Transcript

verbal confirmation provided when we are broadcasting. I think the firm chairman of the NNALI, thank you. Welcome to the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, the agenda, papers and other relevant information for this meeting are available for the public viewing on the Herifia Council website. Please remember your words and actions should be chosen carefully and members are reminded that speeches are limited to three minutes. The council is screaming this meeting on the live on the Herifia Council YouTube channel and also making a recording. The recording will be available via the council's website shortly after the meeting has concluded. Other attendees are permitted to film and photograph and record the meeting provided that it does not disrupt the business of the meeting. If you do not wish to be filmed or photographed, please identify yourself so that anyone who intends to record the meeting can be aware, there are none. To ensure that the recording quality is maintained, could members speak as clearly as possible and keep background, nose, nose, noise to a minimum, and ensure that the mobile and other devices are turned to silent? Welcome to all those in attendance. I now ask Gibbons who to introduce all the officers for this meeting. Thank you, Channa. My name is Kelly Gibbons. I'm the service manager for development management. To my right is Laura Smith who will be presenting item six and joining us later for item seven will be Adam Lewis and Andrew Banks for item eight. We also joined by Katie Jones on behalf of the local highway authority. And online today we have Georgina Coley as our legal advisor. Thank you. Now we'll move on to apologies for absence. We have apologies from Councillor Hamblin and Toynby. Any other apologies, no. In substance, are there any name substitutes? No, no substitutes. Declarations are in interest. Can anyone who has wished to declare an interest, please make themselves known? There are none. We'll move on now to the other minutes of the meeting held on the 13th of March 2024 approved. These can members raise their hands. Any against? Abstentions? Thank you. There are no Chairman's announcements. Can I ask the request of the speakers, public speakers, present in person for the agenda item six, join the meeting. Mr. Milne and Mr. Tomkins, please, can you take your seat? The public participation table. Good morning and welcome. I will call you when you speak following the officer's presentation on the application. Thank you. The application before us concerns 182 library road heritage, the erection of two dwellings and associated works. Can I now ask the officer to make a presentation? Thank you, Chair. Good morning all and thanks for those who attended the site visit yesterday. One of some questions that were made on the visit members attention is drawn to the update sheet. The application before you today relates to land at 182 library road Harryford and is demarked by the red star on the screen. The application is for two dwellings, one three bedroom two storing dwelling and one two bedroom bungalow. The site levels rise from the front to the rear, similar to the gradient of quarry road. This slide shows the extent of the application site and is outlined in red. This also shows a site within the local context with the site having an area of approximately 335 square metres. Each dwelling will accommodate one parking space of which both will be accessed off quarry road. Both driveways will be to the east of the dwellings with both spaces meet in the required space centres to accommodate one vehicle. There are no highways objection to the scheme following the recommended conditions attached within the officer report. One existing access point already exists with the drop curve off quarry road and therefore it is considered the impact of the on-street parking is minimal with the loss of one parking space to provide the new vehicle access to the three bedroom dwelling. Given the site's highly sustainable location, the walking distance to town, shops and a main bus route, one parking space per dwelling is considered acceptable in this location. This slide shows the proposed elevations for the three bedroom dwelling that will sit to the southwest of 182 Lebby Road. The dwelling will be detached and there will be approximately 1.3 metres between the two dwellings. The design is matching to what currently exists within the locality of a rendered first floor with red brick to the ground floor element. The dwelling will follow the form of the existing dwellings along Lebby Road and will have similar footprint to what currently exists. On-screen now shows the proposed bungalow elevations and the existing drop curve entrance in the photographs on quarry road. Note in the new entrance will be moved slightly to the east of what currently exists. Questions were raised on site yesterday in regards to the lamppost and following further investigation, it has been confirmed that access to and from the driveway will not be hindered as a result of the lamppost, however if it was required to be moved it can be done so as part of a section 184 licence which would need to be applied for via B2. Questions were also raised in regards to the levels on site and how the bungalow would sit within the plot. As annotated in the amended site plan, it shows the levels of the site to the rear where the bungalow will be placed is approximately 1.25 metres higher than the lowest part of the site. It is therefore considered that there is no requirement to largely excavate the site only levelling out and with the bungalow's low ridge of 6 metres it is not considered to cause any overlooking or overbearing impacts on neighbouring immunity. The site history here is relevant, there has been two previous applications on site, one for three dwellings which was refused and then a later application in 2019 which was subsequently refused by the local authority and dismissed on appeal. The inspectors comments here are relevant and as shown on screen to which they find no objection to the parking provisions of the site of which are similar to what exists now. And then with the loss of one parking space is considered minimal in particular in this urban area. The inspector also raised concerns with the proposed rear dwelling being two-story, however following discussions with the local planning authority through the pre-application process, this has been amended to address these concerns and forms of proposal as presented here today. No objections have been received from any of the statutory consultees and therefore the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined within the officer report and the update sheet. Right, we will now move on to speakers. Can I invite Mr Milne to speak on behalf of the Heritage City Council? You have three minutes. The Heritage City Council object to this application considering it over development of a prominent corner site, out of keeping with the character and density of existing housing in the area. City members also express concerns of the impacts of on highway and pedestrian safety of the intensification with more vehicle accesses across the pavement at this complex and noisy road junction. Members noted that also that the scheme would entail the loss of trees and green space through the development of the garden ground. It is therefore considered that the proposed led re-road development with its pastiche of a week 1960s style to be of a poor design that fails to take opportunities to improve the character and quality of the area. The proposal constitutes a cramped form of development with residential properties proposed on a domestic garden at a prominent street corner in an area characterized by dwelling set within well-proportioned plots. The application is therefore contrary to policy SD-1 for the creation of safe, sustainable welcoming and well-integrated places, policy LD-1 to demonstrate that local characters positively influence the design, scale, nature and setting and SS-6 through environmental quality and local distinctiveness of the local plan called strategy. And the permissions of the National Planning Policy Framework, Kiffley Powergast 128 and 130. It is also considered that such overdevelopment would detrimentally impact the immunity for residents of 182 led re-road and to some extent 184. The front door and windows of the south-west gable of number 182 would be entirely overshadowed by the proposed development due to there being such a narrow gap left between the gable and walls of the existing and proposed dwelling houses and its garden reduced to a tiny yard overshadowed by six foot close-boarded fences. Whether or not the rooms to which overshadowed windows admit light are considered habitable, the immunity of the future residents will be of a poor standard and would negatively impact their health and well-being. This also makes the application contrary to policies SD-1, LD-1 and SS-6 for the local plan and the NPPS chiefly paragraph 135F. Councillors, these are broadly the reasons cited in respect of the previous application on the site refused by officers and by the planning inspector at appeal which the City Council considers still apply. Given the identified harms, this is not a sustainable form of development for which a presumption in favour may apply, refusal is recommended. Thank you, Chair and good morning members. I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant in support of their application for two small houses on the corner of Lebry Road and Quarry Road, Hereford. The applicants have owned the site since 1982, including 182 Lebry Road. The applicants are a small local building firm based in Martin Herifture who have a track record delivering good quality builds. They use local tradespeople throughout the design and build process which is fundamental to a buoyant local economy. The site is sustainable, located within walking distance of Herift City Centre and the amenities they're in. The site is also near to schools, numerous places of employment, shops, pubs and other amenities, all of which are accessible on foot. The development has a highly sustainable location which would reduce unsustainable transport use and which would maximise opportunity to support local services. The intention is that the houses will appeal to those looking to get a foot on the property ladder or looking to downsize. The bungalow is designed to cater for those of reduced mobility. This is particularly important given the work underpinning the new local plan suggests that 41% of the population of Herifture will be of retirement age within 17 years. The location of the development is particularly important in this respect as it is so close to important amenities which are focused in Herift. In terms of architecture, the applicants have worked with the council's offices throughout the pre-application advised process to ensure that the development design would have an appropriate relationship with the existing development in the area. It builds on the advice gleaned through previous applications at the site and the detailed advice given by officers during the pre-application advised phase. In terms of parking, officers initially advised that no one site parking would be required for the two-storey unit. But on receipt of contrary comments from the highway authority, the applicants were happy to amend the plans to include an additional space being one for each dwelling. The highway authority now agreed that the proposals would not and duly affect the highway safety or the flow of traffic on the road. In summary, the scheme provides smaller house types suitable for first-time buyers or those wishing to downsize. The bungalow in particular would assist in providing a house for those of limited mobility. The development is appropriate for the character of the area whilst the scheme would have an acceptable impact on parking levels as well as highway safety. If this application were approved, it would create work for a local building firm employing local tradespeople. For these reasons, we ask that you agree or offer this recommendation and grant planning permission for the development. Thank you. Thank you. If you could take your seats back in the public gallery, please. Councillor FOXSTON is the local board member for this item. She speaks first and then has the right to speak at the end of the debate. She does not have a vote, and she has a time limit of ten minutes for the opening address. Thank you, Chair. Thank you to all the members of the Planning Committee and all the residents who attended the site visit yesterday on 1-8-2 Leadbury Road. A special thank you to Ms. Laura Smith for her work in presenting the application. 