Transcript

Good morning. Welcome everyone. I apologize. I'm not in the chamber this morning. I have a funeral that I have to go to immediately after this meeting and with the travel times and everything and I would probably be late in these father of a close friend of mine. So apologies for not being in the chamber today. First item on the agenda is apologies over to you Carol for the apologies and real call please. Thank you, chair. So, Councillor Paul Lewis. Present. Councillor Gareth D Jones has sent apologies. Councillor Tom Colbert has sent apologies. Councillor Angela Davis. I'm a Councillor Deb Edwards. Councillor Cleare Hall. Councillor Peter James. Present. Councillor Adrian Jones. Councillor Gareth E Jones. Present. Councillor Karina Kenyon Wade. Councillor Geoff Morgan. Present. Councillor Gareth Pugh. Present. Councillor Edwin Roderick isn't currently here but I'll keep an eye open for him. Councillor Elwin Vorn. Present. Councillor Jonathan Wilkinson. Present. Thank you very much, Carol. On to the next item on the agenda which is minutes of the previous meeting which was held on the 14th of March 2024. Their pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and

1. Councillor Hugh Williams, please. Thank you, chair. Just some clarification whether I'm missing a relevant reference. On the bottom of page 6, there is a recommendation. It is moved on the erection of the temporary meter or to go mast. There's a recommendation on the last paragraph of page 6 which was to approve the application and then on the top of page 7 second paragraph, it was what happened in the meeting. It was moved on duty seconded to the fillers application. Now, am I missing something there because they kind of, we didn't approve. I think it was the motion that we took first and I think that fella, I can't remember exactly. Carol, if you've got the detail over that, I'm not in the chamber. Yeah. Yeah, chair, just come in. I'm just reading a page of, I think it's the top of page 5 immediately before the box. I think there's an error in the minute there where it was moved to duty seconded to approve the application. It should be to refuse the application. I think there's an error in the wording there, chair. Okay. Okay. So that might be need to be corrected by the committee. Sorry chair. Is that the paragraph that I'm referring to? It's the last paragraph in a minute. Wait a minute. Look, I could be wrong here. I think I better spend a bit of time just double check. So, my reference is to the very last paragraph on page 6 which starts it was moved and duly seconded to approve. Then on page 7, the second paragraph, which I believe is what was the recommendation, it was moved and duly seconded to refuse the application. Now, am I then missing a reference of some sort there? And I'm only seeking clarification. Yeah. Come in there. I'll win you originally wanted to, on page 6. Yeah. She put it forward for approval and I think it was duly seconded. Then I stepped in and got changed. Yeah, it fell, didn't it? Yeah. Well, it should say apologies, members. It was it was moved and duly seconded to approve the application as per the officer's recommendation with the additional condition stating that the concrete should not be used on site. It should then say the motion fell, vote. And then members then went on to consider it further. And then there was a second recommendation, which was to move and duly second to refuse the application. And that is the one that members voted on. And that was the one that was actually approved for refusal. It's accurate in what transpired, but it's not accurate in the exact wording of what what is explained. I think that's what we're missing. Can I propose that we just change the word in? I was just described and I'm happy to move that the minutes are a true record in that case. Okay. Thank you very much, Council. Everyone happy with that? Can I have a seconder for that proposal, please? Thank you very much, Councillor Pete. Peter, James, thank you very much. Okay. That being that, thank you for that. On to item number three, which is declarations of interest, which are a, to receive declarations of interest from members relating to an item to be considered on the agenda. Don't believe we have. B, to receive members request that a record be made of the membership of town or community council where discussion has taken place of matters for consideration of this committee. No, C, to receive declarations from members of the committee that they'll be acting as a local representative in respect to an individual application being considered by the committee. Don't think we have? D, to note details of members of the county council are not members of the committee who will be acting as a local representative in respect to an individual application being considered by the committee. I believe Councillor apologies, members. Can you still hear me? Yes, Chair, we can. Okay, my screen just froze. So I believe Councillor MANDER-JANNA has a declaration to be made there. I'm not sure Councillor MANDER is in the meeting at the moment. No, Chair, she's not in the meeting at the moment, but is on the line watching. So we will bring her in when we get to that application. No problem at all. Okay, on to planning proper item number four, 4.1 updates. Does everyone receive the update that came in about the performance report yesterday? If anyone hasn't, we'll pause the meeting for you to read