Transcript

Okay, good morning, the survey I call it, we have it. Today's meeting is being filmed for live and subsequent broadcast by way of the Council's internet site. The images and sound record in may also be used for trading purposes within the Council. As you will see from the agenda papers, generally the public seating areas are not filmed. However, by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to be filmed and the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasts, web casting and/or trading purposes. Proposed public speakers have been made aware of the broadcast and arrangements prior to this meeting. Would members please use their microphone to contribute to the meeting and please remember to switch off the microphone when you are finished? Members, rather than remotely, please only turn on your camera when you wish to speak and please remember to switch it off when you are finished. Also, could you ensure that you refrain from using any mobile devices during the committee and that any devices are silent? Also, it has been decided that those who are on remotely, when we do vote for recommendations, would you please put your cameras on and say yay or nay when we do that, okay? Thank you. There are apologies for being back into Malcolm Linton, anybody else? No, no, okay, thanks. Any calculations of interest? No, okay. Minutes of the meeting held on the 3rd of April. We've both received them, I'm not going to go through them page by page, but could somebody please propose that a true record? Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you. We'll go on to the 1st item, which is number 1, which is application number 23, 1-1-0-9. And this will be presented by the steering audience. Thank you, Chair. Okay. This application has been reported planning committee as it comprises major planning application. It relates to a pass of land to the rear of properties in Shakespeare Crescent in the Gairward. The proposal is to construct an apartment block containing 20 flats, which would all be affordable homes. And the site would be access of Marriott Walk to the north, west, and east are residential properties. And then to the south is the Cardiff to Eberville Rayway Line. There's an existing car parked to the north west of the site, which you'll see on this drawing. There's an aerial photograph of the site in terms of topography. It's relatively flat when you move in and east to west direction, but there is a steep slope in the southern part of the site where there's an embankment down to the Rayway Line. The trees on the southern boundary are actually at the bottom of the embankment and they're actually outside of the site, although it's a part of the trees overhang. That's just a 3D image of the site. So this is the view at the entrance to the site on Marriott Walk. So you can see in the background there the existing properties and wells close to the west of the site. And you can see the trees on the left-hand side, which are growing from the bottom of the embankment. The rest of the site is generally overgrown. So I've no parent to the left, and you can see the entrance to the site on the right-hand side, and then straight in front of you is the entrance to an existing footbridge that crosses over the railway line. So I've moved back here now onto Shakespeare Crescent, looking at the entrance onto Marriott Walk. You can see that the surrounding properties in the area are generally two stories with flat roofs. And then this is taken, again from Shakespeare Crescent, but further to the west at the entrance of Shakespeare Crescent onto wells close. So the site is situated sort of behind these houses. There is planning history on the site, so I'll just quickly let you know about this. So Planquition was granted about four years ago for nine dwellings on the site. So they were going to be eight semi-touched and one detached house in that sort of layout. And that was a straight though, so they were going to be two story hip-proof properties. The current scheme is for, as I said, an apartment block for 20 flats. So the proposals are to create the access road of Marriott Walk, and the apartment block would be to the southern side of that. Propose to provide 20 car parking spaces within the site, so that's sort of one car parking space, each flat, which is SPG compliant. To the northwest there, you can see my cursor there, that's a cycle store, and then close the entrance, a bin store. On the west and portion of the site, there's an area of land that's going to be retained for open space. And notice that crossing the site in sort of a diagonal fashion there is a sewer easement, so the development has had to be situated in a way to deal with that constraint. This open space is going to sort of be multifunctional. It'll provide an attenuation basin to allow for drainage from the site to collect in line with SADs. It'll also form an area for biodiversity, so they'll be planting here to improve biodiversity of the area, and it'll be an open space available for residents to use. There wouldn't be any formal provisions, such as seating or play facilities or anything like that. It'll just be an informal area where residents can have a picnic and so forth. You'll notice on this drawing that there are two sections, section one and section two, so I'll come to those sections shortly. So these are the proposed elevations of the apartment block, the top elevation is the elevation facing north towards the houses as you can see there's sort of a central three-story section and then two sort of two-story winds coming off each end of it. The middle one is the rear, and you can see balconies are proposed on the back. It's got a mono-pitch roof, so it's not flat, but it's mono-pitched, so it's generally in keeping with the design and character of the area, and the two elevations below show obviously show the side, these are the balconies on the back. So these are the sections I showed you. So section one, you can see that the distance to the neighboring properties to the north is about 35 meters, at this point, and at this point 41 meters, well in excess of our 21 meter distance between half to the rooms. Moving on, well, before I do, so what you'll notice is the embankment of the back falls away quite sharply, so there's not much space for rear-immunity space at the back, which is why we've asked for balconies, so they've got some element of private-immunity space, but you recall that they also do have this informal space on the western, western part of the site as well for sort of generally sitting out. So floor plans generally to the north facing