1-8-2 Leadbury Road is at the foot of the steepest hill in the whole of the city. Not two or three, but there are five road junctions nearby. The site is at a densely populated area as is most divine hill ward. 1-8-2 is just outside a conservation area where houses have off-road parking and all the blessings of gardens and green spaces. Now, the proposed properties are directly opposite three busy convenience shops, Tapsley Dental Practice, a traditional fish and chip shop, and the new Morrison's local mini market, which is proving to be very popular. Now I refer to the Herifuture local plan core strategy, MT1. Traffic management and highway safety reads ensure that new developments are designed and laid out to achieve safe entrance and exit and have appropriate operational and maneuvering space. I believe MT1 is a crucially important policy to consider carefully with every single planning application. Now, the proposal has two driveways onto a congested area which is heavily used by pedestrian school children, family, cyclist shoppers, delivery lorries, vans, plus heavy traffic travelling up and down Quarry Road, plus the residence mornings, it's very congested there. Now, the two proposed driveways is onto a heavily used pedestrian area moving vehicles and is truly hazardous. Policy SS4, movement and transportation reads, new developments should be designed and located to minimize the impact on the transport network. In terms of traffic and pedestrians, the two driveways will considerably compromise the safety of residents, whether they be on foot or in cars. Course strategy, OS1, OS2, OS3, SC1 reads to improve the health and well-being and quality of life for all residents, by ensuring new developments positively contribute towards ensuring safer communities. Regrettably, this application has not improved the quality of life for residents who have repeatedly found repairing applications and are repeatedly having to raise objections. Two applications on this site were turned down by the planning department and later further refused by an inspector at appeal. The proposal would have a serious impact on the surrounding environment and the wider community. I believe the application constitutes overcrowding and overdevelopment on the garden of a semi-detached house and is not in keeping with the properties in the immediate facility. The addition of further dwellings, right in the centre of such an already established extremely busy residential and commercial area, is a serious cause for concern. Also, the proposed dwellings would be in extreme proximity to each other with differing elevations, with mainly pathways as boundaries between them. There's only, I gather this morning, 1.3 metre space between 1.82 and the new proposed three-bedroom house. I'm not quite sure how emergency services would cope with that, should there be a need for it. I don't know. My attention has been drawn to the boundary of 1.82 lead re-road being incorrect at the top of the garden. So we'll have to address that issue, but I am raising it now. I happen to know of three accidents this year around the vicinity of the shops. One where a motorcyclist was hit by a car and police and ambulance attended. Another where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist and sustained quite serious injuries. The third, two cars colliding. Now I'm not always informed about accidents, but these are three that I actually know about. I did request an RTA road traffic accident report from the planning department with a number of recent accidents. What I was given was only up until 2022. As I said, I don't get to hear about every accident, but I can assure the committee I consider the bottom of quarry road is an accident hotspot. The most dangerous in my ward. We cannot gamble with the safety of pedestrians and motorists and residents by approving this application. The infrastructure of the road cannot accommodate additional new properties and more vehicles. The problem is, you've got parking and it's literally just off the pavement and most people they tend to just drive in where there's no space to maneuver to get out. If you drive in, you'd have to reverse out onto that area, which doesn't bear thinking about. Anyway, now the infrastructure just can't really accommodate it. Now an architect can change and modify the layout of possible dwellings, but the fundamental problem here is the location. So hence the television program, location, location, location, this sadly cannot be changed. I have no problem with developments in spacious gardens, but on this particular site it cannot possibly work. Okay, thank you. And I look forward to hearing the debate. Thank you. And now we open the debate. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I had some concerns about this application when I first read the report, but the site visit yesterday elayed those fears and made the whole application look clearer to me. I've always had concerns about what we used to call backland development, and if they call it that any more, but this is, I think the application itself and the office's report overcomes the main concerns regarding backland developments, and such as overcrowding over development, poor design, et cetera, et cetera. I think this application with regard to the three-bed house attached to the existing semi-detached, I don't have a problem with that. There's plenty of room for it. It's on the main frontage, and there is, as I say, plenty of room. The bungalow at the back, I suppose, would have some concerns, barely in mind the land at the back slopes upwards towards the rear of the property. I imagine that that slope will be dug out, and so the bungalow itself will be lower down and won't have such an impact on the surrounding area. Maybe the officer can confirm that later on. There are two off-street parking spaces, which is to be applauded, and it's almost a bonus. Councillor Fokster makes much of the urban sprawl of this particular area, but of course, if you're going to live in an urban area, you're going to have to put up with road junctions and traffic and parking, et cetera, et cetera, and those of us who don't live in the urban areas, we don't understand it possibly, but we've all done it, I'm sure, but we have to cope with these sort of things, and I can't see that there's going to be additional danger with the development of these two buildings. If that in mind, I fully support the officer's recommendation to approve the application. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Andrews. Thank you, Chair. As has already been said, this application is not new. It's been come before those of us who have been around a long time twice, have been turned down by the planning of planning to inspect to it. It's a very back garden of comparatively small cramped site. I think it might just about accommodate one dwelling, but the three-bedroom house will be extremely close proximity to its next-door neighbour. I'm surprised that the width that we have just been given. It seemed a lot narrower when we did the site visit. I really feel that this is an over development of two houses, an over development of this very small site, and perhaps one bungalow might just be accommodated. Thank you. Councillor Thomas. Councillor Simons. I don't know how many red, red, what we've been sent. There's two details on it which are extremely worrying. First of all, there is a main sewer that runs behind 132, not in front, behind apparently, according to the Welsh water. You can't build within three metres of that, so where do you put the car park? The car park, if it's that's where it is, or the bungalow will be on top of it. Whichever, there's a major technical problem there, another of the conditions is that of the builders, vehicles must be catered for, well, there is nowhere other than competing with the car park for the shops that they can have that thing. If this is timber frame, you will have a massive crane to put in all the timber frame. That's another thing. The other thing is the splay cannot be achieved for the bungalow because you've got a neighbour's fence, high fence, which comes right to the pavement, so therefore you cannot get your 2.4 metres in, so there are quite a few technical problems on this one. I agree with the local council, it's very much compressed into a very small area. The bungalow will probably be, as surmised, will be sold to a elderly couple. You're going to have a very steep slope off the pavement down into the house. That is, again, is very difficult. I have severe reservations about this, Mr. Chairman. Councillor Simons. Thank you, Chair. I was the opposite to Councillor Baker. I actually didn't have too many concerns looking at the plan, but once I got on site, there were a few queries that I've directed towards Laura, the case officer. I'm not sure that they've been satisfactorily clarified in my mind, particularly with regard to the bungalow parking. As Councillor Thomas has said, there is a very high fence along with number 144 quarry road. Whilst the visibility splay has been achieved for highways in terms of the road, anyone coming out of that space won't be able to see who's coming along the footpath, which is my concern, as we said, there's lots of children that walk up and down there. There is no turning space. It is a reverse out. You'd have to reverse in to be able to drive out and your bonnet would already be across the pathway. However, that is how a lot of houses are designed without turning space or splay. The lamppost is clearly within that space, which will then obstruct visibility. I appreciate you saying it doesn't affect the maneuverability, however, it will affect the visibility, particularly on that section, as we've already said, there's a lot of parking. The boundary treatment, I thank you for the condition, put in, and taking that on board. I think in line with biodiversity net gain, I'd like to see that as a green boundary landscape rather than hard boundary. The distance between the dwellings fronting on to Lebry Road direction, I think it's, you say, 1.3 metres. I think wheelchair access is 1.2 metre minimum, ideally with a turning area, which this doesn't achieve because of the development being that close. The turning ground of 2.4 metres couldn't be achieved, and it's only just possible. I'm still unsure if there's any further debate I'd like to hear what people say. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stone. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I wonder if we can have some more details from the highway officer about recent collisions in the area. The local members mentioned these three accidents that she's aware of, and mentions that the statistics go up to 2022, I'd like to hear a little bit more detail about these and what the situation is there. I'm also very concerned about the fact that there's the fish and chip shop opposite, and I think on a Friday and Saturday evening it's going to be incredibly busy out there, not just with lots of people going there, but lots of traffic as well, with nowhere to park. Then you'll have the possible new development there with people coming in and out, cars possibly blocking their driveways and the very steep nature of the hill, and just looking at it on site and looking at that fish and chip shop, and how busy it's likely to be, I've got concerns that this is the wrong development in the wrong area. I think you're chairman. Thank you. Any other speakers? Okay, yes, let's give in a second. Hello. With regards to the accidents, there have only been three accidents in the past five years, and there haven't been any accidents since 2022, so the accidents are as shown on the plan on the screen, and they consist of a car and a bicycle, basically the car was parked outside the chip shop on Quarry Road, uphill vehicle contained, drive of three young children, the driver pulled out from the front of the shop and turned left, attempting to make a U-turn in the road, a 12-year-old cyclist was coming down towards Lebby Road at speed on his way home from school, the cyclist brakes were defective, and he couldn't stop and was struck by the offside of the vehicle. He has small grays on his forehead, all the accidents are slight accidents in severity, and the second accident was vehicles travelling along Lebby Road and were stationary, indicating left to turn into their driveway, the driveway checked the mirrors and the road is clear, as they have started to turn into the driveway, a second male youth on a push bike who was cycling on the pavement collided with her, and the third accident, the driver had come to