Transcript

Good afternoon and welcome to the planning applications committee on Thursday the 23rd of May 2024. My name is Councillor Peter Wilkinson and I along with the members will make the decisions today. First of all I'll do the webcasting script. I would like to inform everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the council. Either chair have discretion to terminate or suspend filming if it is my opinion that continuing to do so will prejudice the proceedings of the meeting. If you are seated in the public gallery it is likely that recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast. Any views expressed by any speaker in this meeting or the speaker's own and they do not necessarily reflect the views of Staffordshire Midlands District Council. Please can members be aware that the webcast will continue to be streamed live 20 seconds after the close of the meeting. This is due to a time delay in transmitting live. Introduction of officers and members. First of all I'll do the officers. On my far right I've got Hazel Birkinshaw, Democratic Services Assistant. Immediately to my right I've got Sally Hampton, Senior Democratic Services Officer. To my immediate left I've got Justin Price-Jones, Legal Advisor. To his left I've got Declan Cleary, Planning Officer and next to him is Ben Heywood, Head of Development Services. Moving on to members. To my far left I've got Councillor Lynn Swindlerst, Councillor Vicky O'Shea, Councillor Ian Plant, Councillor Ben Emery, Councillor Paul Roberts. In front of those I've got Councillor Tony Holmes, Councillor Jonathan Kempster, Councillor Mark Johnson, Councillor Keith Oftroff. And then across from me in the back row I've got Councillor Oliver Poynton and in front of Oliver I've got Councillor Alan Yume and Councillor Keith Lundy. Moving on. Any other announcements? There are none. Apologies for absence, if any. Yes, thank you, Chair. Just apologies from Councillor Parks today. Minutes of the previous meeting. Thank you. Moving on. Any urgent items of business? There are none. Decorations of interest. Discloseable pecuniary interest. Anybody? Other interests? Can I declare on behalf of myself that I am the Parrish and District Councillor for Agenda Item 7, SMD2023/0594, which is the land of Blythe House farm south of the 850, the solar farm. On behalf of members I think we have got some Councillors speaking today. We've got Councillor Barbara Hughes, Councillor Pat Hughes, Councillor Ross Ward and Councillor James Abberley. Any other interests? Councillor Alan Yume? Thank you, Chair. I know the land on applicants on 2023/0594. I'm also a neighbouring farmer as a family member. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Yumplan? Thanks, Chair. Same one, 0594. I do know the resident who lives in Blythe House next to the application. Any other interests? Councillor Keith London? Thank you, Chair. I'm a Parrish Councillor for 0594 Blythe House application. Any other interests? Moving on to lobbying. Councillor Paul Roberts? Yes, Chair. I'd like to do on all three applications we've got in front of us today. I think every member has received some form of emails or a lobbying together. Thank you. Moving on, we've seen cited the late representations report. Have we all seen cited that? Now for the agenda, I'm slightly changing the order because of the number of speakers. We'll first of all do agenda item 8. S.M.D. 202020438 Stonehouse Farm, Ashbank Road, Wellington. Are there any speakers? Can you come forward, please? Chair, can I just point out that there is one speaker that is stuck in traffic just at the moment, apparently. Okay, then. Is it the same for the gender item 11? Yeah, so sorry about that. Can we bring gender item 11 forward then instead of 8? Can the speakers come forward, please? I was asked to. I was advised. So we've got all the speakers for agenda item 11 present. So Mr. Heywood, can you introduce the application, please? Thank you, Chair. So this application relates to the former youth hostel site at Little Ranger, now known as Alton Forest Lodge. The application is for the siting of two woodland holiday cabins. So you can see the extent of the site indicated in red there. Of course, subject to a site visit this morning. The site currently comprises two existing lodges here and here, which again you saw on site this morning, and a couple of small stable buildings. So that's one of the lodges and the two stables. That's the other lodge building. And the proposal is to site two lodge buildings here and here. So you can see the proposed siting indicated on the site plan there. The site is within the open countryside where the local plan does allow under policy SS temp for essential forms of development. It isn't within the green belt and the site is within the Churnet Valley master plan area where new tourism development is encouraged. Therefore, we find that this proposal, which relates to tourism related development, is supported in general in principle by the local plan policies. It's noted that the site is in a relatively remote location, but compared to the former youth hostel use of the site, it's considered that the proposal would not represent a significant increase in traffic movement to and from the site. The proposal would also comply with policy E4 relating to tourist and visitor development. As members noted on site this morning, it is in close proximity to an ancient woodland and close to a triple SI. However, having carried out the necessary consultations, we are satisfied that the proposal would not harm the ecological value of the area and would not result in the loss of significant trees or harm to the overall character and appearance of the area or the surrounding landscape. Again, members will have noted on site this morning that the site is very well screened by the existing trees which surround it. The proposal also puts forward some ecological enhancements which will enable it to fully comply with policy E4. The scheme has been reduced in terms of scale since the original application was submitted and therefore, subject to conditions, we consider that the proposal is in line with local plan policy and we are recommending approval. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We've got four speakers speaking against the application and one for the first speaker, Mr John Higgins. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Hello. The proposal now before you is for two small log cabins to create two new holidaylets. The proposal has been amended to move the cabins away from ancient woodland and to minimise the impact on the environment. Moreover, the existing accommodation for 12 people is almost half the number of the former youth hostels, likewise the minimal impact. Do you know, I could almost believe all that myself for one moment, but let's be quite honest, this proposal has taken three and a half years to come before you. There's got to be more to it than that and actually, there is quite a lot more. The existing accommodation, and here's the rub, is no normal accommodation. Unlike the former youth hostel, it has now become a party house. Remember that? And you're now being asked to increase the size of this party house. Chris Johnston says the new log cabins won't make much of an impact. I don't suppose they will. It's got nothing to do with log cabins. It's the people inside them that will do the damage. They are not country lovers, but here to have a good time and to make loads of noise. And after they've finished partying, they'll get on their mountain bikes and go and trash the ancient woodland. How do I know this? I'll tell you how I know. Because the Forestry Commission have taken aerial photographs showing part of the ancient forest, ancient woodland, looking like the surface of the moon. And we've got a ten minute video on YouTube that actually shows these with motorbikes as well as scrambling bikes and mountain bikes in action. No impact on the local environment by foot. And where's Chris Johnston's report on all this devastation? The owners are mountain bike enthusiasts themselves and have created courses and jumps in the ancient woodland for their guests at the lodges to use. They must be stopped. Government policy is to refuse anything that will damage ancient woodland. Are you really going to fly in the face of national policy? So while Chris Johnston worries about protecting a couple of tree roots around the cabins, destruction of biblical proportions goes on around him. Destruction of ancient woodland? I haven't even mentioned car parking chaos. Party house noise and disruption? Oh, and planning contraventions are plenty. It's a pretty good tally and you're now being asked to add to that. Please listen to the people on the ground who know the situation rather than a planning officer who's simply reading from the rule book. A vote for these cabins is a vote for more ancient woodland destruction. Is that really what you want? Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mrs Diana Gardner. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon. The planning offer is asking you to compare the behaviour of people who use the old basic youth hostel to the party animals who book Alton Forest Lodge. There is no comparison. There is already evidence of the loss of amenities suffered by neighbours. So litter, noise, antisocial behaviour, disturbance of wildlife, destruction of habitat and damage to the protected woodland. Restrictions on amplified sound, barbecues and open fires have been ignored. He says that because the hostel could sleep 20 people, this won't make a difference to traffic. He's wrong. It already does. All these things will only be worse with more people. There's permission for 12 people to sleep in the lodge, not 10, and this proposal increases the number on site to 16. The applicant has failed to disclose there is an undrivable coach being fitted out and will be attached to services. Tents have been pitched at times, so it's likely there will be many more than 16 people on the site. The description of the site is incorrect. They only mention some of the existing buildings, not those that have been constructed in red here without permission, as well as the coach with its decking and huge gravel standing area. There's a massive shed and a large round stone structure. They've also failed to mention the steps and decking that are attached to both of the new lodges. This huge development is a gross over-intensification of development of the site even before you add the 58 square metres of new accommodation. The Planning Office feels this application conforms to policies SS 10 and 11. I disagree. These policies seek to enhance sustainable tourism, but they also need to protect the quality and character of the area, limit use which generates a substantial number of regular trips in areas that are not well served by public transport, and avoid or minimise environmental impacts. The proposal does none of these things. In his statement, the Planning Officer himself says it is recognised that the site is not in a sustainable location, with poor access to public transport and not that conveniently located for walking or cycling to the nearest services. The aim of policy E4 is to promote tourism, but also to be of an appropriate quality, scale and character, compatible with the local area, protect residential amenity, enhance the heritage landscape and biodiversity. The opposite is being done. Vast areas of ancient woodland have been destroyed using large machines to create a mountain bike trail. It's now impossible for walkers to use that area as the paths have been obliterated. The Forestry Commission have huge concerns about the damage already done by the mountain bikers and say the proposed development would lead to further increase in destructive recreational activity within the woodland. What is the point of having consultees if their findings are ignored? The negative impact of the proposal vastly outweighs any perceived need for additional accommodation on this site, and I beg you to refuse it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker is Annette Baxter. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chris Johnson's main reason for recommending approval is due to lack of one bedroom accommodation in the area. Yet there are four single bedroomed units just two fields away from Alton Forest Lodge. Our area is awash with single bedroomed accommodation, all Airbnb and all under the radar of the planners department. Chris Johnson says that the addition of two new lodges will not cause much disruption as the former youth hostel. The youth hostel was a simple part-time hostel with restricted hours. The present party house is open 52 weeks a year, and anything up to 10 cars have been seen on site at any one time. The former youth hostel had 20 bed spaces. Alton Forest Lodge voluntarily reduced this by half. Now, they want extra buildings to make up the deficit, but the former youth hostel had 20 bed spaces. Why are they even asking for more? I have lived close to the Dimmingdale site for over 30 years. When it was a youth hostel, we hardly knew it was there. Now we have visitor's cars racing up and down our narrow lanes, destroying the peace, destroying the quiet, and destroying the tranquility. They blindly follow Sat Nav, which directs them wrongly. Chris Johnson has no idea of the problem that the existing accommodation already inflicts upon local residents. Adding more accommodation will only make matters worse. Our residential amenity is being destroyed. Thank you, and thank you for listening to my objections. Thank you. The next speaker is Councillor James Abberly. You've got three minutes, please. Good afternoon, colleagues. This application sits on the boundary between the Churnett and Alton wards. So, as such, I'm speaking on behalf of both myself and Councillor Moulton, who can't attend today. The key concerns I'd like to raise echo the words of the other objectors, and I think we need to be very aware of the following issues. There is damage to the ancient woodland around the site. It's going to be very hard to police and check what visitors do there. But there does seem to be some good evidence regarding the potential damage in this area to the woodland from the guests. Traffic, as previously mentioned, is a really big issue around that part of the world. I do understand the officer's point. There's already some traffic from the existing building. But any increases in traffic in the Dimmingstale area around those tight roads is just not acceptable. As we've discussed in other applications, traffic to and from the Churnett Valley is exclusively by car. And the more people that are coming, the more cars that will be used in the small roads, and the more potential for accidents, too. It's constantly amazing to me there are not more accidents down those roads. There are two ways that you can't pass. More people down there is not a good idea. I understand the need to support the tourist economy in the South Shore moorlands, but in my opinion, knowing this area well, the benefits of tourism do not outweigh the harms to the local area, visually and practically. And I don't believe, unless I'm mistaken, sufficient planning conditions can be put on this application to prevent and police this kind of damage happening locally from the kind of visitors that will be using these lodges. We seem to continually have a battle over sustainability of locations around the moorlands, with us of course having a lot of places with very little public transport and accessibility. And increasing the footprint of another site in a remote location will only add to the pressures around this by creating an overdevelopment issue. In addition to the above, I can't see this proposal enhances in any way the area of the Churnett Valley, and I can see it leading to further and further overdevelopment of this site and more and more traffic use. Thank you for listening. I would request the committee turn down this application today and work with the applicant to use their existing property to meet their aims. Thank you very much. The final speaker speaking for the application is Mr John Imber. You've got three minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. Your officer's report identifies all relevant material planning considerations, clearly sets out the planning balance and arrives at a positive recommendation, which is welcomed. The application follows pre-application advice from your officers, which established that the broad principle of development is policy compliant. During the application process, we have worked closely with the planning department amending the scheme to address issues raised by consultees. The existing holiday accommodation on the site has proven very popular and proposals seek to cater for demand that is currently going unmet. The cabins will provide sensitively cited and designed accommodation well positioned relative to a range of attractions within the Churnett Valley. The provision of small scale tourist accommodation in this location is supported by the council's Churnett Valley Master Plan. The sustainable expansion of visitor infrastructure in the area will deliver knock on benefits for local businesses, including cafes and public houses. The cabins have been positioned outside of the woodland and the council's tree officer has confirmed they are sufficiently distant from trees to avoid causing any harm. The applicants are well aware that the natural environment and tranquility of this location are key to the success of the enterprise and it is in their interest to preserve them. The proposals would involve a minimal increase in vehicle movements, with parking provision being catered for on site. The cabins are remote from residential properties and will not cause any unacceptable impacts in terms of privacy, noise or disturbance. We are aware that concerns have been raised regarding development elsewhere on the site. This has been inspected by the council's officers and the applicants will work with them in the event that any breach of planning control is identified. The proposals before the committee today are unrelated and must be treated on their own merit. We are also aware that a late objection regarding mountain biking events has been lodged. It is true that the applicant allows an annual event to take place on the land within their ownership. However, this takes place in a clearing that was fire damaged prior to their ownership. The temporary use of this private land constitutes permitted development, which does not require planning permission and which is unrelated to the current proposals. We would therefore encourage members to approve the application as recommended by your planning officers. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Mr Aywood, any comments? Thank you, Chair. Just to reiterate the last point that was made there, really, that it's important that members focus on the application in hand, which is for the two cabins which you're considering today, rather than any other development that's taken place on the site and may be subject to future applications or enforcement action. And that includes the positioning of the bus unit, which you saw on site this morning, that's been referred to, and also the mountain biking that's been referred to elsewhere. The application is just for the two cabins today. Thank you. Thank you, members. Anybody like to start this one off? I've looked at the Forestry Commission comments, and they do say that it is government policy to refuse development that will result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists in the national planning policy framework. So we've got to think about what's there, think about what's going to be added to it, because we're getting another two lodges, we're going to get more traffic, more ancillary buildings. So I'm tended, really, that I don't think this is, we do need more tourist accommodation, but it's got to be the right accommodation in the right place. Councillor Paul Roberts. Thank you, Chair. You stole a bit of my thunder, really. At the moment, we're going against the policy on E2, paragraph 3, ancient woodland. You know, no matter what we say, we've got two more properties coming onto the site that's going to affect that. The previous bit was we've got 20, we've got a youth hostel that held 20, it's now not holding 20, so where have them 20 spaces gone to make it so that we need another two? You know, and I struggle, and it's going to be, I mean I've got several policies I think it breaks, it breaks T1 for a start on transport, sustainability location, SS10, paragraph 2, DC3, paragraph 1, I think it breaks. We have got to take the ancient woodland into consideration, no matter what happens, and even the bit about the biking and motorbiking, you know, we should be able to stop that on certain areas. So, at the moment, I'm going to recommend refusal. Yes, I must say, this seems to be an application that does fit the letter of many policies, and I guess that's why we're being asked to approve it, but I'll echo what's been said before. It seems to me, despite the report of Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, et cetera, that actually those forestry commission concerns really are concerns. I didn't look at the various bits of information we were sent through, but I know that there's been substantial damage to ancient woodland in that area, and it's a pretty rare commodity. In fact, it's much more than the commodity, it's much more valuable than the commodity, and it's much rarer. So, if that was a formal proposal to reject, I will certainly be ready to second it. If not, I'm ready to -- I am opposed. And then I also -- I will second it, if that's correct, Chair, and vote against it. On that and the fact, I don't actually think it's a sustainable location on other grounds, too. Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Jonathan Kempster. Thank you. Thank you to the speakers. Like my fellow Councillors, I echo similar concerns. I also support a need for sustainable tourism within the Staffordshire Moorlands and know how much we need to grow it. However, there's a number of reasons why I'm concerned. One is that the development is within open countryside, as other Councillors have said. It also adjoins ancient and semi-natural woodland, and also a triple SI. There is also a footpath, which goes very close to the area, which I've walked several or a number of times. The amount of peace which is within that area when you walk through that is something which is very special about that area. It's just not -- it's not only the sound piece, but also the visual piece as well, the tranquility of it. I think putting additional lodges in there is aesthetically going to affect that area, so I do have concerns about that. I also have, like, has already been discussed concerns about sustainable tourism. It's down a very long road. The only people who will be able to access that, though these proposed lodges, are people in cars. So from sustainable tourism, it's not on the bus route. There are issues with that. It's also the fact that although the youth hostel has been cited as 20 beds, my question is, were those beds -- the fact that they've actually got 20 beds doesn't necessarily mean that those beds were always full. The youth hostel several years ago, when that youth hostel closed, went through a feasibility study and closed the youth hostel because of the usage of it. So from that aspect, too, I'm not sure if that is something to actually hang an argument on in terms of it's got 20 beds, it's always had 20 uses. So for those reasons, like my fellow councillors, I have significant concerns about this development. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Aywood. Yeah, thanks, Geoff. I can just comment on the proposed reasons for refusal. I think as far as the sustainability of the location is concerned, I think there's an argument to be made there around some of the points that have just been raised. It certainly is in a relatively remote location and some of the points that have been made to counter the argument around the existing use of it or the previous use of the site as a youth hostel. I am slightly more concerned about the proposed reason for refusal relating to the ancient woodlands, given that, as I say, firstly, we need to make sure that we're focusing on the cabins themselves, because that's what is before us today, not any other development that might have taken place elsewhere in the woodland, including use for mountain biking or anything else. And just focusing purely on the cabins, you'll see at 6.23 of your report, the Forestry Commission have discussed with the council's local woodland officer the application, and they have confirmed that from the revised plans, the log cabins will be outside the 15-metre buffer zone, so they raise no further objection. You've got no objection from your own tree officer to the application. So I would be rather nervous about refusing on those grounds, because I think it would be very difficult for us to defend. The sustainability point, I think there is an argument to be made. Thank you, Geoff. Councillor Jonathan Campster. I recognise, talking for myself, I actually recognise the fact that the lodges are 15 metres from the ancient woodland, but it is also the fact that it's in a rural area, it is actually open countryside, it's not, and that is one of my concerns, too, from that aspect. All right, thank you. Mr Haywood. Yeah, thanks, Chair. I want to just come back very briefly on that. I think, you know, if you feel that there is an issue around, you know, the visual impact of the lodges, then obviously that's a judgement for you to make in terms of visual impact, and I think, again, that would be an arguable reason for refusal, but the technical issue of the impact on the woodland I would be nervous about. So whether the mover and seconder want to consider that, I don't know, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Paul Roberts. Thank you, Chair. I'm quite happy with what you've said, but I still think DC3 landscape and settlement setting is a reason for refusal, because no matter whether it's 15 metres away or not, it's the actual setting of the buildings that we're seeing. We know it's affecting the ancient woodland and the tree and woodland, but sometimes we don't agree with the tree and woodland's officer and things. It's for this committee to decide that, even though it might be on the limit. But I still stick with DC3 landscape and settlement setting. Thank you. Planning's all about balancing what weight you give to each aspect. I know you're talking about cabins here, but with the cabins, it brings more vehicles, it brings more people, so that, in my opinion, that will impact on the ancient woodland. So I don't know if you want to include the MPPF, which relates to that, because it's not just about the cabins. It's about what we're bringing into the area, into that specific area. It's going to be more vehicles, more drainage, more people, and that, to me, will have an impact. Whether it's 15 metres or not, it's still going to have an impact on the ancient woodland. Councillor Keith Lundy. Thank you, Chair. I think I'm coming from this from a slightly different angle in terms of tourism and all the rest of it, as I was in that particular requirement beforehand. I think we're, as a planning committee, I agree with the officers, actually, in terms of being on a little bit of dodgy ground here. The cabins themselves, if they're anywhere else, and without the information from the speakers today, I don't think we'd have a leg to stand on. I think that what we're talking about, really, is people's behaviour and how they treat the resource that we have an awful lot of within the moorlands. And I don't think planning really is in the state of repair at the moment and actually can bring that into the decision. So I, for one, although I do agree, and I probably won't be voting for this today because, as far as I'm concerned, I wasn't aware about all these issues, but we don't go to the police, we don't go to environmental health about noise and all the rest of it, and to make a decision here. Perhaps, if this had been the case, perhaps we should have done. But I don't think it's now a planning consideration at the moment. So I probably won't vote for or against this. For me, if it was just looking at this from a planning perspective, I think we're on slightly shaky ground, I must say. I think the officers probably have got the balance right in this case if we're just looking at planning. That's what we're here to do, guys. Sorry, thank you. Yeah, well, planning includes environmental health as well and noise, an impact on the residents and amenity, and we've got an amenity of ancient woodland here. Any further speakers? Councillor Alan New. Thank you, Chair. We've got a description of ancient woodland. Ancient woodland is self-generated, it's not man-made. We're destroying nature. We would be destroying the habitat of mammals, birds nesting, when that would be the peak activity by population. I think a lot of things would be against the natural habitat which there is out there. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any further speakers? Mr Haywood. Nothing from me at this stage, thank you, Chair. So we've got a recommendation proposed by Councillor Paul Roberts, seconded by Councillor Mark Johnson, to refuse the application based on the policies just given. If you're in favour of refusal, raise your hands. Anyone against? Any abstentions? I'm sorry, do not have your approval. Right, I think we're still waiting for speakers on Agenda Item 8, so we'll go back to Agenda Item 7. Have we got any speakers? Can you come forward? Thanks to Declan Cleary to introduce the application, thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon committee. Members, you'll be aware or you'll recall that in January 2023 you approved a solar farm at Upper Newton Farm, a 27.7 megawatt farm. This current planning application that's before you proposes an extension to that approval. That approval hasn't been commenced and is not operational. So in terms of the site, we've been subject to a site visit this morning. The A50 bounds the site to the north, travelling in an approximately east-west direction. To the south we have the Stoke to Derby railway line, so those two transport corridors essentially sandwich the site. To the south of the site is also overhead power lines and pylons. It's an open countryside location and the fields are of irregular form. The River Blythe, again, is further to the south of the site or southwest of the site and part of the site does fall within the flood zone. At land levels they slope away from the A50 down towards the River Blythe, so it's a valley-side setting and the change in levels is approximately 40 metres from its highest point to its lowest. The surrounding area comprises pockets of farmsteads, including Upper and Lower House Farm and Blythe House Farm and there are a number of isolated properties scattered around in the landscape. The application site itself extends to two principal parcels of land, so an upper parcel close to the A50 and a lower parcel that's closer to the railway line, the River Blythe and the overhead power lines. Access to the site is via the existing approved access for Upper Newton Farm and this application, Red Edge, includes the access tracks through the site which would link to the two parcels of land. The site also includes two areas of Red Edge which would be dedicated landscaping strips, which includes one along the railway line and one adjacent to Blythe House Farm. In terms of how this application relates to what has been approved, this plan shows three fields here, which is the current operational development which you saw across the valley this morning through the hedgerows and the shaded out areas are the extant approval for the 27.7 MW installation. This application proposes an extension as I've mentioned and includes the three fields up at the top and three fields down at the bottom and also included within that is a blue edge area which is proposed to be an ecological enhancement site. Zooming in to the main area of development, what I've done is I've numbered the fields one to seven which kind of corresponds with any field references within the report. The solar panels are in linear form with a southward facing aspect and they would fill the top three fields, setting from the site boundaries and the scheme includes enhancements to the field boundaries with hedgerows and trees. To the larger parcel adjacent to the overhead power lines, you'll notice here that the extent of field four or the development proposed within field four is set in from its boundaries. That is because during the course of the application it was flagged up that that falls within flood zone three and therefore it would have been subject to sequential testing and as such the applicants have moved the development away. So none of the operational development now falls within flood zone three. The lower field also includes a substation compound which is set adjacent to the overhead power lines and it will include links to it. This substation would replace the approved substation in the wider site which was further away from the overhead power lines and set against the A50. Field seven is, as I touched on, is an ecological enhancement site which would be proposed for ground nesting bird mitigation area. We have Blythe House which is located adjacent to the site which you observed this morning. The proposal is to set in the field six solar panels away from Blythe House and you would have noticed on site that there's quite a bit of existing landscape within the curtilage of Blythe House and also adjacent to it. Whilst also noting a number of buildings between the Blythe House itself and the application site. Whilst we're on Blythe House, Blythe House is a grade two listed building as well. The proposals themselves, as I'm sure you're aware, they're panels at a 20 to 25 degree angle with an overall height of about 3.1 metres. The substation compound includes installations that would link to the overhead power lines and there's a number of other small structures that are proposed which are similar to the ones that have been approved on the wider site. In terms of those other structures, there are transformers, storage cabins and customer substations. Across the site the main fields, solar arrays would be surrounded by deer proof fencing which is this image here. Whilst the substation itself would have a more palisade style fencing. This image here is an indication of the zones of theoretical visibility. So what the applicants have done in their LVIA is they've looked at theoretically where the approved and operational developments, which are the green and yellow, where they would be visible from. Whilst the red is the additional, so the pink areas here show the additional areas of visibility above and beyond what has already been consented and what is operational. With regards to what has been approved, the previous slide didn't show the full picture of things that have come in this area. So yellow being the approved operational scheme, green is the approved. Orange is the Todman Slough Farm approval which is the other side of the A50 and the blue is the cross boundary development which members, you're aware obviously that you refused a few months ago. And the red is nestled in adjacent to the green and yellow approved and existing developments. As I said earlier, it's been subject to a site visit, so this is the first view as you come over the A50 and that's field one in the foreground and then field two is to the left. This is again from Checkley footpath number five which is the axis track down to Blyth Farm and this is the view across fields two and three. This image is looking back towards the A50 which you can see is the landscaped corridor to the rear. To the left is field one and the main field is field two. You can see the existing boundary treatment is post and wire fencing and it's proposed to landscape that with more substantial hedging and also improving the hedging between fields two and three. This is looking down towards the lower fields which are in the distance there, those three fields are the lower parcel. In the foreground you've got the intervening land which has got consent for solar panels to be erected which would roughly go from where my cursor is there up to beyond the site. So there's a buffer between the track and where the consented scheme is and you can just see on the right hand side the operational development there. Blyth House Farm is nestled in amongst that landscaping. This is a view towards field six which is the field closest to Blyth House Farm and the solar panels would be set away from this northern boundary and it's proposed to put a woodland belt on the field side of that boundary. This is an image looking across field five which is where the substation will be and that field would be filled to width with the solar panels. From the other side of the valley, these are viewpoints taken from the LVIA, so this is one of their viewpoints which shows the existing lower Newton Farm development there. The application proposals are in red so the lower three fields can be seen from this viewpoint and then that field behind is where the approved development would be. The northern fields as part of this proposal would be behind this landscaping here. Again this is another viewpoint from the other side of the valley just showing where the proposals would be and you'd see the lower fields, the development in the lower fields beyond which would be the approved development. In terms of the main issues, the principle of development is established with both national and local planning policy being overwhelmingly supportive of renewable energy developments to tackle the challenge of climate change. These arguments are well rehearsed and I'm sure you're more than aware of that. This scheme would deliver a 17 megawatt array which would generate energy to power in the region of 4,500 homes and a saving of 3,200 tons of carbon. Coupled with the approved scheme of 27.7 megawatts, together the developments would generate energy to power circa 11,600 homes or 26% of homes in the district and that equates to 8,800 tons a year of carbon dioxide savings. These are significant environmental benefits of the proposal. The MPPF makes it clear that applicants need not demonstrate the need for renewable energy. That need is clear. The consideration is therefore whether the effects of this development are acceptable or can be made acceptable. The main considerations in this instance are the aspects on the landscape. As with these developments, change is inevitable and as a result there would be some landscape and visual harm. That would particularly be apparent from the local footpath network which crosses the site. That harm will eventually be mitigated through the proposed landscaping and hedgerows that are proposed and landscaping buffers and screening. The scheme utilises the existing field patterns, so existing hedgerows and landscape features are proposed to be retained and it ultimately results in a consolidation of this wave of the valley rather than spreading beyond Upper Newton Farm and Blythe House Farm. It consolidates the solar development within that part of the valley. This immediate part of the valley has seen change with the operational solar development and that's the context in which the effects of the development would be seen. Therefore the landscape and visual effects are not considered to be so significant or harmful when weighed against the benefits of the scheme. With regards to agricultural land, again obviously six fields would be lost to the development and a seventh for the bird mitigation. The application has been supported by an agricultural land classification report which is robust and has done the necessary testing at appropriate intervals. That demonstrates that 85% of this area is not BMV. Those areas that fall within BMV are best and most versatile falls within 3A and that generally falls within this landscape buffer here and also within field 7. There is a slight encroachment into fields 5 and 6, but the nature of the development is such that grazing could be carried out still within and across the site. With regards to residential properties, the nearest residential property is Blythe House that we viewed this morning. The effect on residential properties is deemed to be acceptable. The solar array is set away from Blythe House and there is existing landscaping, proposed landscaping and intervening buildings between Blythe House. Whilst its main aspect or a main aspect of that dwelling is towards the south east which would have been facing towards the solar farm that you considered the other week. The effect on noise is deemed to be acceptable. Environmental health of no objection to it, subject to conditions, while the issues of glint and glare on surrounding receptors is also deemed to be acceptable, subject to landscaping through a limp. There are no direct effects on statutory sites or habitats. The effect on local habitats and species can be made acceptable following the recommendations of the environmental ecological report that's been submitted. Also the scheme would deliver 92.5% habitat net gain and a 10.28% hedgerow net gain which is significant benefits. Public rights of way which cross the site would be retained and there is an opportunity to enhance them as recommended by the conditions. Just going back to Blythe House, Blythe House is a Grade 2 listed building and this development is within the wider setting of that listed building. There's been no objection received from the conservation officer with regards to the impact on the setting of the listed building and I've provided commentary on the report with regards to consideration of setting etc. Whilst below ground interests can be controlled by condition also and the nature of the development is fairly non-intrusive in terms of archaeological interests. Construction would be via the approved access route which is deemed to be significant to accommodate the vehicle movements and no objection has been raised by Staffordshire County Council Highways. The development as amended would not affect flood zones and can be appropriately drained and there are no outstanding objections from any statutory consultees. So it's your officer's recommendation that the effects of the development are or can be made acceptable and as such it is recommended that the application be approved. Thank you very much. We've got one speaker speaking for the application, Nicola Jones. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important application. My name is Nicola Jones and I'm planning manager for ANOVA. The application in front of you today forms an extension to the Blythe Solar Farm approved by this committee in 2023. The extension comprising 17 megawatts will result in a combined site of around 45 megawatts, well under the NSIP threshold of 50. The extension includes a solar array, supporting infrastructure and the proposed relocation of the substation to a less elevated part of the site. Last year was a warmish year on record with average global temperatures nearly 1.5 degrees hotter than 1990 levels. The UK government has committed to triple renewables by 2030 and this council declared a climate emergency in 2019 with a commitment to become carbon neutral by 2030. While many renewable projects are facing long delays connecting to the grid, this solar farm can be built and connected before 2030. It is impossible to ignore climate change impacts and the need to tackle the climate emergency. Indeed, the recent DEFRA UK food security report identified that the biggest threat to food security in the UK is in fact climate change. Your offices have provided a very thorough assessment of our application, weighing up the limited impacts of this fully reversible development against the significant benefits. They conclude the application accords with the development plan and policies. Importantly, there are no objections from any consultees and unlike many solar applications, we have not heard any objections today. Inova have taken a thorough site selection process based on its proximity to the approved live solar farm, an available grid connection, available land and land-free planning designations. The site comprises of only 17% of the landowner's holdings. The remaining land will continue its agricultural use, helping to diversify and support ongoing farming. There will be no loss in farming jobs due to the solar farm. The site comprises of 85% non-best and most versatile land. As stated in your office's report, the solar farm would not result in a significant loss of agricultural land or food production and natural England have not objected. The land is currently used for sheep grazing, which will continue on the pasture between and under the panels. Last week's ministerial statement made clear that poorer-grade land should be preferred to higher-grade agricultural land. The majority of this site is poor-grade land. Importantly, the solar farm will deliver significant on-site biodiversity with a net gain of 92% for habitat units. As your office's report states, the proposal would consolidate the existing and approved solar developments rather than result in the spread of development further across the valley. To conclude, your office's report states, The principle of the development is considered to be acceptable and it would bring substantial benefits in addressing the effects of climate change, improving biodiversity and allowing agricultural use. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Declan, any further comments? No comments on that, Chair. Thank you. Members? Councillor Keith London. Thank you, Chair. I did ask for this this morning, so I just wondered how much was the original site generating? I think that was when I asked for the officers this morning in the meeting. Thank you. Declan. In terms of the original, do you mean the one that's operational or 15 megawatts? Do you want to come back? Well, yes. I mean, overall, that takes it over the 50-megawatt boundary, doesn't it, for this farm and this location. I know that there has been some environmental impact assessment done on the site, but normally we would need far more clarity on that to be able to make sure. I mean, 92 per cent habitat is fantastic, so I don't think we can argue too much on that case. But just from a technical point of view, as far as I'm concerned, this seems to be 10 megawatts over the limit that we're allowed to consider in these small additional applications. And it's all being done within the same remit and the same boundary. So I think, for me, there's been a little bit of fiddling going on here, whether the whole thing should have been applied for in the first case or whether we have to consider them three done. So it's a technical question, I suppose, to the planning officers as to whether that can be considered or not. Thank you, Chair. Do you want to come back on that? You can come in if you have to be. In terms of the – I mean, there's two points, really, that's been raised there. One with regards to EIA development and one with regards to whether it exceeds the 50 megawatts. That's two separate processes. The 50 megawatts limit, if it exceeded that, then yes, it would have to go to central government for their consideration. The site that is operational operates separately from this proposal. So that's a separate solar farm. Whilst they're adjacent, it is technically a separate installation with a separate connection. And I think I touched on that within the officer's report. The approved scheme and this proposal before you is a separate scheme. And that would result in 44.7 megawatts development. And therefore, it falls below the threshold. So I accept the point, absolutely, and it was something that I thought initially when first looking at this. But having looked at the regulations, the definitions of a site, and the applicants have provided clarity that it is a separate operator, a separate scheme ultimately. So it didn't trigger that 50 megawatt threshold. With regards to EIA, ultimately it's the screening. The officers get required to carry out a screening assessment and a request was made for that. And it was deemed that, well, it's scheduled to development by virtue of the hectareage being over 0.5 hectare. And therefore, the screening assessment was required. However, going through the assessment, it was deemed that it didn't trigger EIA development individually or cumulatively. And that same assessment I believe was carried out with the scheme that you had to the east at Lower Leeds, which is much bigger than this one. If you looked at those cumulatively, then that would have been EIA development as well, and it wasn't. So I don't know if you've got anything to add on that, Ben? No, I think that's a very comprehensive answer. Thanks, Chair. Garth Givlandy. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, if it's the same operator, it's the same location, it's the same farmland that's owned by the same people, then we should call it one application. I mean, I just don't understand how we can decipher it, just because they've built them at different times. I mean, they haven't built part two yet, and we're looking at part three. Where does this stop? For me, it just seems to be technical corner cutting, and I'm very unhappy about that. I think that I would be very happy for this to go ahead if it was just above board, and it was done in a proper start, and we were aware of what the intention was right from the beginning. I think that we are being led down a garden path, which is not helpful, and I don't think, really, the environment is active. You know, we could probably get more out of it for the environment and everything else, and for the local councils as well, and for the local people. And I just think that what we're being dealt with at the moment is something that's short-cutting what we would consider. I mean, the fact is, the bird mitigation field and all the rest of it has to be moved. I mean, is it going to be moved again and again and again? To me, it's just smacking of just corner cutting for the sake of trying to get this through without it being considered in the proper manner. That's my overall feeling. I'll just bring the applicants in for a point of clarification. Yeah, just going on that point. The operational site is operated completely separately to ANOVA, and they have a completely separate grid connection onto the overhead line. So this site, which is fronting you today, has a separate confirmed grid offer and will be operated entirely separately from that operational site. And the reason why we've come with this additional land is because we didn't have the land available at the point when the approved site was in front of you. And therefore, because we had more on our grid offer to explore into the grid, that's why we've come with this additional area. Did you want to come back on that? It's the same landowner, though, is my understanding. And the 17% of their farmland is for all three applications. Is that included in this application? Is that correct? In terms of land ownership, I'm not too sure because the application wouldn't show that because the applicant isn't the landowner. So they wouldn't show blue-edged land for me. Councillor Mark Johnson. Just specifically on that point, as I understand it, we're actually judging the application. I do get what you're saying that Councillor Flunder says, but I think we're judging the application, not the underlying owner, as I understand it. That's correct me if I'm wrong. I'd just say perhaps also on the question, I'm not quite sure -- let's say we didn't trust Inova as to what they say. I mean, I think objectively it wouldn't possibly make business sense to try and, as it were, get this up by stealth for any business, because you know that at every time you're facing a planning committee which can just turn you down. I mean, that doesn't seem to me the kind of business approach that people would take. Also, as a planning committee, we do get a chance to look at these every time they come. So I'll go to my original point, which was that I think, as explained, the policy support is very clear for this, both at the national and local level. As has been said, the real threat to taking land out of production and it's happening right now is very valuable land taken elsewhere in the country by climate change. The issue, I think, certainly concerns me the most is cumulative impact and look at that. I must admit, I don't immediately look at a field and think, great, it's solar panels, despite my support for renewable energy. I think, though, I do support this, and I'll tell you very briefly why. Because it has a connection to the existing grid, it's compact, in terms of landscape impact, we've seen it sit constrained in that very narrow corridor, or relatively narrow corridor, between the railway line and the very, very strong visual and audible barrier of the A50. There aren't too many visual receptors elsewhere and the additional impact, as shown on the map, is not extreme. Also, Blyth House seems to be buffered and is not raising objections. So I must admit, I must say, I'm very minded to support this. Councillor Paul Roberts. Yes, Chair, just a point of clarification. I asked a question, referenced the Grade 2 building and Field 7, what the distance was between the building and the first set, or any of the solar panels. Thank you for that, Councillor. Yes, I went away and measured it. It's 75 metres. 75 metres, so that's actually below what we've set ourselves a standard of 100 metres to keep away from any buildings. I know the last place wasn't a listed building, but I think we've got to be more tighter on a listed building. So, at the moment, I'm just struggling with it being so close to a Grade 2 listed building. Mr Aywood, you want to come in? Yeah, thanks, Chair. If I can just respond on the 100 metres point. We have dealt with another application where we asked for the panels to be moved 100 metres away, but, of course, you have to look at each application on its own individual merits. 100 metres isn't enshrined in policy anywhere. That's what we felt was appropriate on that other application, but each case is different. I do recall from that particular application the site was a lot more open, there were no intervening features between the residential property in question and the site. Here we've got a building which, although it's listed, as you saw on site this morning, is very well enclosed by existing landscaping. There are some other farm buildings intervening between the site and the property itself. So, I think the situation is quite different, really, between the two cases. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Did you want to come back on that? I don't fully agree, really, on that. I do think we should set ourselves a standard, you know, as a council or whatever, you know, that if we think something is too close, and I think 75 metres is close to a property, you know, whether these buildings in between, the sheds, them sheds could be pulled down any time in that listed building. I mean, if we looked at them, there was one or two that really weren't 100 per cent there. So, I think we should keep a distance as council ourselves, and I'm just not comfortable with them being too close to that listed building. Any further speakers? Councillor Haynes. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Just a couple of points of clarification. Obviously, we went on the coach this morning, and just dropping up into that lane, it's very narrow. There was a few vans there working on a property as well. And what construction traffic is being used to carry all this equipment up there? It's a very, very narrow lane, and also I would like to see probably a condition put in, because there's nothing in there. Is there any road deterioration while that construction is taking place? Has this put back to the people who were carrying the work out to reinstate it? As I understand it, the construction traffic won't be using that route. They'll be using a combined route with the previously approved application. Is that correct? That's correct, Chair. The route that you came up today would not be the construction traffic route. The construction traffic would come up the route towards Upper Newton Farm, which is where the existing approval is. So, where you've been today wouldn't be utilised. Did you all come back on that? Yeah. Councillor Jonathan Campster. Thanks. I mean, overall, looking at all the detail, I think I'm in support of this application. There is one point of clarification for me, though. It's great that for the habitat, there's a BNG of 90.73%, I think it is. But also, I'm just a little bit concerned about the deer fencing. I mean, that is significant. It does form quite a significant barrier. So, for small mammals, I can't actually read specifically where it actually puts down for access for smaller mammals to go through those. In terms of runways, is there anything which can be put in for the condition for that? I'll bring the applicant in. It is in our ecological impact assessment, which is part of one of the conditions which we need to comply by, that there will be mammal gates in the fencing. We're happy to accept a separate condition if you would like to see further details on those, but it is within that report as well. Okay. Right, yeah. I would like to see a condition in that, yeah. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Allen, you. Thank you, Chair. I think we tie ourselves in knots a little bit on this one. Going back to Councillor Roberts, about the distance between properties. How can we look someone in the face if we've got 75 metres for one and 100 metres for another? We've got egg on our face with this, so we're not very careful. These applications all seem to come in at just under 50 megawatts. It's a calculated figure. Would they accept it if we put a limit on it and said, when you get to 49.9, you switch off, because we don't know how much it can be generated? It could generate twice that much, and we wouldn't know about it at all. I think we're looking at smoke and mirrors, Chairman. Thank you. Ms Raywood. I'll just come in on the distance matter again. Obviously, no two relationships are identical. When you refuse the scheme on the grounds of the effect on Blythe House Farm, which is here for this solar farm down to the south east, the aspect for Blythe House is an open aspect with many windows facing towards that field with very limited boundary treatment at all. Currently, they have a very open aspect towards those fields. On the other side, for this proposal, they would be looking between intervening buildings and between existing landscaping. I'll take the point that buildings can be taken down, but they are there for as long as we know who knows how long. Plus, they're proposing landscaping a buffer as well. So if you throw all those elements into the mixer, the relationship isn't the same as what you've refused previously. Or what you've requested at Tottmonslow Farm. Forgive me, I can't say that word. But I would also point out that when you approved the original Upper Newton Farm development, there are two dwellings that are immediately opposite the farm track, which are much less than 100 metres, much less than 75 metres and much less than what was refused previously. So you've already accepted at this site a distance that is below this 100 metres that, as Ben correctly mentioned, isn't embedded in policy anywhere. So I just wanted to provide those points of clarity that contextually, we can't look at them exactly the same and say you've got to be 100 metres, because the impacts are not the same. Thank you, Councillor Keith Arpthoff. Thank you, Chair. I'm fully in support of accepting this proposal as well. This ideal site has been sent close to the grid and its location close to the 850 minimises the noise and visual impact. The public rights are retained throughout the site. The list of buildings, as we said, has got a tin shed in front of it, and it's pretty well landscaped as it is at the moment, and there's more landscaping going in, so I'm fully in support of it. Thank you, Councillor Paul Roberts. Just going back on the point referenced the distance away, I accept what you're saying, but the two different circumstances. If you look at the top property, it's only surrounded on one side. The bottom property is surrounded on two sides and possibly could be three sides. So you've got to think on that. Everywhere they look on that house, from that house they'll be looking at solar panels, whereas the other one won't. Thank you. Any further speakers? Well, can I refer members to the late representations report and the written ministerial statement by Claire Catino, and it's saying solar and protecting our food security and best and most versatile land. A lot of these applications, the land classification is done by soil surveys, but they're not independent. And I think that report that's come out is really indicating that any supporting independent, it should be supporting independent certification by an appropriate certifying body subject to relevant business case approval to ensure agricultural land classification, soil surveys are of high standard. To me, and we've got a farmer in the room, to me, I think that land is at least 3A. I don't think it's 3B. So I do question the soil surveys that are done. I think they should be done by an independent person. And nothing to do with the applicant or even the council. It should be an independent survey to make sure that we're not losing prime agricultural land. Because to me, it says prime agricultural land. Not only that, at what point does the cumulative impact become intolerable? We've got Tottenham's low. We've got one that's already been implemented, another one that's been approved. This is a fourth one. And as Councillor Keith Lundy did say, we've gone beyond the 50 megawatts. So at what point does this become intolerable? I think we cannot carry on filling that valley with solar panels. So I'm sorry I can't support this. Have we got a recommendation? I'll move to approve and follow the officers. Have you got a second? I'll second it. Councillor Jonathan Kemps. Would you like to say anything? No, I mean, basically, secondly, I do think from reading through all the reports, there have been very limited objections from anybody at all. I understand the concerns about the 50 megawatts, but also listening to the discussion, I'm quite happy to see that it is, in some respects, a separate development. So from my perspective, I'm fully supportive of it. Okay, thank you. Right, we'll go into the Councillor Ian plan. I'm probably in favour of it, but I still would like to see a condition put in regarding the 100-metre buffer. I could go with it then, but not as it stands at the moment. And if that condition is put in, I'm quite happy with it. Mr Awood. Thanks, Chair. I think to go with the 100-metre buffer would obviously require removal of some of the panels in order to modify the scheme, and that's not really the scheme that's before you today, so I don't think it's something you could really condition. Thanks, Chair. Any further speakers? So we've got a recommendation by Councillor Mark Johnson, seconded by Councillor Jonathan Kempser, to approve the application. If you're in favour, raise your hands. Okay, those against? Any abstentions? So we're needing all the recommendation. That's not been carried. Councillor Peter Flumden. You're looking at me, Chair. Just in a second, I'll bring Ben Awood in. Thank you, Chair. Just sort of going back to Councillor Plant's point, I did make the comment that the scheme that's before you today doesn't involve a 100-metre buffer, and that would require some significant redesign of that part of the site. If that's the principal concern of members in terms of the standoff from that particular property, another option that's open to you is to defer the application, to go back to the applicant and see if there is something to be negotiated in terms of redesigning that part of the site in order to achieve the buffer zone and potentially bring it back to you this afternoon rather than refusing it. I'll just sort of put that out there for members to think about. Thanks, Chair. Councillor Keith Lundy. Thank you, Chair. I don't think – well, last time we did something like this with previous applications in this regard, the applicant went away, redesigned it and brought it back as a free go. So I don't think there's any difference between that and doing a deferral from my perspective. I still think there's an accumulative aspect to this, which I'm still not particularly happy about. I don't know about what the rules are in relation to that because I don't think we've been trained about that at all in terms of it being the single landowner. We don't seem to know who the landowner is on these three applications that are combined together on this side of the A50. Obviously there's an application that we did pass, and that's the one I'm referring to, that then came back and then was passed almost unanimously. So I'm not afraid of asking the applicant to go away and to come back with another design on this occasion. So that's the reason why I think we ought to refuse it today and then wait for the alterations on that. The other consideration, which of course we can't consider at the same time but it's already been brought up today, is the fact that there's other applications on the other side of this farm that are also going to be impacting on that particular listed building but also on the overall environment. I do think we need to potentially start looking at some help on this because this isn't the only area within the moorlands where all this is going to be happening. It's going to be happening again and again and again. I do think we need to have some idea of a clearer process that's balanced, makes sense to us and doesn't favour any other application over anyone else and to make sure that people can live and work within these environments. It's a beautiful piece of countryside, this. This is why many of us moved there and some of us actually do live there. The idea that you can't walk now for anything other than just mirrors effectively everywhere is something that I think we're going to have to start thinking about as well. I accept the environmental impact on this and the improvement on that but I'd like some more detail on that as well. I want to know more about what they're trying to do with what they're trying to achieve. So overall, that's my say at the moment. I don't know what policy that fits into because I don't think we've got one. I'll just bring in Justin Price, Jones. Precisely, the issue is policy. I just think it's appropriate for me to remind you that as a committee you are required to determine the applications that are put before you. You are obviously entitled to defer applications but really that should only occur when you're seeking further information that's relevant to that application. Now, there's been a lot of talk about these distances of 75 metres, 100 metres and so on, the basis on which it was applied previously but as Ben Heywood has said, there's no policy support for that. That's something that was done at the time and agreed by the applicant. So I think you need to be very careful. I mean, picking up Councillor Flynn's point about distinction, no distinction between a deferral and a refusal. If you were to defer this, you're deferring it not really for further information but to enable a discussion to take place. The applicant would be entitled to consider their position that the application has not been determined by the authority. And that might leave you open to an appeal. If you were to refuse it because you can't secure this 100 metres, well, you can't secure the 100 metres gap because there is no policy for this gap. So you're not saying, well, if we have to decide it today, we would refuse it because of a policy. What you've got is a wish list, not a policy. But one way or the other, reading between the lines, you do not want to grant it, as your voters indicated. So really I think you might want to carefully consider now your next move in terms of deferral versus refusal. Because, as I say, you have an application before you but there's no policy for the change that is being mooted or proposed. Thanks. Councillor Gifford. Well, in that case then, and another thing that I have thought of is the fact that there's no, anyone complaining about this, there's no objections within the whole of this process. This is something that I think we're doing as an internal sort of issue. So I will go for deferral then in that case because I think that will then give everyone a chance to have another go, if someone can support that. Thank you. Okay. But can I just, I don't know if anyone's looked at the landscape survey that was done, but it does say in there that DC3 is landscape and settlement setting. There's three aspects of DC3. And it does say in there conflict with part one of the policy has been found but can be avoided by relocating the arrays out of fields one and two. And that's actually done by the landscape officer in his report. So there is at the moment conflict with policy, not just as regards landscape but also the cumulative impact. So I might need to go for refusal. Yeah, I support you. If we don't act on provision of renewable energies now, you're probably going to be looking at a large lake in the future rather than open countryside. Thank you. So where are we now then? Councillor Keith Flundy is proposing deferral, seconded by Councillor Paul Roberts. If you're in favour of referral, raise your hands. Those against? Any abstentions? Deferral. So with that, it's been deferred then. Thank you. We'll have come for a break now. Right, members. The final application is SMD2022/0438. Can the speakers come forward, please? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Chair. This application relates to Stonehouse Farm, Ashbank Road, Warington, subject to a site visit this morning. That's the application site. It comprises an area of open agricultural land at this part of the site and a number of former agricultural buildings in this part of the site. It is partially within the green belt and it's the southern portion of the site that's within the green belt. The site is bounded by Ashbank Road along the frontage here. This is the Washawal Lane traffic lights. The library is over here. Immediately to the north east is a new residential development which has recently been constructed on a site allocated in the local plan and which was taken out of the green belt as part of the local plan process. The application is for the erection of a co-op convenience store which will be sited in this part of the site in the area currently occupied by the former farm buildings. A new access will be formed midway along the frontage here with parking to the front of the store. Residual areas around the store will be used for landscaping and habitat enhancement. The building itself is quite a utilitarian building as you can see from the elevations there with a flat roof. We have secured some design improvements to the scheme through the introduction of brickwork to the car park elevation and the roadside gable elevation, the rear elevation and the gable elevation on the south eastern corner have been retained as steel cladding as you can see on the elevations there. In terms of the main issues in this application as I mentioned previously the site is partly within the green belt where development is tightly controlled. However one of the exemptions as members will be aware is for infilling within a village. Because of the way the site is situated with existing residential development on the opposite side of Ash Bank and also on two sides as you can see to the west and the south here and the new development which has taken place over to the east, this site is very much enclosed by existing development and therefore development of this site is considered to be infilling and it's not considered that it will be harmful to the openness of the green belt and that the scheme would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Given its enclosed nature it's not considered that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area or residential amenity. On site this morning you were able to consider the relationship with the nearest neighbouring properties to the south west of the application site which are situated with flank elevations facing onto the back of the store. The proposal would not lead to significant additional traffic generation onto the A52 and as you've seen from your report there are now no objections from the county highway authority in terms of either traffic generation, the safety of the junction arrangement including having regard to the proximity to the nearby traffic light junction or the parking arrangements and servicing arrangements within the site. Part of the site is within the housing land allocation but it's not considered that there is any conflict with that policy given that the housing allocation has already been delivered on the residual part of the site. The proposal as I've mentioned secures landscaping and biodiversity enhancements and therefore we consider that the proposal complies with the relevant policies and we are recommending it for approval. Thank you chair. Thank you very much. We have got four speakers speaking against the application and two for the application. The first speaker speaking against the application is Councillor Ross Ward. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this meeting today where I am asking for you to refuse this application. Firstly the glaringly obvious reason for rejecting this proposal is safety. This application suggests closing the existing co-op in the very heart of the village and moving it across to the other side of one of the busiest roads in the moorlands right next to an already dangerous and over traffic junction. Around 550 residents live in the immediate area on the side of the new development whilst more than four and a half thousand live on the side of the existing store where both schools are also located. Moving the store effectively forces all these residents and children to cross an extremely busy road. The store cannot be accessed by any controlled crossing at all and at least one of the roads on the junction is a blind turning. I am frankly staggered that the highways have so vehemently objected to this application on numerous occasions now see fit to volt façade on this matter. The latest iteration of the application does very little to address the concerns being raised here today and those previously by highways. You only need to stand on this junction for ten minutes to realise how dangerous this location is. The report suggests that there has been no serious accidents within 120 metres of this location. I wonder if the 120 metre limit was picked to avoid mentioning the car recently sliding along the A52 on its roof around 150 metres from this site. There have in fact been a significant number of serious accidents on this stretch of road including sadly a number of fatalities including children and therefore forcing people to cross here is pure madness. Pedestrians aside this is a heavily congested junction and the idea is that cars can safely enter and leave this very constricted site is clearly for the birds. Combine this with the store delivery and we will see cars and lorries being forced to reverse out into the junction which frankly terrifies me. Deliveries themselves will also force large lorries to reverse towards the shop entrance and across the front of all other vehicles parked on site. A basic understanding of health and safety would immediately shout out the inappropriateness of this layout. This site is not allocated for commercial development in the local plan. If SNDC are serious about the local plan we should apply it to this site as we have to others in the area. If it's not in the plan for commercial development it should be rejected. The site will also encroach onto Greenbelt. I know it's not a huge area but Greenbelt is Greenbelt and should be protected. I have seen other applications rejected by this authority for encroaching onto Greenbelt by a matter of inches and the same should therefore apply here. The application cites a survey where the opinion of 12 residents are seemingly asking for a larger store with a better selection and faster checkouts. They did not say they wanted to close the store and to move it away. If the survey asked do you want to move the store out of the village across the A52 and build it on part of Greenbelt I'm pretty confident you would have got a very different response from the survey. In summary the application is asking that we move an excellent, very popular local shop in the centre of the village to a new location away from the majority of residents across a frantically busy road with no controlled crossing. It will clearly cause traffic chaos and even more delay on an already overburdened junction. Adding further to the poor air quality that is already a problem locally, ignoring the will of the local plan that has played a huge part in shaping Wellington already, encroaching onto Greenbelt, possibly damaging several other businesses, all for the sake of potentially four extra jobs and 77 square metres of floor space. I ask you to see this application for what it is and refuse it. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Councillor Barbara Hughes. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. These are some of the concerns from Wellington Parish Council. Another entrance coming onto Ashbank Road, very close to a busy crossroads. These crossroads is one of the main thoroughfare for the children attending Wellington Primary School as parents are asked to park on the Village Hall car park in Salters Lane. The pavement that will lead from the entrance of the proposed development is not fit for purpose, as it is too narrow and ends on the corner of Salters Lane. It is noted in the report that there has been no personal injury due to accidents on that part of Ashbank Road within 120 metres either side of the proposed access in the previous five years. This is untrue, as since the beginning of 2024 alone there were two accidents, one where a car landed on its roof, two ambulances were in attendance, and only three weeks ago there was a five car collision in the same place four ambulances attended. Also last night there was an accident on the crossroads. Deliveries, the concern is that obviously it will be a HGV doing the deliveries. If coming up Ashbank, he comes through the lights on green, then he needs to turn right, he has to wait for the traffic to slow up or stop to let him through. That will be a first, because the cars won't, if the lights are on green they want to get through on green. Then the lights have changed to red, so he will move off, but in the meantime will leave traffic behind and they want to come through, then the lights have changed and Washoe Wall Lane and Salters Lane and it's absolute chaos. I know there's a yellow box being placed, but people don't take any notice of the yellow boxes. Flooding, residents attended the parish council with concerns regarding flooding. There has never been any issue before until the work began on the development in the next field of the 72 houses. As soon as they started digging, flooding was caused and it caused extreme damage to gardens in Salters Close. Finally, I would just like to mention that there was an application for a small convenience store further up the road, which was the old post office which had traded for 70 years. This was refused on the grounds of highways. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Councillor Pat Hughes. You've got three minutes. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. Firstly, I appreciate the co-op brand. I am a satisfied customer of the Warington co-op. My concerns are about the relocation of a top-up shop. It's where we go for milk, bread, paper, sweets for the children after school. We can also then be tempted by an extra bargain or two. The applicant wants to offer a bigger and better shopping experience. There is no need for that. There are home deliveries, click and collect, and numerous nearby supermarkets that offer the shopping experience. The Warington co-op provides what we need. It's accessible, functional, on a precinct that makes it sociable, a community asset. In addition, I'm not convinced by the RSA audit and its modelling. Submitted photographs show almost empty roads. Just how long were they there observing? Residents know the reality of that busy junction, the main daily crossing for the school. There is modelling and there's reality of people's behaviour where keep-clear boxes are open to encroachment. Crossings are tempting and hazardous and queuing traffic impatient. These were strong initial objections from highways, very weak solutions. The justification for village infill is the very recent erosion of our green belt. Surely better to preserve and protect vital green rural space. So, balancing the need, the effects of relocation, the loss of a valuable shop on a precinct, a road more dangerous to all users, precious open space gone for good. On the other hand, the shop would have additional space, a modest uplift. Actually, smaller than a tennis court, a table tennis court, that is. On balance, is it worth it? I respectfully request refusal of this application. Thank you for listening. Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Spencer Hodgetts. You've got three minutes, thank you. Thank you. G'day, my name is Spencer Hodgetts. I've been a resident of 386 Ashbank Road, just above the proposed co-op development since 2005. I've long been concerned about the speed of traffic coming downhill over the brow of the hill, past my house, trying to beat traffic lights on green. Speeds often in excess of 60 mile an hour, that is my estimate. Equally, traffic, particularly motorbikes, having accelerated through green lights, go past my house in the opposite direction at high speed. There have been several minor collisions recently with roadworks below me, leaving plastic car debris in the gutters. Again, caused by impatience to get through green traffic lights. The proposed complex changes involving the entrance to the co-op will, I believe, lead to collisions with cars and delivery vehicles turning into the co-op. Again, aggressive, impatient driving, pushing to get through green lights. Incidentally, this is likely to get worse with the growing number of electric cars. I often drive my partner's electric Mini Cooper S. It has incredible torque and acceleration. It can be 50 yards away in one moment, and in the blink of an eye, it can be right where you are. Only yesterday, the Daily Telegraph reported that recent research shows that electric cars kill pedestrians at double the rate of petrol or diesel cars. If the co-op goes ahead, the entrance will only be 50 to 70 yards below the two-meter newly constructed path from the new estate below me and the main Nash Bank Road. It is supposed to be for pedestrians and cyclists, but it will be too tempting for cars, delivery vans to use as a shortcut onto the new estate. It is absolutely imperative and essential that this is further modified to prevent vehicles driving down it or back onto the road or, more crucially, young children on bikes cutting through straight onto the main road. Some device built to prevent this needs to be constructed. The property below me has already been occupied by a young family with primary school boys riding bikes at speed along the road behind. If a child is killed coming out of this path, perhaps by a silent electric vehicle, who here would take responsibility? And finally, from a personal perspective and as an aging retired boomer pensioner, I'm very worried about antisocial behaviour, gatherings, litter and the unavoidable increase in noise around the proposed co-op buildings. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next speaker speaking for the application is Katia Clark. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, members, and thank you for your time. I speak as the planning consultant and agent on the application. We are delighted that your offices are recommending approval and would like to thank them for their thorough committee report and efforts throughout the process. Members will no doubt be aware of co-op's existing store on Washable Lane, which, despite being well used by the local community, is small, outdated and no longer reflects the company's latest operational requirements, nor provides a modern shopping experience for customers. Unfortunately, the existing store is constrained and has already been maximized in terms of reconfiguration and extension. Any further expansion of the store is not practical or viable, and therefore the only option for co-op to improve their offer in Warrington is to relocate. The relocation site is ideally located to serve existing customers, being centrally located within the village and just 180 metres from the existing store. The proposals will provide a larger and enhanced purpose-built store with wider aisles and a greater variety and quantity of stock. Most importantly, the proposals will secure co-op's long-term presence within Warrington, preventing the loss of a well-used local facility. This is supported by policy. The application has comprehensively addressed all relevant considerations through detailed preparation of reports, and each has been carefully considered by officers. All statutory consultees have confirmed no objection to the proposals, subject to conditions, and only two local objections have been received. The submission demonstrated through a sequential assessment that the site represents the only suitable and available site within Warrington for the relocated store. Officers agree with our conclusions and confirm that retail policy tests have been met. It is noted that the site is unusual in that it is partially allocated for housing and a small area falls within the green belt. The allocated quantum of housing is under construction on the adjacent site, and the application site is not required to deliver this. The area within the green belt relates to an isolated parcel of just 740 square metres, which is surrounded on all sides by development. Officers have confirmed that the site's development would not amount to inappropriate development in the green belt, and in any event, the submission has set out the very special circumstances that exist to justify grant of planning permission. In this regard, the scheme will also benefit from considerable new landscaping, including new shrubs and trees, which will deliver a biodiversity net gain of almost 30%, significantly exceeding the council's policy, requiring a gain. The proposed store is of a high-quality design, which is a product of collaborative discussion with officers. The relocated store provides a sustainable solution, keeping co-op within the village, whilst retaining local jobs and expenditure. We have heard of some of the concerns locally in respect of highways. These matters will be addressed by the Instructed Transport Consultant. We hope that you recognise the many material benefits of the proposals and support your officer's recommendation to approve the application. Thank you. Thank you very much. Final speaker speaking for the application is James Athersmith. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, members, and thank you for your time. I am the Highways Consultant for the applicant. As outlined today and as part of the planning submission, the existing store on Washoe Wall Lane is constrained, being located within a parade of shops near to the school and sharing access, parking and servicing with the adjacent occupiers. The relocation of the store improves the existing situation, enabling the store to operate efficiently with a separate access, parking and servicing arrangement, separate from vulnerable road users on a key route within the village, but still close to the centre. Proposals provide a dedicated customer car park with capacity to meet the needs of the store. The proposed store will be served by a new controlled crossing over the A52 and proposed to improve the footway network on Ashbank Road and Salters Lane. The proposed store continues to serve the existing population of Warington as well as the new housing provided to the south of the village. The application has been subject to rigorous testing and assessment for initial concerns from the highway authority regarding pedestrian access and the proximity of the site to the A52 crossroads. Ultimately, this 18-month process with the highway authority has fully addressed their initial concerns with the application with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions. Junction impact assessments were submitted as part of the transport assessment, focusing on the existing and proposed operation of the A52 crossroads during peak periods, including the effect of the new site access to ensure a robust and comprehensive assessment, A full review of the modelling was undertaken by Staffordshire Highways where it was agreed that the development proposals would not result in a severe impact on the operation of the local highway network. An independent road safety audit was commissioned and covered the proposed access junction and the surrounding highway network. The audit did not raise any issues with the proposed vehicle access and the proximity to the A52 crossroads. The audit did not identify some improvements to the existing pedestrian infrastructure which have been included in the proposed highway works and agreed with Staffordshire Highways. The MPPF is clear at paragraph 115 that the development should only be refused on highway grounds if there will be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impact are severe. It has been demonstrated in this instance that the thresholds are nowhere near breached and therefore there is no valid highway reason to refuse the application. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr Aywood. Thanks chair. Just to pick up really the theme of a lot of the objections seems to centre around highways and the usual advice really applies that obviously we need to be guided by the technical advice that we receive from Staffordshire County Council as highway authority. You'll see from your report that they raise no objections subject to various aspects of mitigation being secured as the agent has alluded to there has been a long and ongoing period of discussion between highways to address what were initially concerns raised by the highway authority. There has been a substantial discussion with the applicant which has led to the position that we're at today where highways are now satisfied with the scheme that's before them. Thank you chair. Councillor Paul Roberts. Thank you chair. Just a point of clarification first. Under our policy DSR3 we've got a traffic assessment to consider the effect of traffic from the development of Ashbank Road. Have we actually had a traffic assessment or have we seen one because I'll admit I haven't seen one. So I'm struggling and it's again highways let us down. It's utterly ridiculous that we're going to try and put another entrance 50 metres by traffic lights and then the same with putting, well we're going to put a crossing, well that crossing is 300 metres up the road. I can guarantee out of them 4,500 people they won't be walking 300 metres up the road to cross the road. They'll be crossing where the traffic lights are. So it's utterly ridiculous and I can't support this application. You know you're trying to fit something in that doesn't fit. Design wise I'm not happy with. Concern about HGVs and I said this in the pre-meeting and unfortunately I was told no we don't have HGVs driving to the co-op. What happened? We were stood on the traffic lights and an HGV plastered with co-op all over it nearly took the traffic lights out turning to the co-op. You know it wasn't a 40 tonne unfortunately and it wasn't a 7.5 tonne which we were told would deliver. But probably ran about a 20 tonne I think possibly so that contradicted everything. So that didn't do much for my confidence on this. Design DC1, I don't think it goes with DC3 either to be quite honest. So just at the moment I'm going to listen to what other people say but I can't support this application at the moment. I know we say we don't take highways, highways does swing me a lot but design and everything else, it's the wrong place. Four and a half thousand people going to cross a road instead of 500, you know that ups the odds for an accident. We've already heard that there's been accidents, cars on the roofs, five car accident, everything. I can't support it at the moment. Thank you. Any other speakers? Councillor Keith Lunder. Thank you Chad. I quite like the co-op. My own experience of this issue about trying to allow the co-op and other type stores but this is particularly to the co-op. In teen was very favourable, it moved from one location to another to an area right next to crossing. And the great advantage was that they built a car park for the village. And it added a great big area where people could pull off the road and improve road safety. I notice that isn't necessarily the case on this occasion because it's quite near to the crossroads etc. And I have got one big issue on this and this relates to other experiences I've had of local stores in the rest of my divisions that I represent. And that's the offloading of goods and materials into the store. I see nothing in this proposal at all by which there will be no offloading on the main road itself. And all of the goods and materials that they're going to be selling, milk and all the rest of it, will be offloaded within the car park area. I notice there's a big space on there at the moment. I don't know whether that's where they went to keep it off and therefore the loading and unloading will occur there. But before I can go any further I do need this one aspect to be clarified. Because I think any loading or offloading materials on that main road will no doubt end up with accidents along that road. Thank you. Mr Awood. Yeah, thanks Chair. Just to respond to Councillor Roberts' query, a transport assessment was submitted with the application. As a result of the initial highway comments that were received, further modelling work was done at the junction. Further information was submitted to supplement that transport assessment but it was carried out. Thanks Chair. Thank you. Did you want to come back on that? Well, I can't say no more, can I? You know my feelings over the highways and it just isn't right, sorry to say. I too am concerned about the highway situation and I think I'm right in saying this is 40 mile an hour on this road. To me that's too excessive for where this new location is. And I notice when the highways made their comments initially when they went for refusal quite adamantly and they went through the transport assessment, his final words were MPPF states that priority should be given to pedestrian and cycle movements relocating the store from the heart of the residential area to the opposite side of A52 does not improve matters for pedestrians. And cycles requiring pedestrians to cross the A52 increases the likelihood of conflict with traffic on a 40 mile an hour primary route and increases the likelihood of highway danger. So I don't know how the highways officer can go from a comment like that to approve it. So I've got major concerns of the relocation of this store onto a major route where we've got a 40 mile an hour speed limit.