residents, that would be the bedrooms, and then to the south are the kitchen lounge dining areas with access onto the balconies of the lounge. That's the second floor, and then there's going to be solar panels, the blue squares of solar panels. Let's quickly show you the drainage layout, as you can see this is going to be an attenuation pond here, landscaping drawing, and this is the biodiversity enhancement plan, as you can see that there are proposals to provide reptile areas, wildflower planting, bat boxes and so forth. So in terms of issues, the site is within the urban boundary, so it's supported by planning policy, it provides much needed housing, including affordable housing, 20 car parking spaces proposed, which is one per flat, which is in accordance with our SPG. This plan shows three visitor spaces which can be provided on Marriott walk, so outside the site, they're just demonstrating that there is space there to provide some visitor spaces and highways are in support of the application. Destroy attention to the car park here. I think about embrace this approach, something that I didn't think of before committee, but I'm going to mention now, is that it's probably sensible to impose a plan in condition that no access be created to access this car park that's always be closed off, access only comes in and off Marriott walk. Design car, as I say, the flats will be visible from Shakespeare Crescent, but the design will be in keeping the surrounding area, internal space within the flats called to the SPG requirements. There are trees to the south, which are substantial, and because they're to the south, they will block some light and daylight to some extent, but it's considered that the living environment for residents will be acceptable. There are very much a woodland setting environment, which is considered to be a reasonable quality of design. The council doesn't require any contributions on affordable housing, which this is. However, we have requested that the applicant enters into a section 1 or 6 agreement to protect the council's position should any of the flats be sold off privately in the future. So if that happens, certain provisions will apply, including contributions towards education improvements on a minimum of 30% affordable housing to be retained on the site. So recommendations to grant subject to conditions on the section 1 or 6 agreement. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. There's no public speakers on this, so I'd go straight out to the committee. Anybody have any questions, please? Councillor Drollum? Yeah, thanks to it. Just going on to page 18, it says they've got the advisory for EV charging points. Where are the charging points going to go, and if so, if not everybody's got an electric car, where they're going to park, otherwise to that, because I'm looking at it, if it's a device of charging points, but if they're going on site, and everybody will have a badge. This space is for everybody, if it wouldn't cap per unit. I'm just sitting where the charging points are going to be, and if so, what sort of legal wise you could take to use the parking space to park the car, if they haven't got a charging point? The planning policy on EV charging points in relation to residential is relatively weak at the moment, so whilst future whales require 10% of parking on commercial schemes to be have EV charging, it does not specify a level for residential, so the best we can do really is to put a condition on to acquire the developer to come up with a scheme, to provide some EV charging, which obviously we look at when they submit that. The scheme would enable for EV charging to be provided, what we can't do is monitor and stop people from parking on EV space, if they haven't got an EV vehicle, that's not something we'd control, so people will likely park in an EV space, nobody's going to stop them to do that. All we can do is planning, as a planning authority, is ensure that there is an element of provision provided. I think we need to reinforce that, I think we need the electric charging points, we want to make it sustainable in the arts and ecology more effective, we need the charging points charging, we do a condition that we need to put charging points in there, because I noticed that on here as well, they were saying on the head of the environment, the scientific office, they were saying about, they want to use a load of car parts for ultra-low emission vehicles or is car-free development, and also they were saying as well, if they've got the charging points there, if it's none of there, they can make provisions to put, why we're in for charging, but if it's where can they put the charging facilities on to the properties where they can't do it, because it's all flat. Yeah, sorry, I haven't got the report in front of me, but I would have, I'm pretty sure I recall a condition to acquire a scheme for EV charging to be submitted and agreed with us. I'm pretty sure that's the condition that's been imposed, I can double check. It says cable could be installed to the remainder of the car, for the parking spaces, to allow for additional charging points to be installed to the later stage, I would like to see it as a condition that they would be charging points available, not as advisory. I'll just cut in there, Councillor, because condition 14 in the report requires the provision of EV charging points in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Council. Sorry, Chair, can I come at us all? So on the back end of the property, you said there's a steep drop. What sort of, are they put in fencing or concrete stuff to further that, because of the steepness of the bankment? So what we've asked for is, we precondition on to require a slope stability assessment, so we want to make sure that somebody, suitably qualified, assesses the stability of that bank, and submits that information, and then on the back of that provides us with details of any net through obtaining structures, so that's something we're conditioning. It looks like the cradle of the slope, it could look like subsides on that land as well. That's right. OK, Councillor Avels. I think Councillor Avels was before me, Chair. There's already got your name up, so we'll start with you. I come to the Councillor Rattle. Yes. No problems, thanks, Chair. Just one point on the planning report, the response from Welsh Water recommends moving the bike store, because it's close to the easement. Has that sort of been done since, or are we granted permission without it being moved? Yes, that's something that I wasn't going to mention, but forgot, sorry. So this sewer easement, you can see here, these lines crossing the site. The cycle store was positioned further to the east, and so crossed within close proximity of the sewer, hence we had a whole new objection from Welsh Water. But since then, the agents come into this revised layout, which shifts the cycle store further to the west, as you can see in this drawing, and is now sort of compliant and is outside of that sewer easement. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Stephen. Councillor Rattle. Thanks, Chair. I don't know whether I'm actually coming up on screen or not. My team seems to be playing up this morning. Apologies, it's just shut down on me, and then when I rejoined, I didn't have any sounds. So I'll ask the question, but if it's being covered, I apologize. When I was going through the report, there were quite a few concerns I had, but then as as is always the case, you get to the conditions, and most of those concerns then get addressed in the conditions, which is great. One that still sort of stood out for me, there was a concern raised by one of the residents who contacted you about the possibility of asbestos on the land. Now, I know on page, just bear with me wrong, just flicking between things here. On page 32 of the report, I think it's condition 15. It says, Any unforeseen ground contamination encountered during development shall be notified of local planning authority, and then it goes on with more details. I was just wondering whether you could elaborate on that slightly. Is it down to the developer to do that monitoring, find out if there's any contamination, and then report it, or is there some sort of independent monitoring that goes on? And if there is any contamination, what are the next steps then? Thanks, Chair. Yeah, so we've imposed the condition, it's condition seven, which requires the developer to submit contamination information. He would have to appoint geotechnical experts to produce that report, and they would have to do suitable testing, and then that would be submitted to us. And if there is any contamination found, you would have to propose suitable remediation measures. Now, that scheme is passed to our scientific officer, who's internal officer in the council, who then sort of checks through that and has any appropriate discussions with the agent on that. So the report is prepared by the developer, but is sort of checked and verified by our scientific officer. All right, thanks, Steve. That doesn't make sense. Do you have any evidence at the moment? I mean, obviously this was raised by a resident, so I don't know what evidence they had for raising this concern. But have you got any evidence at the moment that there might be, or that there is asbestos in the area? And then could that asbestos then be disturbed and go into the atmosphere? We haven't got any evidence that there's any asbestos in the site, no. So we would be waiting to see what that report says. Right, okay. Thank you, Jay. Thanks, Steve. Okay, thank you for the cut. There are two questions I'd like to ask, please, Chair. One is that the scientific officer on page 18, it comes back to the parking, states that he or she could not support the development unless you guarantee that the only vehicles using it will be lower mission. I'm not quite sure how you do that, or that there's no parking there at all. Presumably that objection has been overridden at some stage. I'm not 100% clear what overrides that objection to the scientific officer. So I'd be interested to know that, please. If it's somewhere in the report, I'm sorry if I've missed it. And a resident mentions that the site is full of Japanese knotweed. And is that not regarded as a contamination? Is there not? I mean, that is a general issue around the city, isn't it? Japanese knotweed. And my understanding is that quite strict regulations are around the control of it. I couldn't see it anyway, but is there any obligation of the developer to deal with that as part of the application? Yeah, so condition 13 deals with invasive species such as Japanese knotweed. So the developer has to come in with a scheme to identify where there is any Japanese knotweed and come up with a scheme to remove it, deal with that. So that's something that they have to do before any work start on site. The first issue raised about the scientific officer's comments on EV vehicles. So one of the roles of the scientific officer is dealing with air quality in the city. And his comments, I suppose, are somewhat aspirational because obviously any cars do create pollution. So from his some point, he's trying to minimize that as much as possible. But from a planning perspective, we have to balance that with the needs of a development. And current planning policy really means that we have to ensure that there is a level of car parking on the site. One space for the resident is reasonable. And then we've imposed a planning condition to put a scheme for EV charging to sort of try and address that issue. But are we going to recommend to you that the site is car-free? No, we're not recommending that. I think one space per resident is reasonable. Okay, thank you. Any further questions? There's no ones that can see you on the screen. So we go to the vote. The recommendation is granted with conditions on a section 106 agreement. Can I please have a proposal? Councillor JOHNSTON. Chair, can you actually see me on screen? It's John Adams. I've got my camera turned on, but I'm not seeing any indication that there's a sliding on top of the thing. Is that a cross? I've got it on the setting. I normally have it on. I don't know why you're just working. Okay. I can't see anybody. I just have to take a verbal recording off you then. Could all those in favour of the recommendation please raise a hand. Are you in favour, Councillor Reynolds? I am in favour, yes. Thank you very much. That's passed unanimously. Okay. Now go to item number two, which is page 34 to 39. And this is application 23 0292. And this will be presented by John Davidson. Thank you, Chair. Officers seek committee authorization to enforce against a breach of planning control on a residential site owned and being developed by Bellway. The site is known as phase 4H. It is located approximately halfway along the southern boundary of the land-worn regeneration site, now referred to as Glantling. The key condition is condition 28 of the outline planning permission, reference 060471. And we've reproduced condition 28 at paragraph 1.1 of the officer report. Officers must confirm an error at paragraph 6.2 of the committee report that refers to St. Madwin homes being the applicant for