stop at the junction of Quarry Road to Lebby Road when their foot slipped off the brake pedal and hit the accelerator, causing the car to fall forward, crossing Lebby Road and striking the gate of 107 Lebby Road, again it was a slight accident and it was, the car was not automatic and the driver was wearing slippers at the time of the incident, so none of the accidents I think are, there's no accident history that has common features. So I just want to say, in support, additional two vehicles doesn't add to the highway's networks, we can't look at this in terms of existing defects on the highway with existing parking. I do feel that I would rather see development in the urban area than as constantly building on our greenfield sites, so in that respect, I feel positive at the scale of development and particularly at bungalow, we do need those within the area for our ageing population as well. I'd just like to add those in, thank you. Any other speakers, Councillor BAY. Just a quick question, I brought up during my session earlier on about the height of the bungalow at the rear, will that ground be dug out to reduce the height of that bungalow? I think there will be a need to obviously level that site, we can put a slab level condition on but you would normally cut into that rather than build it up, so we can add a condition to that effect to ensure that that is the case. Mr Thomas, just coming back to that bungalow, the actual display, I did notice, standing yesterday, the pavement coming down quarry road, which is level, it doesn't slope to the road, it doesn't slope in, it slopes out, in a heavy rain, I should think the most amazing amount of water comes down that pavement. Because of where it is, because of your entrance is going to have to go down into it, you're going to get a considerable amount of flooding problems, that's another thing to be considered. Any other speakers? We haven't had yet a proposal, the Councillor Baker was near to a proposal. All right, is there a seconder? We come back to this of having planning reasons for refusal, I need someone to recommend refusal and to give planning reasons for refusal. I will recommend refusal, partly, the only one I've got written down here is SD1, it's a safe guard residential immunity, I think the proposed two dwellings will form a very cramped form of accommodation with no adequate immunity space for the residents of either the three bedrooms house, or the proposed two bedrooms bungalow, and I think Councillor Foxton has provided several reasons also. I will second that, well, you already heard, SD1, FS6, LD1, NP1, SS4. Just a little bit slower, okay, well, SD1, FS6, LD1, NP1, parking, SS4, those are all reasons that have already been given. Yeah, I just clarify those, I think, so SD1, so I think what you're going back to is the previous reason for refusal, there with me, second, so SD1, which looks at amenity and design, so you've talked about residential amenity in terms of the cramped form of development with no adequate space for amenity, okay, LD1, which relates to sort of the design and how that fits in the surrounding area would be potentially, you know, good to expand upon that if you can, I think, FS6, and you mentioned SS4, but I think, obviously the other one, MT1, you said highway, MT1 is, okay, so MT1, so SS, the previous reason for refusal was based on SD1, LD1, and SS6, and that looked at the characteristics of the area and the amenity issues, and then MT1, if you want to expand a little bit, please, on the highways issues and what your concerns are. From the debate, I think it's more about pedestrian additional accesses and the complexity of the area and potential pedestrian conflict with pedestrians. I think the anxieties are that, because it's already been said, they will have to drive in and reverse out as this is an extremely busy junction, and although the highways people don't agree, I think it's very likely to cause a lot of conflict. Okay, I think, I will just draw your attention back to the fact that of the appeal, there was two accesses that were proposed, there was not reason for refusal on highways ground previously, local residents raised that as an issue, and the appeal inspector did consider that and said that they didn't feel that there was an issue with that. I appreciate this, it's like, you know, the very subtle change in where those are, but if, you know, it's whether or not you want to go ahead and refuse on that highways ground or whether you're content to refuse purely on the design, amenity, and sort of character issues that you've raised about overdevelopment or overcrowding, so where do you use overcrowding? That one is stronger than the highways one, as for the designs, it's fairly sort of standard design that you see all over, so it's very similar, in fact, to several others, it's not particularly imaginative, but it's definitely a sympathy on that, two houses on that back lands, that back garden is just overdevelopment offering the poor quality of living for the residents, and I just wonder, as I say, we told that part is 1.3 metres, it certainly didn't look like it. I agree on that one. The distance between the new proposed house and the existing 148, is it a 140? There's steps, there's two steps up into that house, you cannot, so those steps have to remain there, that's the only entrance to that house, so you can't, where are you going to put the steps, you have no access whatsoever as regards ambulance or disabled or anything like that, so you are making a no-go area to the door. Right, this clear, the overcrowding concerns, I think, of the strongest point. Whatever you do, if you're going to refuse things, don't put in things just for the sake of it, because it detracts from the decision, and doesn't help if it goes to appeal. Right, we've got that, the overcrowding, are there any other firm planning reasons? Well, I would have to say drainage, but obviously at the moment, the drainage company haven't actually identified where the main drain is, according to what is written by Welsh Water, there are two drains, one is for roof water and one is for sewage, they're not quite sure where it runs, they only know it runs at the back of the house, so therefore that alone may completely scuttled the bungalow. The other thing is to, it's all, the Welsh Water have said that there must be soakaways, which is standard today, cannot go into the foul water drainage system. You have to, by regulations, have your soakaways six metres away from the property, there's no way you can get, there isn't six metres in any direction, to get a soak away in. So drainage, I think, is also a main reason for refusal. Let's give us. Yeah, we haven't got technical comments on that, I mean, those are matters that would be picked up by building megs and along the way, and sometimes it's not an unusual situation for Welsh Water to identify the location of drains or infrastructure, but that doesn't mean that they can't be moved or altered and delicenced or with agreement with Welsh Water. I would stray away from dealing with a drainage reason for refusal on this, it's a technical matter that would be picked up by building megs and it's for, you know, the applicant would need to satisfy that. We wouldn't override, you know, making a decision here today, we wouldn't override the needs for that. So, I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's a reason, which should form a reason for refusal. Right, we've got a reason, unless there are any others, we'll go move towards a boat, perhaps any further comments from the officers? No, nothing further for me. Councillor FOXDAN, now. Thank you for the debate. I rest my case and I put my trust and faith in your good, considered decision-making when voting for this application, thank you. Right, we have a resolution before the committee. Those in favour of the resolution, please show. For refusal, yes. Against two abstentions. That is carried. Move on to the next item. We're going to have an adjournment, but at this point I think it'll be better after the next item. Just a moment where officers move and take their places. Okay, I think we're all in place now. Can I now request that the public speakers, president, person for the agenda item 7, join the meeting. Ms. Davis, Mr. Frankel, Ms. Prothero, is she? She's not speaking. Oh, and Mr. Butterworth. Delegated. All right. All right, and Mr. Butterworth, to the particular. Good morning, and welcome to the meeting. I'll call you to speak following the officer's presentation. Mr. Lewis is going to be the officer, anything with this matter, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, all, and thanks to all members who came out for the site visit yesterday. This application, as you'll surely be aware, is referred to Planning Committee on the basis that the council is the applicant. It seeks full permission for the creation of a new transport hub, public realm works associated in infrastructure alterations on land associated with Herifand railway station. The application site totals approximately 1.8 hectares and is sandwiched between the railway corridor and the A465 city link road on the north side of the city centre, indicated by the red star on the slide above, next slide, please. The surrounding area, you can see the site is a regular in shape and we can roughly break it down into three zones. Working from left to right on the top plan, area one is a pass of land currently used as the storage depot by network rail, which is linked to the station area by a narrow tract of land behind the medical centre and MFA bowl. Zone two is the main project area located to the four of the station building, currently occupied by parking and drop-off areas and large areas of informal hard-standing, and then zone three comprises the NCP station car park, which is located behind the city living student accommodation building. Next slide, please. So to briefly set some context, particularly of the main area, project area to the four of the station, to the top left, we can see the station building when viewed from the opposite side of the city link road near Morrison supermarket, so this is the main pedestrian approach to the station from the town centre. The top right then shows the station and its areas of hard-standing when viewed from the station medical centre. Bottom left, we can see the station from the station approach and bottom right stood from the main entrance to the station, looking back out towards the link road and the Royal mail sorting office. It's worth noting at this point the station building is listed at grade two, but the site is not within a conservation area. Next slide, please. So to turn to the application itself, the proposal is for the creation of the transport hub, which seeks to provide facilities to enhance transfer between rail, bus, road, cycling foot and other modes of travel. It also seeks to reconfigure the public realm and generally help facilitate the movements between transport modes and to generally improve the character of the area. In high-level terms, the provision of a transport hub has been a long-standing aim of the council, which is included within the 2015 core strategy as the adopted development plan. The key extracts from those policies are set out on this slide, but briefly SS4 identifies the transport hub alongside the link road as a major scheme in supporting policy aims to reduce congestion, improve air quality, road safety and to offer greater transport choices. HD2 goes on to state that as part of the city centre's regeneration, the council would in partnership with public transport operators would deliver an integrated transport interchange close to the railway station. HD3, dealing with movement in her efforts, sets out of the council will use a variety of funding mechanisms to deliver work such as public realm improvements, improvements to public transport into infrastructure, which overall aim to promote better integration between bus, rail and road. It's clear, therefore, that the general proposal to deliver a transport hub fully aligns with the council's policies and objectives, as well as the wider policies beyond planning such as those in the local transport plan. In broad terms, it's considered the principal development on this land is clearly supported by policy. Next slide, please. To the specific details of the proposal, there are quite a few elements to this which we discussed on site yesterday, but I'll just work through them again here. The key elements include the creation of a drive-in reverse out or a die-row bus interchange that will have capacity for four bus bases and is sighted on the land between station building