that. No, okay, no, and signaled. Okay, on to the first application, the only application we have today, which is 23/1406/FUL. Proposed at site of three large associated works. This is a resubmission of 24/21034/FUL. Land at popular drive late in Welshball. Taking us through this application is Richard Edwards. Over to you, Richard. Chair, before Richard starts, I need to bring the three speakers into the meeting. Indeed. Thank you very much. So I'm admitting Councillor then I'll admit the objector who is Simon Newby-Wutton and then I'll admit Geralt Davis, who is the agent for the applicant. Okay, thank you, Geralt. So can I just check, Councillor Amanda, you now in the meeting? Yeah, can you hear me okay? Great, thank you very much. Thank you. Mr Simon, Newby-Wutton. You need to just to unmute your microphone. [Music] Geralt Davis, you know in the meeting you're the agent. Am I? Thank you very much. So Mr Simon, Newby-Wutton. If you want to leave and then come back in, let's see if that will work, because at the moment you're not showing that you've got an actual microphone. [Music] So I'm going to re-admit you now, Mr Simon, Newby-Wutton. [Music] Geralt, just to say when I joined it gave me the option as being either a panelist or an attendee. I just wonder whether Simon needs to click that he's a panelist. Okay, that's fine, thank you very much. So Mr Simon, Newby-Wutton, I'll take you back out of the meeting, and then when you are brought back into the meeting, join us a panelist. [Music] No, it's still not coming up as him having a microphone. We do have the statement from Mr Simon, Newby-Wutton to be read out if one of the officers wants to read that out so we can go underway when time comes. Mr Simon, Newby-Wutton, it's showing on my system that you've now got a microphone, so do you want to just see if that works for us please? Yep, that's it, lovely, thank you very much, thank you, so thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Carol, for sorting those gremlins out. Welcome, Councillor MANDER-JENNER, welcome Mr Simon, Newby-Wutton, and welcome Mr Gerald Carol Davis. We will now hand over to Richard Edwards to take us through the application and I'll bring you in momentarily. Okay, over to you, thank you very much Richard. Thank you, Chair. I'll just briefly introduce the application and then pass it back to the Chair. So as mentioned, the application relates to both site and of three holiday lodges and associated works at Land adjacent to Poplar Drive in Layton. This is a resubmission of a previously refused plan application. The application site is located in the Community Council area of Ford and with Layton in Trilustin, and it's not within a settlement development boundary. The application site is therefore considered to develop within the open countryside. The application site relates to parcel of agricultural land adjacent to residential properties in the north and south. As mentioned, the application relates to consent for three holiday units. The previous application was refused on highways grounds, specifically as the development posed fail to demonstrate a set means of access and egress. The application has been submitted as a seat to address those previous refusal reasons along with current amendments to new policy. I'll pass back to the Chair if comments now please. Thank you very much, Richard. First of our speaker today is the local member, County Councilor Manderjana. County Councilor Manderjana, you have five minutes and you may begin when you're ready. Yeah, Boarder, Committee also, I think I need to declare an interest in my chair to say that I've got an interest as a local member. You do under the declarations. Well done. Thank you. Okay, if my five minutes could start from now, rather than before, that would be great. Thank you. Just a quick point of principle on why this has got to call in today. I know some of you will see that it was previously called in by my predecessor who represented this area and then the call in today has gone through slightly an unusual route in that it wasn't initially allowed and then it since has been. This is a huge point of principle for me and I believe the planning protocol needs to be amended to ensure that call-ins were allowed for resubmitting planning applications so that there's a democratic process like I'm sure today will be allowed for all involved. So now just turning on to the application. I'm not against development of this site in principle, although I would have personally preferred housing and but it is what it is. We have to consider what it is in front of us today and some of my residents do have some concerns and queries that I do think need to be bottomed out today. I haven't been con directly contacted by any residents who are in support of this. The community council has objected to do with access and there are a number of local objectors and you're going to hear from their representative today. I think it's really important you consider what that local representative Simon has to say. He's highlighted a number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the planning application documents including on the types of design of the cabins, the landscape issues and queries and concerns to do with the highways and the highways consultation comments. I would urge you to please go through these carefully today. They need to be bottomed out and these concerns haven't just come forward today