reference 22 0481. This is not correct as the application was submitted by St. Madwin developments limited. St. Madwin developments limited act as the master developer for the Glantling site, delivering serviced land parcels for sale to other residential house builders, including St. Madwin homes. St. Madwin developments limited sold the freehold interest of the 4H phase to Bellway homes in 2021. So Bellway has full ownership and control of that area of land that you can see outlined in red. St. Madwin developments limited has contractual responsibility to discharge part of condition 28. And Bellway has a contractual obligation with St. Madwin developments to discharge those elements of condition 28, not dealt with by St. Madwin's. By way of background, officers are aware that at the end of 2023, Bellway commenced ground works on phase 4H. This included piles and hall roads. Officers issued a breach of condition notice in January 2024. Following refusal of a discharge of condition request relating to condition 28 and 4 phase 4H that had been submitted in 2022 by St. Madwin's development limited. Officers and St. Madwin's had been negotiating on the information required to satisfy at least part of condition 28 on phase 4H and liaison extensively with natural resources whales. However, despite protracted liaison, several rounds of information submission and multiple reconsultations of natural resources whales or NRW, NRW continue to raise objection. Bellway were asked to cease development and declined to do so. Therefore, officers refused the discharge of condition submission and thereby paved the way for enforcement action to be taken. The breach of condition notice served to date requires Bellway home as developer and owner of the site to submit information required by the condition in the form of a new discharge of condition request to the authority. And to cease works on site until such a time as the information has been submitted and approved in writing by the local plan authority. The notice took effect in February this year. Bellway did submit information for consideration under the condition and thereby complied with one step set out in the notice but did not cease works so were not notice compliant. The information Bellway submitted has more recently been refused and has failed to address the concerns of NRW and the authority and Bellway continues to undertake development on the site. Officers are presenting this item to committee today as they are of the view that prosecution proceedings are likely required in this case and the validity of the notice could be scrutinized at any such proceedings. The site area of phase four H falls within the major development definition and by issuing the notice it may be argued that officers have exceeded their delegated authority. Therefore, it is prudent in our view and for the avoidance of doubt to seek committee authorization to issue a new notice and thereafter progress to prosecution if the developer does not comply with it. Officers can consider enforcement action necessary as the land we're in regeneration site is a former steelworks which was demolished in 2004. The soils beneath the site have been heavily contaminated by the site's long industrial legacy. These activities have introduced a variety of contaminants to the soils including tar, heavy metals and petroleum based fuels and oils. Over time concentrations of these contaminants enter the shallow groundwater within the soil which then migrates through soils and enters site surface waters. There is known to be site wide contamination within soils and shallow groundwater that needs appropriate management and remediation. The site wide remediation works are being delivered by a company called Rogers Leesk who were appointed as principal contractor and the primary consultant to St. Mod wins development limited who as previously stated manage and deliver the entirety of the regeneration site before transferring phases to third party developers. The remediation works across the site have been designed such that if successful soils and groundwater remaining at the site following completion will not cause harm to human health or controlled waters receptors. For controlled waters the primary receptor is monk's ditch. Monk's ditch on this slide hopefully you can see my cursor is this ditch you can see running along the eastern end of the slide. This is an important primary ditch running north to south through the site. Planning permission includes a drainage design in which site surface waters will be pumped periodically from the site directly into the monk's ditch with no pretreatment. The main objective of the remediation works at the site is therefore to achieve the statutory water quality standards within the site surface waters. So when these waters are pimped to monk's ditch they will not cause harm to this or any dependent water bodies. Monk's ditch is part of a European designated site of special scientific interest known as a triple SI. Forming part of the wider gwent levels Nash and gold cliff triple SI. A triple SI is a designated protected habitat that is of particular interest to science due to the rare species of fauna or flora it contains. The monk's ditch, sorry the part of monk's ditch within the triple SI is approximately 550 metres from the phase 4H boundary. The section of monk's ditch where site surface water will be pumped to is immediately upstream of the boundary of the triple SI designation. And therefore pumped water from the site will directly enter the triple SI. So phase 4H is approximately where my cursor is. Monk's ditch is shown in blue the north to south line and the triple SI is highlighted in red. Monk's ditch is the predominant water body to feed the triple SI in this area. The quality of this protected habitat is therefore dependent on the quality of monk's ditch. If the site introduces contaminated water to monk's ditch it threatens the quality of the protected habitat and may prejudice the triple SI extent and its features. The local plan authority is advised by its primary consultee on controlled waters matters this being NRW. NRW has been significantly involved in discussions relating to condition 28 over several years. And in respect to phase 4H it has consistently raised concerns on the information we've received to date. The success of the remediation works at the site by the removal of contamination that poses a risk is determined by an assessment of a number of verification targets which if these are all met give confidence that following completion of the remediation the site will be unlikely to cause harm to