and the medical centre. Buses entering that area will enter via the existing access from the city link road behind the medical hub before travelling behind that building and into the interchange area, which will then be restricted for uses by buses only. The formation of new access will then take place onto the city link road off the interchange that will serve as the exit for the bus interchange area. There'd also be three on-street bus stops created along Link Road, including a 12-seat weather-glazed screen for waiting passengers. There'd also be a provision of a drop-off area to the four of the station, which would be accessed off-station approach. That would include parking provision for six taxis, seven disabled spaces and then further provision for call for taxi spaces and disabled spaces in the larger NCP car park. We would also see improvements to the public realm four-court area between the station and the link road. That would include increased cycle storage, so from 44 spaces currently, up to 144 proposed, 66 which we covered and 78 uncovered. We'd also have real-time passenger information boards, barrel bike stands, seating areas, general public space and landscaping. Next slide, please. To consider the shelter building, this includes a section showing its height relative to the station, which I don't think is coming through on that plan, but it should show. It would have an L-shaped footprint with a canopy measuring approximately 4.5 metres in height. It would be predominantly open-sided with an enclosed waiting hub at the northern arm, providing enclosed waiting area for 30 seats, that would also contain four toilets, two of them accessible and a welfare area for the bus and taxi operators. Next slide, please. And then the layover parcel, which is beyond the medical hub, this would be utilised the existing junction of the city link road and beyond that, the road is reconfigured to provide access to the layover area as well as premises such as MFA bowl. This would serve as the access to the site for buses and the layover area would essentially be an area of hard standing with spaces demarked for up to five buses, providing parking and waiting for in the period between scheduled services. Next slide, please. So in terms of the key considerations, unsurprising given the nature of the proposals that one of the main impacts is the potential impact upon highways and transport network. The most relevant policies in this regard have been set up in the report. It's also highlighted the proposal has evolved since first submission and in light of feedback from various consultees. Whilst the fundamental access strategy remains largely unchanged, the changes we've seen during the application process include alterations to the alignment of the DRO parking bus interchange, which follows a Stage 1 road safety audit to improve efficiency of that area and to reduce conflict with other motor transport. We've also seen alterations to parking allocations, which has led to the drop-off area at the centre of the site being limited to taxis and disabled access only, alongside that the provision has been made in the larger NCP car park for a 20 minutes free waiting period across the whole car park to accommodate general drop-off and collections of passengers. We've also seen an increased provision for covered cycle storage and generally changes to traffic management within the site to reduce conflict between the different motor transport it's designed to accommodate. Following on from these changes, there are no objections to the scheme offered by the local highways authority in terms of maintaining the safe and efficient function of the network. Further details are requested in a number of areas such as specific design and construction specifications for cycleways and other surfaces, however these can be all secured by condition. There were some questions on site yesterday regarding capacity of the bus interchange and I'll just clarify those figures, so to expect that the interchange will support seven services an hour based on current time-tabling, however the design has capacity to support up to 18 services an hour if required, so officers are satisfied that the arrangement has sufficient capacity to deal with the current, but also to accommodate any future growth with need to be. We're also satisfied that the site is laid out in a manner which suitably segregates the bus interchange area from other motor transport in order to avoid conflict between maneuvering buses and any other motor transport on the site. In terms of supporting sustainable travel, it's noted that active travel England, who are the government agency responsible for the promotion of sustainable travel, initially offered an objection to the scheme, however following the receipt of additional information they acknowledge their concerns are now addressed and they now recommend approval subject conditions. This includes for the submission of a travel plan for the station which will manage its strategy to promote sustainable transport in the future. Overall therefore it's considered the proposal of lines with ejector the local plan to create the interchange as well as the highway specific policy is SS4 and MT1. It's been designed in the manner which supports the safe and efficient function of the network and meets the different needs of population and encourages the uptake of more sustainable and active travel choices. Next slide please. Considering the impact of the character of the area, these photos show the baseline conditions of the site currently. It's noted it's currently informal and incoherent and I think not unfair to say that it doesn't make for a particularly positive arrival in Herrford. So the development therefore represents an opportunity to rectify this by improving the immediate environment of the station. Next slide please. The proposals include for the comprehensive reconfiguration of the space to the fore of the station as a plan in public realm space which will provide provision for passengers connecting between the different transport modes. It also however provides communal spaces, street furniture and planning to generally improve the user experience. All infrastructure such as the main bus shelter, the cycle storage associated signage has been positioned in a manner which seeks to avoid clutter of the space or negatively impacting upon views of the grade two listed station. The shelter in particular which is the largest structure on the site has been designed as a comparatively lightweight structure and a contemporary building which is wholly subordinate to the state of the station. Compared to the current baseline position, there is extensive new planting of small to reasonably precise shrubs proposed which will improve the immediate area and again the general user experience and it's also noted that this strategy has been amended during the design process to minimise maintenance requirements and promote longevity. Taken together, it's considered the public realm and landscape proposals are appropriate and there are no objections offered by the council's landscape officer. In terms of impact upon the sitting of the grade two listed station, again it's considered that the proposal as a whole would serve to generally enhance the setting of this asset. There are no objections in that regard from heritage consultees including from historic England or the council's own conservation officer. Conditions are recommended to secure the final design of the covered cycle parking and also the colour finishes of the shelter building but subject to this, officers consider that the policies regard to heritage are met and the duties upon the council to the setting listed building are fulfilled. A further matter of requiring consideration is the interplay of the proposals with the route to the former heritage and gloss to canal. This has been noted within the officer reports but policy HD2 sets out that the regeneration of the city centre will be complemented by a number of other measures which includes the creation of a canal basin. Tourism policy E4 also sets out the historic route to the canal will be safeguarded and amongst other things development not connected with the canal that would prevent or prejudice the restoration of a continuous route will not be permitted. It is accepted by officers that development conflicts with historic and safeguarded route of the canal and this is largely a result of the layer of a space to the north west of the site. The policy E4 therefore requires that consideration should be given as to whether this would prevent or prejudice the restoration of a continuous route. There are a number of factors and limitations to consider in this regard as a set out in the officer report in terms of the practicality and likelihood of the canal being restored to its former alignment along this space. That includes the position and levels of the link road, the presence of buildings on the historic route such as the medical centre, the presence of strategic sewers on the original alignment of the canal. These factors suggest to officers that the restoration of this section in particular is unlikely to take place and officers are not aware of any firm proposals to that effect. Instead it is understood that the aspiration is likely to be to create a terminus basin on land to the west of the layer of a site. This has been reflected in the recent approval of student accommodation on land to the north west where parcel land has been set aside for the formation of a basin as shown on the bottom image. As part of the design process the location of the layer of the area has been shifted to the north in an effort to reduce conflict with this potential term of space should have proposed or come forward to fruition in the future to reinstate it. It is also noted that the scope of development required to deliver the layer of a space which is essentially akin to a car park is relatively limited and therefore there will be increased scope to make alterations to this need in the future subject to land at a consent. So taking all of this into account, officers are satisfied that the proposal will not prevent or prevent the restoration of the continuous route of the form of canal and do not find any conflict with policy E4. Next slide please. Just to briefly summarise, other matters, the details of the proposal have been assessed with all relevant consultees and there are no objections offered. This scheme would not be adversely affected by your conflict with flood risk and we have an acceptable drainage strategy to the satisfaction of Welsh water and the council's drainage engineer. The drainage scheme along with construction management methods to be secured by condition also ensure there will be no adverse impacts upon protected species or the nearby environmental assets such as the White Marshbrook local wildlife site or the River YSAC and there are no objections from ecology or natural England in this regard. The scheme has also had regard to the previous development nature of the land and considered potential remediation needed for possible contamination issues which again are secured by condition to the satisfaction of environmental health team. The sustainable use of brownfield land is also a benefit which attracts strong policy support and ways in favour of the scheme. The location and nature of the proposal is such that it is not considered development would have any depth of impact upon the mead team nearby residents. Finally, it is noted that we have received a number of representations and objections and a common theme within these is the commentary on the council's role as the applicant and developer including whether the council aligns with the proposal, the council's wider priorities, questions regarding the use of funds, whether the proposal is the most preferable option to create a transport hub with a variety of alternatives put forward. It is highlighted however that these are not necessarily relevant planning considerations and the application should be determined on its own merits with regards to current policy. To summarise therefore, the local plan makes clear provision for the support of a transport hub and this scheme aligns with these objectives. It would regenerate an underutilised and unattractive parcel of land in a prominent city location in order to deliver a transport interchange that meets the sustainable transport goals of the council. In doing so, there are significant benefits delivered which contribute towards achieving the social, economic and environmental objectives of sustainable development. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions in your report. Thank you. Thank you. Now, can I invite Miss Davis to speak on behalf of Herrford City Council? Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of Herrford City Council and my name is Karen Davis and your reference to the council will be with reference to Herrford City. Thank you. Herrford City Council has objected to this application whilst it is fully in support of an integrated transport hub. It feels that the proposal as put forward fails to deliver that by failing to maximise use of the space that it is available. Concerns have been raised by the members that the four bus bays is insufficient for future approving of the model shift and is not encouraging sustainable transport and should the country bus station be closed in the future with it moved to the site, then four bays seems to the members to be short-sighted and inadequate at this point. Sorry, I broke your pardon. This undermines the council's published policies regarding the development of public transport and its illegal obligations to seek to ameliorate the climate emergency. There are particular concerns for city because we have the provision of the zipper bus which is electric bus provided for people through the city and coming into the railway station. This is electric and is free to use and is very popular service and as it stands at this moment in time there is no provision within the transport hub itself for the zipper to collect and drop off customers at the station whereas currently if you arrive by the station or depart by the station you can be dropped off and collected right at the door. This proposal puts the zipper bus out in a remote labour on the side of the city link road which seems to be a very aggressive step from that which is already provided and we would encourage the applicant to reconsider the provision for the zipper bus and place it right in front of the station to enable the customers to use it. The members also feel that there is inadequate provision for taxes and cars picking up passengers and the cycle storage facility which I believe that the officer has covered to disappear to now be clarified. The major concern was also excessive planting and the designs appearing to be confused between that of a transport hub and desiring of a community garden and it is suggested that perhaps that could be modified to increase additional bus bays which would address the concerns first raised. So the request to the council is the proposal as put forward be refused and we urge the council to seek an alternative improved scheme from that proposed particularly to accommodate the zipper. Thank you. Can I now invite Mr Fricknell to speak in objection to the application? You have three minutes. Thank you Mr Chairman. I am Will Fricknell of Rail and Bus for Heritage here. I am also speaking for two other registered objectives, Harroford Civic Society and Carol Prothera. We all support the development in principle of a transport hub on this site but we have serious concerns about details of the proposal. I shall be referring to the Arab rebuttal dated 19th March. Within the bus shelter there is a for 30s building which includes a waiting room and toilets. With no full-time oversight these areas will inevitably attract unsocial behaviour. Some of you will know that the fair free zipper buses have already had such problems and they have the continuous oversight of the driver. A changing place is toilette could and should have been included in this scheme. For the designers to dismiss this opportunity by claiming it could be accommodated within the station buildings is to neglect the needs of up to 25% of Harroford's aging population. Lack of segregation is another issue. The safety of this proposal depends on the segregation of pedestrians from vehicles and cars from buses. The design submitted fails in its respect. The network rail parking staff leaving the network rail car park will be tempted to avoid the lengthy prescribed route with its chicane and take the direct exit via the DRRO area. This is a serious flaw in the layout which should have been identified and eliminated early in the design process. A prerequisite of safe DRRO operation is that only buses and coaches can enter the reversing area and all other vehicles are physically prevented from doing so. The ARRAP rebuttal states that the requirement to retain the network rail parking in its current location was agreed with network rail and transport for whales. That's like the grand full tower designers saying there was a requirement to use in flammable cladding. Who will monitor and enforce the exclusion of cars from the DRRO? Emergency access. The drawings show an emergency access lane right across the dedicated pedestrian area in front of the station. When we understand that network rail is insisting on regular use of this lane to load and unload rail replacement coaches, this is another example of the designers failing to engage with network rail. In this case to prevent large vehicles coming into conflict with heavy pedestrian flows. Official guidance on these matters is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan policy MT1, these both require the internal layout of sites to consider and manage the safety of all users. This proposal clearly lacks integration both internally and externally. An alternative layout is available which eliminates the serious safety issues outlined above. It would also better deliver the schemes objective of modal shift to buses within the Hereford city, so in conclusion this proposal is flawed in a number of respects some of which are dangerous and I urge you to reject it. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Fregnell and now I invite Mr. Butterworth the applicant's agent to speak. Thank you. You have three minutes. In April 2022 a project team on behalf of the Council set about preparations for the third and final element of works as part of the Hereford city centre transport package for the delivery of a new transport hub at Hereford railway station. Through this application it is considered that the wider strategic policy objectives of enabling economic growth, reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable travel and healthier lifestyle can now be achieved. An initial 12 layout options for the scheme were considered each with their own challenges. The careful consideration and consultation with relevant technical consultees, including the highways authority, the drive-in reverse out option was selected. The design of the scheme places highway safety at its forefront and provides a clear, direct and functional transport solution for Hereford which maximises the heritage value of the grade two listed station building, both of which are key planning considerations for the addressed planning policy considerations that have been addressed in accordance with national and local planning policy. The proposed development has carefully considered these aspects in its design which seeks to reduce the use of vehicles but directs vehicular movements to the site periphery for ease of pick up and drop off and also offer undisturbed pedestrian access through the forecourt area. The design aimed to support a capacity increase from the current seven buses per hour to 12 but the designers managed to present a system capable of 50 buses per hour. This can easily accommodate all the capacity of the country bus station should that facility no longer be required. Feedback from several bus providers requested an alternative stop away from the Diro bays and more accessible from the City Link Road, hence the inclusion of three new bay bus stops on the road. To minimise the potential for bays being occupied for long periods and following feedback from national bus companies additional bus layover space was designed to occupy the old network rail depot site. The area will incorporate ductwork to support electric charging of buses for future use. Five information displays would be strategically positioned around the site to provide real time travel information for buses and trains enhancing user experience. Likewise we have worked closely with a recognised heritage consultant to ensure that the proposed development safeguards key views and station approaches toward the southeast and celebrate the beauty of the listed station building. It is considered that the proposed development would achieve this through the simplicity of the canopy design which offers a lightweight minimal touch that offered open views and of the station from all angles. In summary this application represents the delivery of a high quality form of sustainable development which places active travel at its core and celebrates the immediate historic environment through its simple contemporary design. All technical objections have been addressed through the determination process and the development is in accordance with the adopted development plan. Thank you. The local board member for the is Councillor Polly Andrews. She has the right to begin. She has a time limited ten minutes at the beginning and she has five minutes at the end of the debate, Councillor Andrews. Thank you, Chairman. I hope we don't take too long because we have already heard a great deal. First can I thank those of you who attended the site visit yesterday and at least it wasn't raining. And can I also thank Adam Lewis and Mr Butterworth because I have had meetings with them both prior to all this and to try and clarify things. First of all I would like to say that as a principal I support the principle of a sorely needed transport hub with frontage improvements to the station which is much, much needed as the station approach at the moment is a total mess and must give newcomers of driving at the city station a very poor impression indeed of our city. However, I do feel that the current proposal misses probably a once only opportunity to develop what I would call a proper full-scale transport hub for the city. A true transport hub would have all buses, bus services for the city calling in at some time so that passengers arriving at the station would not have to trek either to Tesco or St Peter Square to connect with other bus services going forward. And I previously, as I understand that only those services which currently use the county bus stations will actually come into the hub. On more specific points like others I feel that only four bus parking spaces at the station are rather inadequate particularly if the National Express coaches are there. They are bigger coaches, they will have to park at each end because National Express coaches load luggage at the side so they will need access to the sides of the coach. I stood and waited for one and a half an hour to count the number of buses that were coming in and out, six came in within 30 minutes. I also find that the three bus services including the zipper will have to park at a nearly created labour on the main city link road is not perhaps the best idea. The bus labour area, the bus layover area is planned to be provided on the west side of the Heriford Medical Group which councillors yesterday saw that the access road is already used as a auxiliary parking space for the medical group. And I may also add I will just be asked by the practice manager of the medical group to meet with and to discuss the parking problems of the medical group. There is planned a new exit for the buses onto the city link road. This means that there will be three exits on the city link road within about 100 yards so cyclists and walkers will have to watch where they are going. I understand also that taxes will as now be able to access the station for court to deposit and collect passengers. How will ordinary motorists be prevented from doing this? They are used to doing it now and if they see taxes doing it, I'm sure they will just follow suit. However, I am extremely pleased to see that farm or adequate cycle parking has been provided. I only wish that a bit more of it could be under cover. The plans to prove the immediate station frontage are welcome but I am glad that the original idea of Scots pines and apple trees has been abandoned and didn't seem to be a very good idea to have fruit dropping all over the place. The glass shelter that is being designed as a see-through part of it is going to be a rest area for the drivers, coach drivers and for the public with toilets included I am glad to say. But the rest of it is going to be open, it is just simply going to add as a wind tunnel. However, it may be thought that even with its inadequacies we work on the principle that in fact half a loaf is better than no bread at all that even this transport hub will be better