in the last few minutes before the application coming to committee. They have been raised with the planning officer in advance but my residents obviously still feel that there are inaccuracies and inconsistencies. If you aren't able to discuss them and bottom them out today then I do think that this needs to be deferred until that can be done but you may be able to go through each and every one of those queries and concerns and discuss them and bottom them out. I had also asked for a site meeting with the planning officer and residents because I felt that perhaps some of these comments and concerns could have been discussed on site and there could have been a conversation had there where perhaps assurances could have been given or some of the concerns could have been alleviated but that hasn't been taken up and so that's why I really think you need to go through each of these things that Mr Simon Newby Wharton's going to raise and bottom them out and I really urge you to do that and he's going to explain them in a much more detailed and succinct way than I can and on that note chair I will leave you to it because I don't think we both need to cover the same thing. I just want to conclude to say I have neither objected nor supported this application but I do think these concerns that are going to be put forward need to be bottomed out today and perhaps some assurances given Tzakurbauer and thank you committee. Mr Simon Newby Wharton you have five minutes also and you may begin when you're ready. Thank you. Thank you. Officers, Councillors and Chair, I've been nominated to speak on behalf of the local community in objecting to this planning application. This objection is to combine inputs of 15 local residents, all of whom border or impacted directly by the application proposal. Our key points for objection are that the application is anomalous in providing the full transparent public record of what is to be considered by the committee. At the impacts of the plan development have not been considered against various technical advice notes and all Welsh government policy or plans that the officers report and recommendations provided to the committee fails to provide unequivocal transparency and does not include non-mitigated items from prior refused planning applications on the same site. With respect to point one we submit that the consul T commentors and the public are not able to assess the application as submitted due to inconsistency in the public record e.g. the different sizes of the cabins and the changes made to the topography and landscape of the application site. With respect to the cabins the planning statement clearly defines the cabins as of no dig foundations and wooden shingle roofing materials. In the cabin design plans there is now brick plinth which is assumed to be built upon foundations and in the same document the roofing material is denoted as slate. In the various documents the cabins did note as 4 meters high, 4.1 meters high and 5.4 meters high. With respect to the submitted landscaping plan the earth bun denoted and commented by natural resources Wales to prevent disturbance to the latin bat's roof tripless eye has been removed by the applicant and a concrete and steel retaining structure has been constructed which derives significant discrepancies with the ecological appraisal submitted in the application. The consul T comment by natural resources Wales is based on the submitted ecology and landscaping plans which are now proven obsolete. Given the site that joins the latin bat roots tripless eye we submit that the application does not meet an acceptable level to ensure compliance with paragraph 6.414 of planning policy Wales with respect to protected species. We also note that the officers report suggests conditioning a revised landscaping plan. Our submission is that this prevents conditional approval because the committee would be approving the officer's recommendation without knowledge or oversight of what the landscape may be subsequently. With respect to 0.2 we submit that the application fails to meet 10-12 with respect to the inclusion of a design and access statement and does not comply with the Disability Discrimination Act or the Welsh Government's plan welcome to Wales priorities for the visitor economy 2020-25 which expects all developers design in excellent access from the start. We also submit that the application fails to comply with 10-16 as no mention is made of usage of or potential confliction with non-vehicular users of the U24777-2476 or the restricted byway 25938. In a non-scientific survey carried out on the starting of the 20th of April it was noted there were 54 pedestrian, some with small children, push chairs and canines, eight equestrian and four cycle users of the restricted byway and U road. The officer's report also fails to mention that the junction of the U24777 and C2046 is impaired from the visibility perspective despite the comment of the officer which was contained in the prior refused application. The officer also noted in the prior refused application that officers would therefore not consider this route from the C2046 and long restricted byway to be an appropriate means of access to the site. No assessment or mitigation has been provided in this application of the junction of the unrestricted C2046 and that the access to the application site still transgresses part of the restricted byway without clear evidence of