identified receptors. If one or more of the verification targets are not met there remains the potential that harm will be caused. These verification data sets and information are presented within a verification report submitted by the applicant to the local plan authority following completion of required monitoring and in support of an application to discharge condition 28. These are critical to ensure environmental protection both now and in the future. The Council's scientific officer has also expressed concerns regarding lack of verification data relating to on site drainage courses that feed into monk stitch. The scientific officer is satisfied though on the information received in relation to initial remedial verification for building platforms and such matters as cover systems and impermeable membranes were required. However if environmental quality standards are not being met in surface waters then this will potentially also impact on human health considerations in our view. The developer may argue that there is currently no harm to monk stitch and the environment generally arising from their ongoing works. They may base this on the fact that there is currently no connection of site surface waters to monk stitch. The surface waters are currently being treated off site via a separate private system before being pumped to the seven estuary. This system is long established and not up for scrutiny. This treatment agreement has a limited lifespan though and is currently due to cease in April 2025. Surface waters will then be directed to monk stitch without treatment and via a surface water site model that has been agreed. The agreed model of directing surface water to the monk stitch is perfectly acceptable in principle but such waters can only enter monk stitch if of an acceptable quality. Unfortunately NRW has advised the local plan authority that it has not been demonstrated that the remediation of contaminated made ground has been successful on phase 4H based on the evidence presented to us to date. This is due to a number of the verification targets not being met. These failings indicate that remediation works have not mitigated risks to controlled waters and therefore there is the potential for harm to be caused to monk stitch when surface waters are discharged. Current exceedances of statutory water quality standards relating to some contaminants if these remain untreated will pollute monk stitch when site surface waters are connected to it. The consequences of this would be significant from an environmental perspective. The land contamination conditions are pre-commencement of development to enable additional intervention in the event that verification targets are not met. The purpose of condition 28 is to provide the opportunity for soil and/or groundwater to undergo further assessment and/or treatment if required. As the development of phase 4H continues, the opportunity to manage the contaminated soils and groundwater is potentially being lost and offices are therefore of the view that action must be taken. The advantages of serving a breach of condition notice are that it is relatively fast acting as it can be effective 28 days from service and there is no right of appeal. It is possible if railway continue works on site that the authority will consider serving an enforcement notice in addition to the breach of condition notice. An enforcement notice has a right of appeal but has a much larger potential fine if successful prosecution occurs. The breach of condition notice will enable the local planning authority to act on the breach quickly and well before any appeal against a stop or enforcement notice could be determined. We consider this appropriate because the breach is a serious risk to the environment based on the advice received from natural resources whales. The planning condition has clearly been breached and whilst the threat of prosecution seems to have not compelled Bellway to comply with the condition so far with the committee's discussion and authorization today, they may be more inclined to do so. If not, then prosecution proceedings should be taken. Committee has several options it can consider today. Firstly, it can result to take no action at all because it does not consider the breach of planning control to be expedient to pursue. If this option is considered then members are advised that section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that no enforcement action can be taken against a breach of planning condition after the end of the period of 10 years from the date on which the breach first occurred. This is referred to as the immunity rule. Secondly, the committee can resolve to authorize only the issue of a breach of condition notice at this time. Thirdly, it can decide that it wants officers to issue a stop and enforcement notice instead of a breach of condition notice as it considers this a more appropriate course of action to remedy the breach. Finally, it can agree with the officer recommendation set out in your reports. That is to authorize the head of law and standards to issue a breach of condition notice and a section 187A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that requires all development works to cease on site. That is site phase 4H until details required under condition 28 of permission 060471 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. And to authorize the head of law and standards to issue any other enforcement notices deemed necessary dependent upon the action or inaction of bellway homes to the breach of condition notice. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Thank you. We do have a public speaker against this and Mr. Sally about five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members. My name is Pete Sally, Director of Aspie Planning and commissioned by bellway homes for planning matters on this site. Firstly, bellway would like to set out that this site is what is several locations in Newport that they have developed over the last 30 years. And this particular parcel is the third parcel they have developed a glance lane over the last few years. The remediation has been undertaken on this parcel has been completed. In accordance with the remediation strategy approved in a condition 28 that has been undertaken on bellways two previous parcels are glanched in. Further, Rogers Leesk consulting engineers have undertaken all the previous works on the site on behalf of a sick modeling who obtained the outlying planning permission. The remediation works are the same that have been undertaken on other parcels are glanched in built by other house