than the current existing situation in front of the station hub. So, another point I have read to mention the roads that the buses will come out of as we will have seen there is an island in the middle that part of that will have to go if the buses are going to turn right into the city link road. I just have thought perhaps a couple of the tubs that are there could be repurposed in front of the station which I am used for them. Anyway, I am going to listen very much to the debate because I think it should be very interesting. Sir, thank you and now I open the- Sorry, sorry. If you could go back to the gallery, sorry, I thought I would open the debate. Thank you for the presentation, Adam, on the inordinate amount of work and time that has gone into presenting the transport hub. The picture on page 122, namely 1.4.2, is the perfect illustration of Young Prince Charles's famous quote, a monstrous car-bunkle on the face of a much-loved friend, and looks cheap and tawdry. The whole layout vividly illustrates the quote, a square peg in a linear hole. The design fails on the following points, one, even though there is plenty of space for the coaches to drive through, the plan means the coaches have to reverse and manoeuvre out of a type space. Two, four stands are insufficient, there is a limited scope for future enlargement if needed. Passengers have to walk 40 metres across the main coach exit route to get to the waiting room, the lavatory block, bus stands hardly integrating it with the station, absence of two small changing rooms and male/female cyclists. A sufficient number of bicycle stands, but out in the open, no mention of space for disabled electric mobility scooters, the waste ground northwest of the station medical centre for coach parking which should be ring-fenced for future canal basin. The Hereford Civic Society proposal is the alternate scheme development, namely 3.3 on page 137, is exactly what's needed, with possibly the following modifications. The cycle hub should be underground with a subway under the exit, bus stands to the waiting area. The sawtooth design should be finished off with a covered semi-open walkway from the waiting area to each stand, the design of this will be critical to the scheme's success, for example, to be like cloisters with brickstone carved pillars to match the station building and arches, to be shaped like the gothic pointed windows. The roof slope and materials to match the main station building. Now even Tesco's in Bure Street have well-designed covered walkway along the shop, south side with pillars and pitched roof. The roof of the covered walkway could mirror the station platform roofs, supported with large round cast iron pillars and ornamental cast iron similar to the classic design at Great Morgan station platform. The walkways are obviously extending from the waiting rooms and attached to the front of the station rooms to seamlessly blend in with the architecture of the main station building. Just another point, Harrifid Cathedral managed this with a beautifully designed Macamundi Museum. Thank you. I'll just ask a slight, a technical question about them. You did very good presentation yesterday, but you've said something now that is slightly confusing. The existing entrance to the medical centre will be the new entrance for the buses. That's correct, yes. Where is the entrance to the medical centre going to be? Because there's nothing shown on this map. It's not there in terms of, sorry, it remains as currently, if we can get the relevant slide on the screen. On this screen here, it's not shown in the great detail because it falls outside of the application site. But the building there you can see to the floor near the link road, that's the medical centre. Its access will remain as existing, so when a bus enters the site off the link road, it will come through that existing junction, pass the turn to the medical hub. If it's going into the layover area, it will then turn left into that, or if it's going to the main hub, it'll carry on around the back to the right to the interchange. Okay, well, obviously they will have to stop parking because it was full up of cars yesterday. I like the other speakers. I said, Brilliant idea, we've got to have it. I was a frequent visitor to Europe, many, many cities that have got this. I think the design is, to say, the least, poor. I have to agree with my colleague next door that the one put up by the Harry Food Civic Society, 137, is a far better design. One thing, this idea of reverse, a drive-in reverse out for buses, no, that's an absolute no-no for safety, because I know that all buses have the warning on the back, but no. People rushing to get buses, I think somebody's going to be very easily be knocked down. There's masses of room there for a proper drive-in, drive-out type scheme. The other thing that I find the present drop-off space, which has already been mentioned, is perfect where it is. It's never abused. People come in, drop-off everything, or pick up and go. The new one in the present NCP car park is too far away for people that if they're coming with large suitcases, it's not even ground. Is that pill? I think that's a very poor design. I'm all in favour of the hub, but I really do think that they need to go back to design on this one and actually come up with a design which is probably going to be more use. This is a county-state railway station, remember? Not just a city one, it's a county one. More people will come in by cars because they've got a comment from the countryside, and I think it's just woefully inadequate on the design. So, that's my opinion on that one. Thank you. Councillor Syvans. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Adam for yesterday's site visit and for detailed report. I do not think this is the perfect scheme, and I really do appreciate the input of horrific society and their suggestion and the canal trust, their representations in terms of trying to provide a better transport hub. I do think it's important to recognise that the scheme design has had to deal and address, as I can see, not just a transport hub for the buses, but also the historic setting of the building and also the community space. I think it has achieved putting pedestrians at the centre of that space. I have some concerns, which I think will be shared by my colleague, with regard to students particularly using the front of the student accommodation and accessing across that section there. I don't think, if you look at where they currently travel, I don't think it's quite sufficient safety concern. I don't think it's quite captured their design lines and how they access the station from the front of that space. They don't walk across to the crossing. They'll end up coming through the disabled and taxi area, I suspect. I haven't got an issue with the buses stopping on the main road in the new lay-by. As long as there is sufficient signage, as people come out of the railway station directing to which service is in which location, because obviously there's the provision of the deer row bays, plus those buses, it can be confusing as to which bus you're getting from where, so that will need to be captured. There was referenced by Adam earlier to 20 minutes pick up drop-off parking across the whole of the NCP car park. I'd just like to clarify, because I need to know how many spaces are currently allocated to drop-off in front of the station, how many will be given over in the NCP car park, and also just having used the train a lot, coming in late at night and being picked up by my health a half, quite frequently the trains are very late getting in well over 20 minutes, delaying getting there. People are travelling in from the rural area to Kennek to those services to pick up. You quite often find yourself waiting longer than 20 minutes, so I think consideration needs to be given to a longer short stay for pick-ups rather than just 20 minutes, so I want clarification on the number of spaces. The other issue is regarding the layover space, obviously there's concerns about the canal trust and the deliverability of their terminus basin, I do understand what you're saying about that feasibility of that onwards and how that's shaped, I appreciate the consideration given there, I would like to make sure that there is some landscaping provision around that, because at the moment nothing's shown to screen the buses in that layover space from the main road, so I would like to see a landscape provision in there and condition that there is some green planting to hide that, because as it is, the city link road is a car only space in mind. I'm afraid the three minutes is that, that takes. Okay. Thank you. All right, are there any other speakers, Councillor Baker, sorry, Councillor Kenneth, first, sorry. Can I, yes, sir, I knew that, I did know that. Thank you all, really interesting discussion. My one question is, can we make any material changes at this point in time or is this already sorted and we would actually just be better off agreeing to it? I think very often in developments like this, there are minor changes take place during, between planning permission, amendments come and go and developments like this, but do come. So, yeah, members can resolve to make whatever, you know, decision they want to in terms of whether that's for deferral or approval or refusal. I think there's obviously been through a lot of iterations of this, they've considered carefully the comments that have been made throughout this process and it's probably been going on even longer than that in terms of those discussions that have been had. It's, you know, something that we're trying to, the Council has the priority to try and move forward and it's, you know, we, we would need a clear stir as to why in its current form, it's not acceptable before we go back, I think, to a point of saying, well, it needs to be looked at again. So, my personally, I think you should be looking at it to say, is it acceptable in its current form? If you don't feel it is and you feel it should be refused, then identify those for us, but those are the things to be considered. So, again, it's in your gift to make a resolution to defer, but you would need to be really specific about what we're looking at and engaging in that process, but it's, look at it on its own merits at the moment. Sorry. Just to come back, is there a sort of a monetary time deliverable on that? I'm not sure of this specific time scales, but I believe there is a deadline in terms of it's time to leveling up funding and there are time limitations on that, as Kelly said, there is scope to potentially make changes, but there's been a lot of discussion here about, you know, whether it's considered to be the right approach and different sort of opinions to that, if we were to look to make changes, they would need to be in response to legitimate planning reasons about safety or design rather than we think there's a better way of doing it. It's all right, what's sort of out. Can I say something? I mean, the station, I think, is one of the magnificent buildings. It is a very fine building. The idea that we're going to do something in that style to compete or complement is a nonsense. It just wouldn't work. I mean, it would detract from the actual building itself, and I do think that, you know, this has a sort of plainness about it that doesn't compete with the actual station itself. I've spent a lot of time looking at those chimneys over the years. Anyway, Councillor BAKER. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I've underlined three words here, not before time. We've been waiting for this for an awful long time. I'm a bit angry with some of the comments I've heard on this application. I don't want to be too critical of some of the comments made, but everyone's an expert, aren't they? Especially when it comes to major developments, everyone's got an idea and an opinion as to how something can be improved. This matter has been discussed by experts in the field. Arab are the people who designed it, they've designed many similar major developments in this country for many years. Surely, we have to accept what they've had to say, and this is the final draft, of course. This isn't just been popped up after a couple of weeks of people scribbling on the backs of envelopes, this has been the result of much involvement and debate and expert opinions. And I think if we refuse this today, we will be seriously criticised. But what then? What happens then? I mean, the Council can't really go and appeal a decision made by our own people. I mean, it'd be daft. And so, I mean, we have to bite the bullet and say, This is what we've been asked to approve. The driving reverse-out system is used throughout the world at bus stations, especially over if you go into Spain, that all the coaches, where they pick up and drop off for the airports, they all use this system, and I'm sure others do in this country. But everything's been covered, and I think I can't see anything wrong with it. There's always little design details, aren't there, but at the end of the day, it's a bus station, or a bus terminus, in front of a very nice listed building. And so, I think we should bite the bullet and to say that this is what we've got, and we should approve it, and that will be my recommendation. Councillor DAVIS. I propose that we accept it. You've proposed that the officer's recommendation is proposed. Is there a seconder, Councillor BAKER? Further points, Councillors? Could I have an answer from Adam, with regard to the timings, number of bays, et cetera, that are currently provided, how many are proposed to be provided, and potential wait and stay, and confirmations to weather condition on landscaping can be included, please. Councillor interjecting. Yes, Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. So, just— Councillor interjecting. I'll say something first, Adam. Councillor interjecting. Ms Cooley. Councillor COOK. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to remind members that when they're deliberating, that need be mindful, that matters of funding and time scales are to matter for consideration by the planning committee. So, you need to confine your deliberations to the planning merits of the scheme in front of you, and whether or not you find that scheme acceptable. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you. Yes, so, just looking at the sort of upstate aerial images of the current arrangement station, there are 11 general drop-off spaces, and then 11 disabled spaces as well. The proposal—and we discussed yesterday in terms of increased provision in the NCP car park for drop-off, that is actually on clarification with the design team last night. It's actually proposed that that would be extended, rather than having a dedicated area for drop-off within that car park, there would just be a 20-minute stay across the whole site. So, I understand there's been a study undertaken in terms of capacity and a survey of generally the station—you have to excuse me, the number of scapes—around 80 per cent occupancy was the average of that station, the car park, so there is generally accepted to be a degree of space in there that can be used for drop-off and pickups. And in terms of landscaping, yes, by all means we could attach a condition to seek—to reinforce that screening along the link road. Sorry, I might have completely misunderstood that, so you're saying that 20 minutes across the whole space, so that will no longer become a long-term NCP car park. Oh, no, sorry. So it will still be—if you want to stay longer than 20 minutes, you can still pay your fee and stay, but if you are picking up, you can stay 20-minute grace period without charge. So there will be no dedicated bays just for pick-up drop-off? No dedicated bays now. Okay, that's quite an issue for me because that car park is pretty much full almost all the time, and therefore, if there are no dedicated spaces, people come and commute there for the whole day. They get there early, they park there for the whole day, they come back late. There is then nowhere for people who are coming and picking up from the station, particularly women or vulnerable people coming back late at the children, coming back late at night. You can't see who you are picking up if they've come out of the station, et cetera. I think—is there anything we can do to change that because that's—I would expect at least 11 drop-off spaces to be secured that are only temporary drop-off spaces and not able to be used by long-stay. That is something that we could reasonably condition, in my opinion, so I think there is a—with multiple stakeholders being involved with this having discussion with the project team and sort of car park being in control of another body, that's sort of a potential what has influenced the arrangement. We've got some proposal, but within the project site, then, yes, we could attach a condition to CK, a revised strategy in that area to ensure there is dedicated spaces just for the drop-off purpose. And I think just saying that—so that's 11 drop-off plus 11 disabled access. I think we need to be looking at more than 11 spaces as currently 22 spaces of various types over the drop-offs, so please can we consider that. And this end of the car park in proximity to access to the station. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's important. Is that agreeable to the proposal and seconder that those conditions have added to the recommendation? Sorry, just to confirm as well, the landscape about screening within the layover area. Yes, we can see that by condition as well. Yeah. Is that acceptable as both, yes. Yes. Yeah. That's what I did say. I still have issues with the desire lines of the students walking down through the front of the student accommodation, and then as is on the proposed plans, they would walk straight through the taxi rank to the station, because that's exactly what they do right now. I just don't see any sort of clear, safe way for them to access that. I was there picking up my kids a couple of months ago and saw a girl knocked over by a car just coming in off the city link road, turning left, and there were students all over the road and one of them got clipped. I was going to say, I think when we were dealing with the application for that student accommodation, we knew that was going to be potentially a desire line. It's not obviously part of this application site, and if people choose to do that, they choose to go across that. They've given them a safe route around. I know it came up at the time we were dealing with the application, and certainly see people make that route. We could take that away as another look to see if there's anything that can be done to do that, but if they are crossing, because it's the shortest route across third-party land, which accounts for those known, it's quite difficult to control where people will do that. When you come into it, you direct them to the footpath, but they will walk across it. You see it because they walk through and up the steps out the other side, but we can certainly take that away to talk to the design team about to see if there's a way to look at anything else you wanted to add, Katie. Sorry. If we refuse this, or criticized, and I think probably justified, it isn't a good design, and I really do think that as regards drop-off, poorly designed, as regards the number of spaces for buses, and remembering that, as has already been pointed out, the National Coaches are 57-foot long, they're big ones, they're one part of it. It's not user-friendly then, from any point of view. I think there are so many points here that it isn't right for pedestrians, it's not right for drop-off, it's not right for coaches, the entrance by the medical centre is questionable. There's so many things about it, and I really do think that we do need to, well, if anything, defer this to get some of this design sorted out, but that's only my thing. Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, Adam, the deer rope bays, there are no pedestrian routes behind the vehicle there, rather, there's no access, pedestrian access along that bit. It looks to me like it's been designed with the majority of people coming to the front of the bays. There's no access along there, so the path that we walked along yesterday that borders with the car park to the medical centre, that would no longer be there, so there'd only be pedestrian routes along the City Link Road, and then obviously to the front of the bays where you access the buses. And can I just clarify that access onto the City Link Road, I mean, the City Link Road is just, car is king, it's a very wide, unpleasant environment, but there is obviously the wide shared path that crosses there with the footpath cycleway. Just want to check, the priority will be to footway, cycleway, the buses to give way to that, and can that be signed and managed? I would perhaps defer to my Irish colleagues for clarification on that point. I think it will just be a normal highway code applies, and I suspect in reality it'll be a combination of giving way, sometimes pedestrians may be sometimes bus might, but certainly the buses will be going very slowly, and it'll be down to highway code, it'll be a crossover, so it will appear that the footway continues, albeit there's tactile paving, so yeah, it won't be a curve form or junction, it'll be more of a crossover. Okay, so can I just check, so that means that the surface treatment along there will show the sort of right of way, it will give a stop to the bus drivers to think, or is there a drop down onto the access that gives the bus, the apparent, like you say, with the curbed and the road coming out, or is the sort of give way signs for the bus prior to that footway, cycleway, and the treatment, the colour, you can give priority in people's to change driver behaviour by ensuring that they can see where the white line give way signs are, they're either set back before the footway cycleway, or they're on the actual city link road, and that then gives a different prompt to the driver. Yeah, I don't think the give way line won't be a formal give way line before the crossing, but I think the surfacing will be more, more of a shared surface I suppose, so that the bus is aware that it's crossing a formal cycle footway. Yeah, I mean this is something that can be considered during the 278 process, so if there is a preference for sort of any give way lines or something to go before the cycleway then we can work with that in the 278 process. I'd really appreciate that Katie, thank you for the clarification, I would like the section 278 works to consider that, I appreciate that outside of this planning. Yeah, sorry just to supplement that answer, thank you Katie. As Katie said, those final details will be picked up as part of the 278 process, but there is also condition 16 on the author's report is the security specifications specifically for the cycleway along the link road, so there's a sort of two-layer process there that we can control exactly what form that crossing takes. So I just wanted to say, no nothing more from me, I think we've covered this. I could go to Councillor ANDROO's. Thank you Chair, I've listened to all this with the greatest interest. I must say, I still have reservations, I feel that this is still a missed opportunity to build a proper transport hub. I didn't mention the canal basin, for the simple reason I think the finance is to do anything about the canal basin or virtually non-existent, it's a pie in the sky idea completely. I would desperately like to see that the frontage of the states that improved, as we all saw it really is an absolute disgrace at the moment. But again, I would not describe this as a transport hub, I think it's more a mini transport hublet et that we're being offered, so I leave it to you how you vote. Thank you. If you have a poser in front of us, can I ask for those in favour, please show? Those against abstentions, two abstentions, that is carried, right, thank you, do we have a new chair right now? Ten minutes and then if, if the... the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the last one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. the next one. [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] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] The application was deferred or it was recommended for refusal on two grounds by the case officer dealing with it at that time. One related to a lack of justification as far as demonstrating that the applicant was in housing need. And the second was to do with matters around HRA. And you'll see from the report, I've done almost like an update report. And then the original report is appended and you'll see the two reasons for refusal outlined at the beginning of the report. So on the first of September 2021, committee were minded to take a different decision to the recommendation that the officers made at that time. And the application was deferred for consideration of the two points that I've just mentioned. So three years on, we're now in a position where we've come back to you. The applicant has been able to demonstrate that they're in housing needs to the satisfaction of our housing colleagues. They've also been able to demonstrate that they can satisfy matters around HRA and