right. It is also admitted that the proposed passing base failed to comply with published standards in the UK and other local authorities in Wales. Unfortunately there is no published standard visible via internet searches for powers. With respect to point three and as highlighted in the comments made so far there are anomalies in the officer's report with respect to the team. Thank you. With respect to point three and as highlighting comments made so far there are anomalies in the officer's report with respect to consultation and prior refused applications. We submit that accurate reporting without inclusion of the known inconsistencies and the accuracies is required to allow for transparent determination by the committee. To conclude we submit this application should be rejected as the questions raised by our concerns are not dismissed by clear and ambiguous evidence in the officer's report that the application itself is not a true representation of the ASIS for the public record and that the recommendation provided by the officer is inconsistent with legal statute powers planning policy and for the accuracy of the public record in perpetuity. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr Simon UB Rotten for that. Our final speaker is Mr. Geralt Davis the agent. Mr. Geralt Davis you have five minutes and you may begin when you're ready. Thank you. Thank you Chair. Thank you for the chance to respond this morning. This morning I'm representing the Walton family. This project as you've seen in the introduction has been a four-year project with the original application refused on highway grounds. It's taken a lot of time to address certain ecology and heritage matters which we have employed professional experts in heritage consultants and an ecologist to ensure that we are abiding with those matters. The original application by the local authority was refused on highway grounds because they were unsure of the road network. We addressed that point within our recent mission by showing the provision of two passing bays which will not only improve the road network for this project but for the residents of public drive. The highways have confirmed now they are happy. The application has gone through a rigorous consultation process with expert consultees commenting on each element that we've submitted and all of them are happy with the proposal. The objectors have questioned the LPA's dealing of the application and has asked the Welsh ministers and Welsh government to intervene because they feel as you've heard today that there's discrepancies through the process and through the documentation. As you've seen this morning Welsh ministers has considered the request thoroughly by taking three months including having sight of today's officer's report in front of you. They have confirmed that due process has been followed and all consultees have considered the application appropriately and hence the recommendation this morning. In light of all the statute consultees who are experts you know the highways, heritage, sea parts, cab do. Everyone has confirmed they are happy with this proposal and it does comply with PPW or the technical advice notes. The landscaping plan and everything we have detailed this with professional ecologists making sure that we are but to the belts and braces approach the officers of use today is putting a notwithstanding provision to provide further detail on landscaping to ensure the landscaping that has been posed of this development is appropriate from an ecology point of view. In light of all of this and it is clear this proposal for economic development in a this seems field amongst built about should be approved. I hope that you follow the officer's recommendation of this application. Sorry. Diorca Mr. Geralt Davis that concludes our speakers on this application. I will hand back now to Richard to take us to his conclusion. Back to you Richard. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and thank you speakers. So to carry on from where I was previously the site location as the slide on screen is denoted by the yellow star. It's you got Welsh port in northwest and late in the hall model farm further down the road to the west. This is the application site denoted by the red line boundary. So as mentioned the application is for a tourism development of three units. Local development plan policy TD1 supports tourism development in the open countryside with their compatible in terms of location, site and design and scale and well integrated into the landscape so it would not would not detract from the overall character. Opposed event rates for tourism development I will not be for permanent residential occupation. An occupancy condition will be attached to any grants to plan a permission to secure this use and therefore consider compliant with policy TD1. It's also been considered prudent to include a condition that would require the holiday units to be removed from site should they cease their use as holiday accommodation. It's considered the principle of development in relation to tourism development at this site is considered acceptable. Here is a block plan denoted in the layout of the proposed scheme with the three units on site. Here is a proposed landscape and plan that's being submitted as part of the proposal. Whilst the site is located in the open countryside it's denoted to being adjacent to the development of popular drive which is located