while still allowing the business to achieve its objectives. So the options are there. They've been sent to the planning team, and the response was that those inputs from us cannot be considered because we're actually proposing something as opposed to the applicant proposing it. But in our view, and in the view of historic England, there are guidance, it is a heritage responsibility to actually look at the alternatives, and that hasn't been done. We can only determine what is before us. We can't say put the container somewhere else. That is not our—all we can do is say, should the container be here? If we don't want it here, then we refuse the application. We can't say move it somewhere else, because that's not on the table in front of us. Do we have any further questions? I would just like to ask a question about the other six containers. Are they visible from your property? Is there a shot that we can—what I really want to say is, if you're standing on the driveway looking towards older people, looking towards older car farm and your property on the right, we can clearly see the container that we're determining now. Are the other containers nearby? Are they in that view? One is a direct site, one extra one. Then there are actually three in total, because there are two right next to the dump court as well within five metres. So three other containers are visible from the rear of our property, because we have a thing that the rear, which has a public path going through it, the other three are visible, so all seven are visible from within the court. In one view, if I was standing in one place, the maximum number of containers that I could see is four. Thank you. Yes, plus the three cooler units. Are there any further questions? Thank you very much. We don't have a supporter. We do have the applicant, Stephanie Hardingham. If you would like to press the button on your microphone and you'll have your three minutes, thank you. Hello, my name is Stephanie, and my partner and I run all the car farm shop, they caught your cafe and all the tree ice cream at all the car farm. I've got a few words to say about the background and why we need things where we are. If we have time, I could explain where the other containers are, but we don't want to run out of my three minutes. We were asked to put in this retrospective planning application after a visit from the planners. I think it was August 22. We have cooperated throughout, providing all the information that's required. We were asked to put in a retrospective application for the butcher container, the shop refrigeration units, which run the shop fridges. One of them has been there for about 20 years, and the overflow parking, sorry, we haven't discussed that at all. So just a bit background, my parents bought the farm in 1981 to run as a pick your own fruit and vegetable business. The land and the buildings at the time were in a state of neglect. Two of the original barns that sided onto the farm courtyard had were lost to fire before they came and had been replaced with concrete pick skies. And the grade two listed Dunkot was in a, as we said, in a different location. It was completely derelict and the roof was falling in. So my parents replaced the pick skies with traditional timber frame barns, including 16th Century Barn, which came from Bramfield St George, which is now used as the cafe. They restored and moved the Dovkot with some Heritage England grant funding, I think. Now, I was at an antique shop, one of the six other businesses on the site. Over the years, obviously, market conditions have changed. Shopping habits have changed significantly with supermarkets, online shopping. And in order to survive, we've had to continually innovate and adapt. We're opening the farm shop, the cafe, converting and renting craft units on site and making the ice cream. We now employ over 40 people and support over 120 local suppliers. We opened the book tree in spring 2020, so we could offer our customers locally sourced meats, some of which comes from the farm. It also supplies the onsite cafe with produce and our award-winning sausages. At the time, I didn't realize a container unit needed planning permission because they're inherently portable. However, obviously, if you're planning to use it permanently, then you should apply for planning permission. So that's what we're doing. The refrigerator container is needed for hanging carcasses and storing meat. It's accessed throughout the day. This means it's essential that it's located as close as possible. You can't be carrying half animals through the courtyard or through the shop or anywhere else. And there's simply not enough space within the farm shop buildings. We're very restricted due to the courtyard nature of the buildings. Are you or us at the end? If you can summarize with the final sentence, that would be great. Thank you. So the book tree is now central part of the business. It makes up over 20% of the shop sales. The farm shop turnover has doubled since the book tree opened. But trading conditions are difficult. I'll let you please. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of the applicant? Council having them? Could you point out where the other containers are? Can you bring up a map? Oh, yes, if you go back one. So you can see the position of the existing book tree container unit just to the left there. We have got two, so they're all to the north of the property. There's one. There's two by the farm shop, sort of this behind the dovecote, between the dovecote and the farm shop. And that's been, they've been there 15, 20 years. One's used for storage for the farm shop and one's used for the ice cream. And then there's the big shed. So if you go to the north, that's up. Yeah, that's a big shed that we use for storage. There are two to the, if you go east of that, that we're putting, and that's used for storage for William and Herbert and Teaks, who have rented the dovecote from us. And then there are two further up, past, further north to the tunnel, up by the tunnel, which used by Huffle's whole growth. Two rent, do they keep pigs from doing their hog roast business? So you could probably just about see them as you come up the drive, past the sheds. You can see one, but you have to look right the way through the car park and all the car park cars. And I think you can, you can just see them over the wicker fence that runs between the dovecote and the farm shop. But that area is all full of plants and it looks beautiful. And obviously, if you then carry on down the track, that would take you to the old hall. So yes, they have to go past up, but if you contain a unit. But I struggle to see how they see any of the others, unless it's right across the footpath towards Needham Lake, possibly. But there is, I mean, we've planted hundreds and hundreds of metres of hedging around the place. And there is a big hedge that runs up by the east of the shed. Yeah, which went in five or six years ago, I think. I think we did 180 metres around the native hedging around the car park in the last few years. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Davis. Thank you, Chair. Could you clarify with the car park, is that additional car park that isn't currently used or is it? Yes, so it's an area of field adjacent to the existing car park that we've used for sort of 15, 20 years as overflow parking during peak periods. It is probably now used more frequently, but we've planted hedging along two sides of it. And the proposal is to put another line of hedging along so it's not visible from the road and as you come up the drive. And to keep it as grass, so it's returned to agriculture if needed. Thank you. Any further questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. So I now have the board member, Councillor Lawrence. It is fair to start this representation by declaring that, like many other persons, I visit and I enjoy the facilities of older car farm. Not a frequent visitor, but possibly as much as eight times per year. While there is much debate within a documentation on the planning website and the presentation we've seen today, I know that significant movement has taken place by the applicant to address concerns and issues raised. The heritage team of stated conditions that they wish to be included should the committee agree and the overall application as proposed is considered an exceptional standard of design and layout and mitigation with respect to heritage assets in accordance with plan policies LP 19 and LP 24. Regarding noise, again, considerable movement has been made by the applicant in addressing issues and concerns. Appropriate conditions are included, which includes a follow-up report. I also note that the proposed new Chile unit would achieve a noise level below background for both day and night times. For those who may not be familiar with the site, it sits within a few hundred metres of the Ipswich Cambridge Ipswich Norwich train line. Not only does this line carry relatively high speed electric passenger trains, but large heavy diesel freight trains rumbling along to and from Felix Docks. Thankfully, there were no such planning issues that we have today when the train lines were built. In March this year, older car farm was crowned the best small farm shop in the whole country, in the prestigious Farm Retail Association Awards 2024. The award recognised their commitment to sustainability, supporting local producers and creating a unique shopping experience incorporating the farm shop, butcher and cafe, and of course it's only multi-award-winning, older tree ice cream. It was also a finalist in the Suffolk Food and Drinks Awards 2024 and Farm Shop and Delhi Awards finalists 2024. I mention these accolades, not as free advertising, but to emphasise the public benefits clearly demonstrated in having such a high quality and strong business offering in the need of market locality. It goes without saying that much of this offering is reliant on the demonstrated need and use of refrigeration and Chile units. All things considered, and with the recommended conditions, including screening within the report, I hope that the committee will find a balance in approving this application. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of the award member? Thank you very much. So, I will now open this item up for debate. Anyone like to say Councillor MATHISSA? Yeah, the business of cumulative impacts hasn't been much of a problem for a long time and I think we're going to really need very, very careful advice about that. I mean, mostly with planning, you ask the officer a question, you get an answer, and in this case, it's quite a kind of slippery, flexible answer that's going to do. I mean, I'm thinking about, for example, when we used to have wind turbines on the land and we did kind of look at those in a cumulative visual impact way. To a degree, and we kind of worked out a rule of thumb for that. And so, you know, and I think that in this case, you've got the cumulative heritage issue and then there's this cumulative noise issue as of what is a valid starting point of background noise or existing ambient noise or everyone to call it. And, you know, I'm really, really clutching it up for more help on how we deal with that cumulative point. And, you know, we've talked about it in the questions officers who would agree. But I really, really think we need more help about it. I mean, I see the point about in the supplementary report about what was it? Was it worst case scenario? And I see that and that's something that we can perhaps clutch on to. But anything is any more officers like to say to us about cumulativeness and to agree to which it should be weighed? I think that's over to you, Gemma. That's fine. Just checking this and having advice, that's fine. I think probably we're in a position between two points of view, which is probably from a strict planning point of view. We would say, much to say, this is the application in front of us, we'll determine it. If those need planning permission, that will then come into play later on. So you separate them from a strict planning point of view. When we look at heritage harm, as has been mentioned, it's got to be the whole picture. Whether they have planning, whether they need planning or they are there, we should look at that worst case scenario. If all of those containers remain and they could potentially have been referenced the amount of time they've been out on site, there is also the fact they could be temporary so you can cite something for a certain amount of days per year anyway. There is a collection of reasons why they might remain, or you might have a future planning application. So from a heritage point of view, we need to look at that in combination, and we probably need to take that worst case scenario to make sure that we are balancing up the overall package as it stands at the moment. It's not so something that comes forward in the future, but at the moment we know we've got some containers there. They're not part of this application, but they're nonetheless there. And then we've got the refrigerated container that is going to remain retained there permanently if we go on this application. So that collection got to consider what's the extent of the harm. You've heard the professional advice and came correct from wrong, a low to medium level of less than substantial harm. So that's the top of the harm that we're looking at cumulatively with all of the containers that we've got at the moment in various other works and everything that's there. We then have to do the normal move on to, okay, we've got less than substantial harm. Is that or is that not outweighed by the public benefits we might have from this? And that's what Alexis spoke out through. I won't quote the paragraph numbers, but they're in the office's report that we feel those public benefits are sufficient in that weighing balance to take that on. Does that help split the two issues slightly further apart for you? Yeah, it is. Sorry, sorry, yeah. Sorry. That's fine. No. Let me find the noise advice. So the environmental health will obviously look and give us some advice. I don't know how many times we've been in discussion with them at least two or three more things. Do you think this is the fourth response? So we've been through the various discussions with them and we've queried the question as to if something does not have consent and may or may need it, but nonetheless, much as the heritage point is there, what do you consider background? Because if they come back, how does that knit together? The review for environmental health was that they were content that they were looking at each specific sound and were giving it the weight that they needed to in the process to come out with a recommendation that they were content, that they're reducing down the existing plant to a new plant, which would be at a lower level than is there at the moment, and that we would have appropriate conditions that would deal with that, so that we're reducing it to the nearest noise sensitive dwelling, and we can control that noise levels don't exceed the background noise level and have a validation certificate for that. So I think they have been through all of that process, from their point of view, as said four times under conversation, under review, and that's how they have worked through it. I appreciate that's not a technical assessment, because we're not environmental health experts. We've got to work on the basis of their consultation responses that we've had, and they were content with those. I think you asked again if they had anything extra to add, and they said no, no, no, as our latest comments, that's what we would advise. Thank you. Does that help, Councillor MURPHY? Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Right, so is anyone else like to contribute to the debate? Councillor MURPHY? Well, it's more of a question, really. While we're on the subject of noise, the plans I understand it are for the refrigeration unit for the butchering, that to replace the existing cooling units with newer quieter units, which according to the 33 decibels, which I've just looked up is very, very low. It's like a whisper, less than a library. So, but the other refrigerated container, is there another one? Just one which is the subject of this application, certainly. Like I said, I'm unsure of what the other six are used for, but that's not for consideration today, although it is a material consideration. Yeah. Thank you. I understand that's a bit muddy. Okay, so this is actually, from the noise point of view, this is actually an improvement. It is. The caution with that is whether anything existing does, or doesn't have planning permission. And that's the issue with the noise review. Yeah. You're doing a background noise on something that may or may not need planning permission, should it therefore be included or not be included in the background report. We've asked them around to help that specific question and had their further advice on that, that they would contend on that basis, that they'd looked through each of the separate background noise from the various aspects of the site. And as part of that, I hadn't associated that lower level for the refrigerated container to bring the, you know, make sure that noise level is as reduced as it can be. But that's where the water gets moneyed. We don't have. This is the background noise level originally, plus what would be proposed and adding together. We've got that in that muddy situation of what's there, what's needed, how does it slot together, but said we've asked environmental health questions specifically to get their advice on it, and they would contend. But the level of noise is much less, for instance, than the car driving past the... In the discussions I've had, yes, I'll agree with your assessment, Councillor Abbose. You know, it is the whisper level, yeah. Yeah. And less than the existing container that's proposed to be, yes. Thank you. Councillor Headingham. I think that all things considered, like Councillor Lauren said, this is an award-winning marvellous farm shop and restaurant. I live 45 minutes away, and I've been there plenty of times. And I think that, frankly, asset within our community, the public benefits do outweigh the harm that, you know, this is doing. If the containers have been there, that, you know, I've never noticed that anything looks incongruous when I've been there, and I'm all for basically supporting what our officers say, and I'm happy to propose. So are you actually making a formal proposal, right? Do I have a seconder? Councillor Davis? No, yes, Chair. I'm more than happy to use second proposal. I have to confess I haven't visited this. I've put I've heard enough to date to clearly support our officers' recommendation. Thank you. Can I just ask the proposal, the seconder? Because I did mention some condition about the final finish of the planning, and whether you're happy to add that as a condition. Sorry to say what colour and all the rest of it. You know, I haven't got any impersonal things, but yes, I'm happy for that to be in. Yeah, because I must admit, I do think at the moment it is a white stock thing, and you see it from that track, and I think something, and I know it's going to have a bit of hedging, but then you look at the track and you just see this white square box, and I do think something needs to be done with it. Yeah, shades of green, I'm thinking. Whatever is determined the LPA can do. Yeah, thanks. That's bullet point five six in the recommendation that it is. It is actually there and required to be manufacturers' details, or appropriately scouted drawings for the proposed cladding on site to be submitted within three months following approval. So that would be for us to agree, and then there will be a requirement to be implemented. That is all it is. So I missed that because it started with manufacturers' details, and I missed the fact that we were talking about the cladding. And can I just reference there is also a condition proposed by environmental protection that's set out in the late papers that I think we're proposing to include in the recommendations. I just wanted to check that. So that will be added as another bullet point on the recommendation. And I presume that the proposal and seconder are happy with that. Yeah. Councillor interjecting. In general, I've supported the application of the proposal. With respect to the visual mitigation as well as the cladding, could we perhaps actually suggest that the doors are painted black as well rather than white? So the whole thing kind of is less visually obtrusive. Is that part of that bullet point anyway? I think it could be. I think we haven't specified, but I don't see why we couldn't see. And it's not practical to. Yeah, it depends how far you want to go in terms of being specific. I mean, the condition would delegate to your officers to consider that and negotiate that. But if you certainly wanted a certain car. I think so. At the moment it just says off of proposed cladding containers. Can that include the door? Yeah. I think we could use cladding including door. I think Alex is here and can make sure that that's included in the condition that we understand that to be the case. Councillor Elkin. Thank you. I mean, sort of similar to everybody else. I mean, you can see it's a bit of a stark view kind of coming up and down that drive. I did wonder if there was room for a tree. I know you've talked about hedging along the side of it. But for the residents of Old Hall, if they're coming down their