you'll see from the report that the solution to that is to replace an aging septic tank that serves victim house with a replacement that will serve both victim house and the new dwelling. And you'll see from the calculations that are provided in the report that actually represents a betterment in terms of phosphate outputs. And consequently, on that basis, that second reason for refusal is addressed. The first reason for refusal, as I say, is also addressed by virtue of the fact that the applicant and their agent had a conversation with our strategic housing manager soon after the defer of the application. And you'll see from the comments in the report that housing colleagues have said and are satisfied that that matter is also addressed. And on the basis of that, the applications recommended now for approval with a number of conditions. One of those requires the completion of a section 106 agreement to secure the housing for a local person in perpetuity for a slow cost open market. There are also conditions there relating to the replacement of the existing septic tank with a brand new one, as we've said, that will demonstrate that phosphorus outputs are reduced. I'll say on that basis, the applications recommended for approval. I just run you through the slides very quickly. These are the slides that, for those of you that were here, three and a bit years ago, you might remember them, if not. Here we go. So the application sites identified by the red star. Bicton's a small hamlet at a crossroads, and you'll see that the main village in any proximity is to the north of the application site. So there's the application site, triangular parcel of land, outlined in red, bicton house immediately to the southeast, and you can see the crossroads there that I've just referred to, and the small hamlet, where you've got a small number of the dwellings. Thank you, Cal. Thanks. So this is the layout plan. That's all fairly self explanatory. As I said, the existing septic tank, which you can see, well, you can't see it, but you can see the replacement proposal in the westernish corner of that triangular of land. Next slide. There were never any issues as far as officers were concerned originally over the design of the house. But here we go, fairly cottage style dwelling, relatively modest proportions with dormer windows front and back. As I've said, the officer at that time was very satisfied that there weren't any issues with the design, or in terms of amenity in its relationship with bicton house. Next slide. And that's the out building, again, fairly self explanatory. Some photographs of the site, usefully the arrows identify the directions from which they were taken. Again, pretty self explanatory, really, and not much really more to say on that. At the end of the presentation, as I said, the application is now recommended for approval. We contend that the matters that were previously of concern have been addressed. So, on that basis, over to you, Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. We have no public speakers registered, but because this is the, they would have spoken at the previous side. We have a, um, a applicant provided a written statement, which Mr. Evans will read to the meeting. Thank you, Chairman. Statement to be read on behalf of Mr. A. Goding, the applicant. Thank you for permitting me to draft a statement in support of my planning application on land at bicton house bicton. The committee report explains the background to the application, which is for a low cost dwelling for me to live in with my family. We have long standing connections with the parish. I was born and bred and have worked in the parish all my life and continue to do so. Since the application was first reported to committee in 2021, we have managed to address the phosphate issue by proposing an upgrade to the septic system serving bicton house and the housing officer is happy to support the application as a low cost dwelling. Officers have confirmed that with these, with those two issues addressed, there is no impediment to granting planning permission. I have no issue with completing the legal agreement required to ensure that the house remains affordable if ever sold. However, I fully anticipate it will pass to the next generation of Goding to continue our long standing ties to the local community should the committee vote in favour of granting permission today. Thank you for your time in this matter, Alan Goding. Thank you. Now we'll move on to the ward member who is the local ward member. He speaks and has the right to speak at the end of the meeting. You have 10 minutes. Naturally, I'm going to take all 10 minutes of your time. I'm really not. This is a really simple application. If it was a new application, the chances are it wouldn't be before you, but because it was recommended for a few years previously and obviously has to return for consideration. The parish council are in support of it. I've had numerous residents contact me in support of Mr. Godings application 2 and my predecessor was in support of it and so am I. I think that's really all that needs to be said, the details are before you. Thank you. Okay. Can I, the Councillor Baker? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of points for you. I'm surprised to see it was listed as RA3. It was quite a substantial handling there at Picton. Anyway, that's been covered because it is an affordable dwelling and I was quite pleased to see that the existing septic system is going to be replaced. I assume by a package treatment plan, would that be right? Yeah, that's correct. A bit more efficient. Yeah. So with that in mind, I'm happy to support the Office of Recommendation for approval. Seconded. Seconded. What? No. Sorry. Then we'll move to a vote. It's proposed. Can I have those in favour of the recommendation? Okay, that's unanimous, right? We'll now move on to... [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] Oh, thank you, Jordina. She wants us to. Thank you, Chair. Have a safe journey. [inaudible] She's going to a meeting this afternoon. That's why she didn't come down. She didn't think she'd get back in time. Right, we now move on to item agenda eight licensing of a sex establishment statement of licensing policy report before you concerns the policy for licensing of sex establishments. Please can I remind members to be careful in the language you use and choose in your words very carefully. Mr. Sprigs will introduce the report. Thank you, Chair. As you say, this is to do with the license in a sex establishment statement of licensing policy. The purpose is to adopt the license in a sex establishment statement of licensing policy. The recommendation to you is the policies as presented be adopted, which is shown as appendix one. There were alternative options. Firstly, you could propose modification to that policy. You could reject or decide not to adopt the policy, or you could refer the policy back to myself for further work consultation. The above three options have been considered have been rejected as the policy is fit for purpose has been consulted on and amended to reflect comments made where applicable. The place in a crime act 2009 amended the local government is the latest revisions act 1982 section two and schedule three to introduce the new classification of sex establishments, namely sexual entertainment venues. This includes lap dance in pole dance in another relevant entertainment. The legislation provides the local authorities to adopt the policy and standard conditions relating to sexual entertainment venues, sex shops and sex cinemas. On the 6th of March, 2015, Harrophychia Council resolved to adopt schedule three of the local government's latest revisions act 1982 as amended by section 27 of the police in a crime act 2009, commencing on the 16th of April 2015. This applied to the whole of the area of Harrophychia. At the time, a policy was presented and approved, which still remains in place. The policy was well overdue for review and some small changes have been made. Further matters have been included in the policy in relation to modern slavery and human trafficking. The community impact of a council's licensing regime aims to ensure that if sexual establishments are granted a licensed operating Harrophychia that they operate in a safe, fair and discreet manner and are sensitive to the local area in which they are situated. Attention has been taken regarding advertising of welfare, external appearance, locality and the number of licensed premises. This policy further enhances the local authorities' ability to carry out suitability tests and ensure that all licensed holders are informed about this safe, non-responsibilities. In addition, it offers the opportunity to share information regarding issues around child sex exploitation and modern slavery. Whilst this is a decision on the back of his function will have minimal environmental impact, consideration has been given to minimise waste and resources in line with the Council's environmental policy. You'll be aware of the requirement or under the section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The resource implication is this cost neutral to the Council as a result the fees are set to cover the cost of issuing and ensuring compliance in the addition condition attached. The legal implications of the Council's license and sex policy statement of license is an important factor when determining certain applications under this legislation. If the policy is silent on the matter then the Council will have less opportunity to guide and control applications. Ensuring that policy is up-to-date and covers areas that assist the Council in ensuring a consistent approach. The sex opponent established in policy has been drafted to reflect current legislative requirements. The risk management, the proposed policy ensure that sexual establishment are granted with the heritage that operate in a safe and discreet manner and sensitive to the local area in which they are situated. It also ensures the rights of workers in this type of industry are protected. The policy will reduce the risk of the authority by providing guidance to in relation to decision making concerning out any application. And the risk is further reduced as any decision may can be challenged by rate of appeal through the magistrate's court. In respect of consultation there has been a large conference consultation which the policy was sent to representatives local businesses represented the local licensing trade which is alcohol and entertainment. Local residents through parish and town councils, warve members, West Mercy Police, Herrificia Council, Environmental Protection, Herrificia's Safeguarding Children's Partnership, Herrificia Council's Planning and Herrificia Public Health and Herrificia Community Safety Partnership. This was done by email with the incentive over 339 different emails addresses. In addition, the consultation was published on the council's website which took place between the 23rd of February and the 24th of March. There were 15 responses with comments and three no comments. Those comments are summarised in Appendix 2 and the outcome of that consideration. That is the report, Chair. Thank you. I suppose I could comment as part of the licensing committee. I have read this report. I think it's extremely comprehensive and covers all the likely things we can think of today at any rate. So I'm happy to move the recommendation. Is that seconded? Yes. Three or four seconds. Three or four seconds. Now, did you want to speak comes the way? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a point of interest. I understand that pole dancing is considered possible for the future Olympics. Along with a lot of, yeah, I've read a piece about it recently. It's on the similar lines to rhythmic gymnastics, etc. And it's quite a skillful, skillful occupation by all accounts. But that doesn't fall under sex establishments as far as I know. I'm sorry we'll get a wide audience if it's at the Olympics. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Sprigs, for your presentation and the report. It was very helpful, very detailed. I'm very pleased to see the changes that were made following consultation with various groups, in particular Women's Ecology Group and West Mercia Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre. I know we're making light of some of things like pole dancing. I am really, we have very limited things we can do when we have parliamentary support and legality for these establishments. I think a lot of the issues have been captured and raised by Mr. Sprigs adequately, I think particularly with regard to policy 7.0.