builders. The issue on this particular parcel is therefore a difference in the interpretation and reporting with the results of the works undertaken rather than the works themselves. It is appreciated that this is a certain nuance and bellway have requested in writing to discuss this matter with plan officers in a meeting no less than eight times since the middle of December. This includes a written request for me to submit a discharge condition 28 application in February 2024 requesting the officers meet the bellway to discuss the position either before or after the NRW consultation response was received. But in any event before the discharge condition application was determined. Offices have consistently refused these requests to meet. The NRW response was received by planning officers on the 16th of April and that response contained requests for additional information and clarification not previously requested by NRW. But the application was refused at the delegated power on the 17th of April without notified the applicant in advance and a decision that was issued on the 18th of April. Bellway cannot therefore agree with the officer's statement in paragraph 6.4 the committee report stating that dialogue in relation to condition 28 and phase 4 H is ongoing and is clearly a will and desire to resolve the current issues if possible and to enable condition 28 to be discharged. In addition the statement in paragraph 6.5 or the committee report stating that attempts to resolve this matter inform we have so far been unsuccessful is unfair given that the repeated requests to meet officers to discuss the matter have been refused. The council's own scientific officer has raised no objection to the results that have been submitted and the pilot operation undertaken in July 2023 was approved by the plan authority in accordance with a relevant planning condition. Further, NRW's significant powers to force developers to stop working on site should NRW consider prudent to do so. NRW has not initiated any such requirements. The purpose of condition 28 are set out in a reason for the condition. It's to protect the controlled water surrounding slant worm. Parcel 4 H does not directly connect to these waters and has been set out in a discharging condition submission that any waters leading from the parcels to control the waters would take literally thousands of years to reach those controlled waters. Further discussions are ongoing between sit-mod doing NRW to extend the agreement referred to by Mr. Davidson beyond April 2025, which is a year away. There's no reason where that agreement will not be extended. Members are therefore respectfully requested to direct officers to engage with bail homes to resolve the current issue as set out in Parcel 6.4. Prior to any further enforcement or legal action being taken. Mr. Davidson referred to several options members can take today. Asking officers to open a dialogue with Balway is an additional option open to members. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. No open floor to questions. Councillor? Thank you, Chair. Taking on board what the representative has just mentioned. Could the officers explain why the dialogue has not been forthcoming? Please. We've been dealing with the master developers St. Madwin developments for well over two years on phase four H. You'll note that the public speaker mentioned Rogers Leeske again. Rogers Leeske are the principal contractor for St. Madwin developments and they have also been acting for Balway. We've actually been negotiating with Rogers Lees. NRW and St. Madwin developers that cite developments those be in the master developers. As I say for two years prior to Balway. Commencing works on site. There was an active to start a condition request on condition 28 by St. Madwin developments that's referred to in your report. There were approximately nine rounds of re consultation with natural resources whales. There was significant comment from NRW on the public file or within the public domain and available for Balway to see. All of those written comments from NRW raised significant concerns with the evidence being presented by St. Madwin developments in relation to the verification report. So all that was in the public domain available for Balway to see and its advisors and yet work commenced at the end of 2023. And therefore at that time as I say we have to act relatively quickly by serving a notice in early 2024. Now Balway once we issued that notice in early 2024 Balway as I mentioned in the presentation submitted a report to us in accordance with the first step set out in that notice. However the report was effectively the same report with a short addendum that we'd already seen in the submission that we had already refused from St. Madwin developments. Because Rogers Leesk are the common denominator. So appreciate Balway have asked for meetings but I can confirm we've had multiple meetings with St. Madwin developments NRW, Rogers Leesk regarding phase 4H condition 28 and the most recent one took place only a few weeks ago. Thank you. So the conclusion to that is that there will be no more dialogue from your perspective. Absolutely not no. I mean our priority is to resolve it. We want condition 28. We want evidence presented as part of a discharge of condition 28 to be acceptable. We want to discharge it. And so we are continuing dialogue with St. Madwin developments who I explained I think in the presentation are contractually obliged to discharge part of condition 28. Those negotiations are ongoing and I'd fully expect that we'll receive further discharge of condition requests for condition 28 particularly as we met only a few weeks ago to discuss it. So we are actively engaged and have been for years on this with relevant parties and we still remain hopeful we can get to the point of having sufficient evidence that will satisfy NRW. The main point here is that Bellway continue on site. We've asked them to cease informally and subsequently by way of notice and the longer they continue on site. The more prejudicial it is to resolve in this matter because there may need to be further remediation options considered and the more cover the more work goes on on site. The less opportunity for that to happen. I have another question chair and this is to do with Monck's ditch. I'm not sure how relevant it is to this situation but it's certainly relevant in the wider domain. You mentioned about more water being pumped into Monck's ditch. Is this new water or as this water made its way into Monck's ditch before? The reason I'm asking is if it's new water that's being pumped into