adjacent to the site to the west and there's other residential properties close to the development site also. And it would be seen as one group in already present within the landscape. The proposed landscaping plan as submitted demonstrates significant amount of additional plans in proposed along the boundaries of the site along with an additional wooded area proposed to the site with the inclusion of boundary hedgerows as well. Given the proposed landscaping measures it's not considered the direction of three single story holiday units with detrimental impact the landscape from vantage points. I'll cover it within the ecology section as well but landscaping will be conditioned as part of any grants in the plan permission to require further details and specification as to the measures of landscaping proposed. The proposal seeks to provide three tourism units of similar design. They'll measure 12.19 metres in length, 6.1 metres in width with a height to the use of 2.97 and an overall ridge height of 5.4 metres. The plans of which will be conditioned as part of any proposed grants in the plan permission and therefore the plans can be enforced against that consent. The materials that are proposed in will be constructed on a brick plinth with timber cladding and then a wood frame detailed gable end under a slate roof. The principal use of the materials proposed I considered acceptable however offices consider appropriate given the location and the comments raised that condition for the specification of the materials be attached to any grants in the plan permission to ensure that appropriate specification of materials is secured as part of the development. Along with the external finishes, boundary treatments will also be conditioned with any granting of planning permission. Here you can see the floor plan layout of the proposed units also. In respect of residential amenity, I'll just look back to the landscaping plan, significant additional plans has been proposed as part of the scheme which will screen a development within its location and therefore mitigating any adverse impacts on nearby residential properties in respect of overlooking or privacy. Lighting information has been included with the proposal, environmental protection have been consulted on the proposed scheme and have raised no issues in respect of an external lighting in respect of impact on amenity. As I'll cover in the ecology section as well, there will be a condition attached to any grants in the plan permission in respect of lighting which has been recommended by natural resources whales. As mentioned before as well, there is a condition attached to the opposed to be attached to grants in the plan permission to secure the tourism use of the site and that they will be removed should the tourism use be no longer viable. It's therefore considered that the development will not pose a adverse impact on neighboring amenity or privacy. Okay, so this is a plan of the area and the highway network along with the right subway and the byway network for the site. I draw attention to the left hand side of the screen. We've got the right away two five nine thirty eight one by the one that's with the the U two four seven seven and how its highway network ceases and then it becomes a restricted byway after that point. As mentioned and this is a resubmission of a previously refused application, the application was previously refused on highway grounds as it failed to address concerns raised in respect of of access providing a safe means of access egress from the site. This application has been supported by further details in reflect of that refusal which seeks to provide two additional passing bays. The passing bays are proposed to be located. Here you can see on the plan with the red rectangles to the left of the site within the highway network extent. The details of which have been also provided. It's been consulted on by the highways department who deem it to be acceptable. The details and the provision of which are conditioned to be secured and provided with any grant in of plan consent. It's therefore considered that the details provided mitigate the previous refusal reason as to why the previous application was refused and therefore there's no objection from highways in respect of the highway access and offices also considered whether this has been addressed in the proposal. I know the public comments and the local member comments have related to highway access as mentioned just going back to this one. In slide the power highway network does cease before popular drive. The provision of the pass and bays are confirmed to be within the public highway and they can be provided with an extent of the public highway. The after the U2477 seats it does become a restricted byway. There are resistant residential properties of popular drive. It has been confirmed that access for the proposed development will travel the short distance across the public, sorry, the restricted byway, turn left at popular drive and then to the field access just to the left of the the red cross with a with a gray and and that's the route that has been confirmed that the proposed development will take. People using the restricted byway that's not something I can control within plan in terms. It would be under the Highways Act I believe in something that right away would need to enforce should any vehicle movements or any users that use that restricted byway