Council Member Johnson. I always hesitate to go against highways, especially as I don't have the experience that some others on this committee do. But I have to say that I do share those worries that have been expressed, particularly seeing that vehicle swing around. I mean that's anecdotal and I'm very careful of anecdotal evidence. But I would just like to see how that kind of vehicle is going to get into that car park without creating substantial slowing and further danger. I mean we have the transport consultant from, I believe, from the co-op, perhaps they could explain it, I don't know if that makes sense, chair. I understand you're a company, but it all seemed to be framed towards what the company's offering, a one size fits all almost offering rather than the sort of express needs of the people of Warington itself. So perhaps specifically, perhaps on how are you going to get those, you know, what are the delivery arrangements for that store? And you have a store, you know, which is similarly located on a very major road, an even more major road, perhaps the Endon one. I mean what happens there, for example, at your co-op in Endon and will it be the same as this? John's comment, point of clarification. Just on the deliveries, so there is in fact a loading bay, which is the large bay next to the store. So this will be a use of bollards, we protect that, so what happens is that the vehicle will pull into the car park and reverse into that bay. And we've tested it with the largest vehicle, which is a 10 metre rigid HGV. The access point is designed around that vehicle and it meets the visibility requirements for a 40 mile an hour road. So it meets the visibility in both directions. The Keep Clear, although I appreciate you've said that some people don't observe it, obviously we've put it in so that when there are queuing vehicles, vehicles can access and egress without issue. Thank you. Mr Raywood. Thanks, Chair. Yes, I was just going to make a similar point, actually. The page 122 of the transport assessment was submitted with the application, does show a vehicle tracking drawing for an 11 metre HGV, which essentially involves turning into the site here, pulling forward into that area there, backing into the loading bay, which you can see marked out just there, being able to service the store from the front and being able to leave the site in a forward gear. So that tracking drawing has been provided for an 11.85 metre rigid vehicle. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Point of clarification on the crossing. Just to confirm, there is a proposed controlled crossing point, which is at the A52 crossroads. It's under construction at the moment. It was offered as part of the original application, but the residential scheme to the rear has provided it as part of their obligations. And as I say, we're improving the Salters Lane crossing, which doesn't have one at present. But there is a controlled crossing point on the corner of the site. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Roswold, point of clarification. Just a point of clarification, yeah. I accept what you're saying regarding that vehicle. If I work in civil engineering, if that was a construction site, you would not be allowed under health and safety law to have a vehicle of that size reversing across a construction site with trained professionals. And yet we're recommending a vehicle reversing across every single parking bay directly towards the shop, where there would be children running around and playing. How can it not be safe to do it in a controlled construction professional environment, but it's okay to do it there? It would be laughed at if you offer that as a site in the construction industry. Thank you. Councillor Paul Roberts. Yes, Chair. I'm dealing with the recommendation for refusal under DC1, DC3 and C1. We can't do DSR3 because they've already done a traffic assessment. But if it does go for a refusal, I would like an informative that if all the committee are in favour, that we are not happy with the highway's decision on, one, the health and safety of reversing, and also the positioning of the entrance from major traffic lights. Councillor Ben Emery. Thanks, Chair. Well, 40 miles an hour on the main road is ridiculous. It should be 30 miles an hour. It's a built up area. It was like mayhem and chaos today when we arrived on site visits. You know, it should even be 20 mile an hour speed limit. It's ridiculous. Just through that section, 20 miles an hour. I hope the locals are interested in getting that going because it could save a life. Thank you. Point of clarification. Just a point of clarification. I also want a second. Sorry. Sorry. I also want a second, Councillor. Thank you. Just a point of clarification. You're quite right. We're currently lobbying for that speed limit to be reduced across the whole road. And there's a community speed watch at one of the locations that actually leaves because they've highlighted as one of the most dangerous spots is there. Thank you. So any further speakers? Councillor Mark Johnson. Yes, like I say, I'm just a bit nervous against going about against highway. So if you think it's correct, Chair, could I just ask if on the reasons that Councillor Roberts has proposed for refusal, which I'm still genuinely undecided on, is there anything that either Ben Hayward or Justin could say that might help us? Or help me, for example, in coming to my decision? Mr. Haywood first. Chair, just before you bring that up, I'm not actually highways, even though we can't -- you know, I've said I'm not turning it down on highways because we can't. All I'm saying is we do what we normally do. We write an informative that we don't agree with what highways are saying so that if it goes to whatever it goes, the inspector knows that we have got major concerns about highways. I haven't turned it down on highways because I can't. Mine are other reasons. Well, originally the highways officer recommended refusal. And I don't think the mitigation that he's suggesting in his recommendations for approval are adequate to mitigate highway safety, in my opinion. Mr. Haywood. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, if I could just go back to Councillor Roberts' reason for refusal, then. You mentioned that you're not moving refusal on highways grounds because of the advice we've had from the highway officer. You mentioned DC1 and DC3. Can I just ask what aspects of DC1 and DC3 are you moving refusal on, then, please? Can you bear with me while I look at them again? Councillor Mark Johnson, did you want Justin Price-Jones to come in as well? Yeah. DC1 is high quality in value to the local area. I don't think the design does. Is DC1 there with me, if I can find it? DC1, sorry. DC1 is 3C. Could we actually refer to the fact that the community are trying to get a speed reduction on that road? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Haywood. Tony Holmes. May I just give a small example of the parking of that vehicle when it gets on to the car park? There's a large store like Aldi. It uses artics. And they're big artics. It's got to be the wrong way around the system to get to where it's got to back up into the depot. It causes absolute mayhem. Now, that, you're going to have people walking around all the time getting into cars and in and out. When that lorry pulls in, nobody can get out. So to me, it's just not quite right. If it comes down the bank, it's got to go on the other side of the road to swing in. If it comes up the bank, it's got a possibility of waiting to turn into the car park and queuing traffic comes up behind it. These things are not taken into consideration with examples on a PC. These are real life situations. When a vehicle comes up that road, it stops waiting to turn into the car park. When the vehicles pile up behind it, the traffic lights change. Nobody can go anywhere until it's gone onto that crossing. That's only an example. I'm sorry. It's not -- it's how I feel. It's not right. Nobody can move on the car park when they've done the shopping until that vehicle has got into that slot. Thank you. Clarification, yeah. Firstly, I just wanted to note that obviously this isn't a larger store like Aldi, for example. This is a convenience store. We do have a designated area for the vehicle to pull into and to deliver. If there is concerns about the vehicle blocking the car park, we can offer a delivery management plan, which is a common theme with applications like this where it would be preoccupation. We'd have to submit a plan that has details of the delivery process, protocols that will be in place to prevent the car park becoming blocked. This is a common theme with convenience stores across the country. Co-op often operates many stores like this in loads of locations across the UK. This is not unusual. And I do think you also have to consider the existing situation at the co-op. That does not have a designated area for deliveries. That delivery vehicle waits on the road while it delivers. And you're referencing a vehicle that you saw today turning into that road. This store provides a solution for that by providing a dedicated location for the delivery vehicle. And indeed, we've actually stated smaller deliveries. So if that's a concern, we can add that into the delivery management plan. These are things that can be conditioned and should not be for refusal of the application. Okay, thank you. Councillor Johnson, chemistry. Thank you. I do understand the concerns of some of the residents which have been expressed. But personally, I also have significant concerns about turning down this application when the highways have already accepted it and put it down as a conditional. My thought was actually just before you made that comment. And this is just a request for further information as well. In other instances with other planning applications, we've put conditions or limits on times which deliveries or which transport can actually take place. I mean, with a supermarket, there are opening and closing times. Surely through some form of management plan, we can put in as a condition and an agreement and work through that so that the deliveries will actually take place at a certain time and mitigate any of those other concerns or issues which a number of the members have. I'm sure there must be some way to work through with that. Okay, that's just my thoughts. My other concern is that I hear from the residents about the value of the cooperative in its present location. But also I have got a concern that if the co-op are expressing concerns about feasibility, what may happen to that store in the future? And if this isn't being developed, where that actually leaves the people of Waringdon to. So there are a variety of considerations to actually take in mind. All right, thank you. Mr Aywood. Yes, thanks, Chair. I just wanted to go back to the reasons for refusal that have been put forward then. So I've got this right. The recommendation is to refuse on DC1 bullet point 1 failure to achieve high quality design. But you do want an informative adding expressing highway concerns, though that isn't a reason for refusal. Let me just check if that's right, please. Councillor Paul. Thank you, Chair. I think to follow Councillors, they just need to understand we're not turning it down on highways. You know, so let's not keep harping on about highways, but bringing the point up about the Arctic parking on the road, that road where it parks now is not a main 40 mile an hour road. It's a little side street. It's a side road. I know the area very well. I visit the co-op very often as well. So I know what happens. I'm not over keen with just 17 parking spaces either, to be quite honest, because what's going to happen? If them parking spaces all get full, people are going to be pulling up, either on the pavement, everything else. You know, so at the moment I've given my reasons for refusal, so I'd like going to the vote. Councillor Implan. Just a point of clarification. Just on the late representations, the agent said it's 27 spaces. Well, the recommendation is 27, but there's only 18 there. And it's come back from the case officer, as it should be, 27. So which is it going to be? Did you want to clarify that? The planning policy recommended 27 for a food store. In this case, we've done an assessment based on a case-by-case basis, which is also recommended in the planning policy. Just also to confirm on that, the 27 spaces is for food retail, full stop. That doesn't take into account the size of the food retail. So that accounts for a Tesco superstore. That accounts for an Aldi. That accounts for a Lidl. That accounts for a co-op. So that's why there is a caveat in the policy to look at it on a case-by-case basis, which we've done. We've done an assessment, and the level of parking is sufficient to meet demand. Okay, thank you. So we've got any further speakers? We've got a recommendation to refuse the application proposed by Councillor Paul Roberts, seconded by Councillor Ben Emory. If you're in favour of refusal based on the policies Councillor Roberts has given, raise your hand. Those against? Any abstentions? I'm sorry, you don't have your approval. Right, we'll move into exclusion of the press and public. [BLANK_AUDIO]