Monck's ditch flows through the ward of Bishton and Langstone and the ward is subject to a lot of flooding and is heavily dependent on Monck's ditch for the egress of the water. I look at the topological map of Underwood which is where it egresses from the ward and I represent and it's about 7 metres, 7 to 10 metres above sea level. I've heard that the flow of water is also tidal dependent so we do get more of a backup of water when the tide is high even though it's a significant distance from the 7. My concern and I say it might not be relevant to this meeting but my concern is if more water is being pumped into Monck's ditch it could have a negative effect upstream. Thank you. It is a bit off topic today I'll be honest but at the moment as I mentioned in the report the site surface waters are not actually connected to Monck's ditch. The connection to Monck's ditch will occur when the agreement to discharge the private system ends and it's currently due to end in April 2025 or although I know what the public speaker said that there may be opportunities to extend that agreement. Not with standing the site surface water conceptual model that we've actually agreed as an authority proposes site surface waters to discharge to Monck's ditch. So going away from that current private pump system that ends up in the seven estuary instead go into the Monck's ditch which goes into the triple SI. I appreciate what you're saying about increased water but not really the topic we're on today but we can certainly have more discussions about that and we can advise you further on that. So, yeah, so can I suggest you take that outside the meeting yet. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Rannells. Thank you chair. I mean, I did notice that Councillor HOWARD has had his hand that just before the public speaker, we don't speak any longer again. Councillor Rannells, your down is number one mate. Okay, your number one. Okay, thank you. I just thought to make the offer. I've got my camera working again as well. To be honest, just sort of following on from what Councillor Moggford just said, when I read the report, my first instinct was one of when I read that informal attempts to be made and there haven't been any response. It read as being quite contemptuous to be honest and then when I, I was really concerned when I saw some of the, the chemicals that were potentially going into the water supply. I mean, you're tolyrene that's. It's, it's well known for causing nerve, liver, liver, kidney damage, benzene, which is your carcinogenic. They're quite scary compounds. I suppose really, my first instinct was to say it was to say, yes, I fully support the officer recommendations. Listening to both sides now, it does seem that there is a will to talk about this and get this sorted out without resorting to potential court action. I know this has been partly answered already, but can I just ask for a clarification on that? Is there any scope for getting this sorted out informally or have we passed that point? Thanks. Thanks, Councillor. Yeah, we'll continue to talk as we already are in an effort to resolve it. We take a very collaborative and cooperative approach with the master developer on this site as do they with us. So that negotiation is frequent and ongoing. They're fully aware of the issues on this particular phase. They're fully aware of the concerns of NRW and NRW are fully engaged with them and us on it. So we are all very, we've all got that will to try and resolve the issue to keep things progressing. As I've already mentioned though, dare I say, Bellway have not helped themselves in the sense that we started before we even issued the breach of condition notice in January, we asked them to stop works. We had an application pending from State Modeling developments on condition 28 that we were negotiating on. As I say, it had been with us for two years, which should be an indication in itself of our will to negotiate and collaborate and try and resolve it. We asked Bellway informally to stop works pending the outcome of the distorted condition and they declined to do so. Our hands were forced in terms of taking action because Bellway did not stop and indicated to us that they would not stop. And as I've said, whilst I'm hopeful that we can resolve the distorted condition of 28 going forward, there is some work still involved or still left to do. There's evidence still left to gain, potentially more remediation to do, more sampling and monitoring to do. I don't know how long that will take and Bellway at the moment are continuing on the site. So that is really why we're here and why we think now that a breach of condition notice should be served. A breach of condition notice once served will take effect in 28 days or a longer period that we may specify. And if Bellway don't cease works, once the notice takes effect, then we can prosecute. So of course, if we serve the notice, we get information, everything's fabulous and then our WC it's all OK. We both progressed the prosecution. It's not something we relish do in, but we will do it where we clearly feel that there is harm. OK, that makes sense. So essentially what you're saying is we've never reached the point where work needs to stop before further damage is done. And the talks can then continue once the work is stopped. Yes. So the work that the ongoing work on site is highly prejudicial to our resolution of this in our view. I appreciate Bellway will think differently. Roger's least they think differently, but in our W as our primary console T with expertise on environmental quality standards is telling us this is harmful. And it must stop. We must resolve the issue of condition 28 in full and we need the evidence to show that the very verification targets have been met. And the remediation has been effective. Okay. Thanks, Chair. Okay. Thanks, Chair. I mean, this seems a pretty straightforward issue to me, Chair, if I may, and I'm going to be fairly blunt with it. I'm pretty frustrated with developers rocking up here thinking they can ride rough shot over the planning system and expect us to roll over. But these are pre commencement conditions and developers know that they have to discharge them to the planners or the LPA satisfaction before starting on site. And I'm really frustrated that they think that they can ride rough shot over that and do what the hell they want and think that they've discharged the conditions because they say they have. So in my view, we should issue the stop notice and the enforcement notice that is in the report. And I wonder whether we could do both to protect our position