driveway, there's quite a big block there. I didn't know if there was room to put a sort of standard tree in there or something that might screen it a little bit. So that was just a thought. Whether that would be reasonable or sensible. There may not be space. I don't know the site. Well, could that be part of the overall landscaping condition? I'll make a note of that as well. If it's something that is wanted. It was just a thought. But in general, I mean, it's really tricky because there is some heritage harm. But on the other hand, we were asked to balance that with public benefit. And it's exactly the sort of business that we want to support. It's producing really lovely quality local food. It's employing lots of local people. So it's a very difficult balance to make. But personally, I would feel minded to support it with all the conditions that we can put on to reduce the impact for the residents that are driving past that butchering unit or chiller unit. Thank you. Councillor Penny. Yeah, I just wanted to, well, I could comment on trees. Might might provide shading as well for some somewhere you're trying to keep cool. I just wanted to check that the cladding was on all sides of the container. Including the roadside. We could check with the slide. But yeah, I believe it was on three sides and then you had the doors. And there's a question of the colour of the doors. But we can be on all four sides. And that is what would make it of good design to meet the criteria for LP 24. I'll just double check with the heritage officer. It is the cladding that makes it of good design rather than being as it is. LP 24, I think it's not a heritage related planning consideration. But what I will say is that shipping containers are inherently harmful, which is what I've said in my thing. They are in Congress to the landscape, cladding, one of the issues is to do with their appearance and how they are very utilitarian and cuboid. Cladding it will soften that view, particularly when based against the backgrounds of the buildings. But without a gabled roof of any form, it will still look like a shipping container. So we can soften the impact and that will reduce the harm level down to about very low, particularly for this specific container. But it doesn't remove the harm altogether because the shipping container will always be seen as harmful in this setting. Does that cover your query? I could ask about the roof. I don't really know what I want to say about that. I must admit, when I saw the photograph in the late papers which pointed out shipping containers next to the dovecock, I couldn't spot them. It was only when somebody actually pointed out where they were. They went back and looked at the photograph and I realised that they were shipping containers. So those ones are clearly well screened because in an initial view of that photograph, I didn't spot them. I think they, from what I understand about where they are now, I think they might be visible in the same sort of view as this one. And if they're that well hidden, I don't think they're really adding to the harm from this one because they're practically invisible. Unless you're right up close to them. I do think that this one currently looks like a bit of a white box and something needs to be done about it. And yeah, there is some harm. I'm not saying there isn't any harm from the noise or the heritage aspect. But as has been said by my colleagues, we have to outweigh that harm with the public benefit of having this award winning farm. Farm shop and cafe and all the other businesses that are there. And they are actually in a very good location because they're walking distance from the town, they're walking distance from the station. It is actually a fair, for our district, I think it's a pretty sustainable location to have a facility like that. And okay, they're increasing the car park because they have got more visitors by car. But let's not forget you can get there by more sustainable methods as well. So yeah, I think I will be supporting this application and it is a way of regulating the unauthorized development. And I look forward to finding out what's going to happen about the other six containers and whether they are lawful or with any planning application and whether we'll be discussing them again. So I think I'll be supporting this application. Is there anyone else who wishes to comment? If not, we've got our recommendation and it is as in the paper, plus the addition of whatever's on the late papers. Can you just remind us what we're looking for in the late papers? The recommendation on page 27 with the additional environmental protection conditions are set on the late papers. Right, so if everyone's happy with that, I will ask the government's officer to conduct the electronic votes. Thank you chair, members, that vote is now in progress. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you members. So Councillor Lawrence is not voting. Is this the ward members? So that's seven votes for that's carried chair. Thank you very much. So that is the only case that we are determining today. Item number eight on our agenda is site inspections. And I will now invite Vincent Pierce to present requests for site inspections. And if Councillor Lawrence wants to move back to the other members for this part of the meeting, he can. Well, we've got a bit of movement. Shall we take a couple of minutes break just to get so that Vince and Lawrence can sort themselves out? And if anyone wants a very quick comfort break, we'll have. [BLANKAUDIO] It's Vince. [LAUGH] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] In terms of the offer that's contained within both applications, the barrels road application if approved would provide all this purple land to the parish council for a pound. That's all the open space around the new green community center. At the moment the parish council has a 50 year lease of that land. They would be given the freehold for a pound. If the Norton Road application was to be approved, they would secure the building. The community center building and parking freehold for a pound. Currently they also have a 50 year lease on that site. Another piece of land next to a man of farm is also being proposed as a transfer to the parish council for a pound, again for BNG purposes. So that's a quick run through. I'm not here to discuss the merits, but on the basis of that we are inviting you to take a trip out and we'll meet you there and show you what needs to be seen. I'll just ask maybe this is a question for Ian. We're only discussing whether we have a site visit or not. Does Councillor Davis can he vote or not as the board member? I just wanted to check that we were doing it for the rules. All we are discussing is whether we make a site visit to one site, both sites or not at all. So are there any questions for the case officer? Not about the merits of the case, but about whether we go for a site visit. Anyone got any questions? We haven't decided whether we're going to have one yet. Councillor Muffin. Yeah, I think it would be really quite handy to have written down the main components of what officers took us through at the beginning, what is being proposed and offered in on each one, just so that we can look at it with sufficient understanding. I know we'll get a briefing when we're there, but I feel as if taking the point about complexity, which has been made, I'd really like to see it written down so that I can look at it with that knowledge fully on board, so to speak, certainly more papers that we usually have for a site visit that's put in like that. If members were minded to agree a site visit, I would be happy to put together a very short briefing pack that doesn't explore the merits, but at least points out all the key issues. That sounds OK. Can I just, I mean, I would just like to make sure that if we do go for a site visit, we probably also need to look at the offer, the land offer. I mean, I'm quite familiar with Thurston. I do know where both these things are. I think one of them is quite a constrained site, so I think for people who don't know Thurston, I think it would be useful for people to actually understand the geography. Of the area and also to look at what is on offer, what they're being offered for the £1. I think, sorry, I'd have to agree with the chair. If you go, then we're going to have to have our boots on and we're going to have to have quite a walk around because there is a lot to see, so be prepared for some walking. It's not an area where you can just drive by and appreciate all the issues. So, is there anyone who wishes to make a proposal, either to visit or not visit, Councillor Herringham? I'm happy to propose that we do go do the site visit. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Matheson? Anybody else wish to comment or make any contribution to the debate about a site visit? Councillor Lawrence? Just out of interest I'd like to ask, is it likely to come eventually to full planning committee without any recommendation at all from the case officer? We always provide a recommendation, Councillor. It's probably June, July. So this would be an opportune moment to have a look. So if anyone, if no one else has got any comments to make, we're going to vote on doing a site visit to both sides and will include, make sure people know where these bits of land that being offered to the Paris Council are, and we're also going to have a briefing pack by from the case officer. So I'll ask the governance officer to conduct the electronic vote. Thank you, Chair, members, that vote is in progress. [ Pause ] [ Pause ] Thank you, members, Chair. That's the seven votes for, so therefore that's carried. And the date will be arranged into course, I presume, when we've got suitable time frame. Yes, I would suggest that it would best if we tried to time it on one of the weeks where we have a provisional evening meeting. The next one of those, it's the 22nd of May, but that's where we normally have one, but that's full Council, so I think that would be tricky. So one after that would be 19th of June. Would that work, Vincent? So there would be no normal planning committee on that day, but we do have the hold in the evening, so we could go out in the morning instead. I'll find a couple of alternatives, and I will email them out. So the initial proposal is to have it during the daytime of the 19th as a sort of provisional date, but you all find some alternatives. [ Pause ] We'll aim for the 12th of June, but I'll email out later, and we'll see. The office will make the arrangements, is all we need to decide now, isn't it? So that is it. I'll close this meeting, and the next meeting will be on when to the 15th of May at 5.30 here in the King Edmund Chamber. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. [ Silence ]