or whether we only need to do one. Perhaps Andrew will join could come back from that. Well, theoretically, we can do it all, but I think we recommended the breach of condition notice because it's it's pretty fast acting and notably does not have a right of appeal. The difficulty with the stop notices, it must be followed by an enforcement notice and there is a right of appeal. And like it or not, once a notice comes, sorry, once an appeal is lodged, it tends to hold back or delay prosecution proceedings. So that is why we were recommending a breach of condition notice, but we are mindful that if Belway doesn't stop work, we may need to consider further notices if, unfortunately, we don't resolve condition 28. Despite our aspiration to do so. So that's why we're seeking authorization for the breach of condition notice first, but also seeking authorization. Should we see fit to issue further notices, which may include stop and enforcement. Okay, thank you. Sorry, you finished. Yeah, thanks to, you know, it seems great, you know, over the years that we've let that land become a development land. I mean, we know the implications of what land we've put out, you know, through all the materials and the waste, everything else. You know, to me, it really seems that we're doing everything possible to get it right. And also making it a little harmful for people to live there and for the environment. I mean, it looks like to me, you know, they don't seem to be taking that, just the Belways isn't, you know, they, to me, it looks like they don't care about the person's health or the environment, you know, around the area. If they've done all this work, I've seen moderns done, you know, over the last couple years, doing it, putting it all together, you know, doing it right and probably I can see why they want to keep on doing it. You know, very wants to keep on going. They should be looking at, you know, it is harmful to the health and to the environment. This should stop and I would support the opposite recommendations. Okay, thank you. To me, there's no further answer. Before we, sorry to interrupt your hands up. Some of the comments I was going to make have been made anyway. So, but there's one comment I would like to make. Obviously, they, in supporting this recommendation that I think, for me, there were two things need to be done by the officers. One is to show, you know, the seriousness of the issue, which would lead us to take this kind of action. And I, and the second test, I think they've done that quite clearly. And it particularly concerns me because part of the potentially likely impact of the current situation is going to be on the levels. And I sometimes think we forget that that is an absolutely enormously important area of scientific interest and quite unique action. We do have a real duty to protect that. And that obviously is part of the issue here. But I think the other point I just wanted to make is that the second thing I think the officers had to try and do is to show that they've tried to resolve this by alternative means other than a notice. And to be quite frank, I think they've done that completely as far as I'm concerned. So, I'm certainly very happy to support the recommendation. Okay, thank you. Thanks for your. Councillor Jordan. Sorry, Chair. With the recommendation, what would it be then? Would, you know, Joanne gave us a number of options to take. Which, okay, I come on. I was just going to come on to that now, which is my personal feelings. If I'm wrong, please let me know. So, okay, thanks all for your observations and for being upfront and frank. Councillor Airwell's, I won't expect you to be anything other than you are. So, thank you for your flintness, as you've said. No, so thanks. So, I think the recommendation is a breach of notice. But I think that breach of notice, I think Joanne has confirmed that it can be resolved. Discussions can carry on. And hopefully that's the way forward with us issuing the breach of notice before enforcements come in place. Okay. So, that's a recommendation. Could I have a proposal, please? Councillor. Sorry. Just before I do, on what you just said, can we get just one little bit of clarification? Because Joanne, you said that the time limit, you mentioned 28 days, but it could be longer. Can you make that decision now, or is that something you're going to decide on later, what the length is? We would intend to put 28 days. So, once the breach of condition notices served, we would expect it to take effect 28 days after the service date. What that means is the steps we set out in the notice, which are effectively a deceased works until we've agreed the discharge of the condition. If the developer does not comply by the end of that 28 days, it then becomes an offence. And that is when prosecution proceedings can take place. So, that would be our intention. So, as I say, the other element of the recommendation is to give us authorisation. If we need to, and hopefully we won't need to, serve other notices if Bellway do not act upon the breach of condition notice. Okay, thank you. Councillor DRILLER. Sorry, Chair. Just to come back on that, we're welcome to Moggford certainly with the 28 day notice. Within that 28 day notice, before it ever stops, what more harm would it be done within that 28 days before we put the actual stop notice on it? Would that make it worse for the condition 28 or no? I mean, the more Bellway covers the site, the more difficult it becomes to find alternative remediation measures that may help with the resolution of the sampling exceedances. So, for example, there may be bits of the site where we've got hotspots of contamination that need to be taken out that hadn't previously been foreseen, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That said, 28 days isn't that long in a development, and this is a big site. So, I'm not overly concerned that the passage of 28 days is going to make a significant difference in terms of harm. Okay, thank you. So, can we now move on to the recommendation, which is a breach of the condition notice? As I've said, I hope we can get it resolved with the parties. Okay, thank you. So, could I have a recommendation, a proposal for the recommendation, please? And a seconder. Can you put a camera on, please? Okay, and all those in favour of the recommendation, please raise their hands. Okay, thank you. That's passed unanimously. Thank you. Agenda item 5, thank you for speaking, sir. Agenda item 5 is for information purposes on me. Thank you for your attendance, and I shall see you all a week later next month. Hopefully, if I'm still here. Okay.