if they were to cause damage to that route. I also understand there would be a preference for from other consultees that the routes as suggested through popular drive would be the most preferable given specific site constraints relating to latent batteries which is just to the south what Brook House and towards the south to basically take traffic away from vehicle lights in that from that area and also as I mentioned in the heritage section the the built heritage officer has considered set in as well in respect of of vehicle traffic and it's preferable that they do as confirmed with access to site through popular drive. Therefore subject to the proposed conditions in respect of highways no objection has been raised in respect of access. In terms of National Environment Ecology there were no sacks located with one kilometer of proposed development however as mentioned late and batreuse is located approximately 25 meters from the site to the south. There's also areas of ancient woodland within the vicinity. The proposed application site relates to improved agricultural land which is considered to be of low ecological value and the application has been supported by preliminary ecological appraisal. Natural resources whales have been consulted on the proposed development as mentioned they have considered the nature of the development and with specific regard to latent batteries to TRPSI. They have recommended a specific lighting condition which will be attached to any grants of the planning consent for details in respect of lighting with specific regard to the TRPSI to be submitted as mentioned as well. I understand that it is preferable as well given that constraint that traffic vehicles access to site through popular drive. As mentioned before as well landscape and measures have been proposed as part of the proposed development. It is acknowledged there are a couple of discrepancies in the information provided such as earth buns and some boundary treatments however it's considered that appropriate consideration can be given through a condition which will secure appropriate landscaping measures. It is noted that through comments from NRW and having considered the application it would be recommended that more mature tree planting is proposed on site to provide more established tree planting as part of the proposed development. There's also conditions and respect of hetero-translocation and replacement to be attached to any grant upon consideration to take in regards to the site but also the provision of the passing bays. So the measures proposed are deemed to be acceptable subject to the conditions in respect of external lighting and landscaping measures. The degree of planting proposed is also deemed to be a biodiversity enhancement and along with the degree of infrastructure improvements proposed and to be secured through condition. The agricultural land classification is 3b, therefore it's not a classification that is required to be conserved through the planning process. There are a number of heritage assets located in the vicinity of the proposed development. The application again has been consulted on by the authorities built heritage officer. It is noted the previous application was consulted on by the previous heritage officer which was noted through this application as well that there was no objection that the principle of development however consideration was given to the design and the more specific details of it which has provided a betterment through the course of the application in regards to the proposed development that is provided in respect of the designs of the unit. CADU have also been consulted in respect of the registered historic park and gardens and raised no objection. As mentioned who consultation with the built heritage officer they consider that the original concerns in regards to location, site and design and layout have been overcome and the development is not considered to have a negative impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets in terms of the proposed development's intervisibility between them. The heritage officer is also considered setting in respect of traffic movements given route into vehicles and this is where its preference as well. Access is provided popular drive however given the location orientation, topography and landscaping measures posed along with the proposed development is not considered that additional traffic movements will negatively impact the setting of those heritage assets. Given due consideration of this matter no objections have been raised from the built heritage officer in respect of the proposal. File drainage will be drained via sewage treatment plant which will discharge towards course. This is in the northern area of the county, no objection from my environmental protection has been raised in respect of this means and it would also require MRW certification to accept the process to get the required exemption. As mentioned rights of way, there are rights of way in the area as discussed. There will be an informative attached to any granting of the permission which will highlight the rights of way in the area and that the proposal should not lock or obstruct the rights of way to keep them free and open for use. There have been speakers on the application, there have been public comments received on the application. It's considered that the comments and the matters raised have been addressed by the statutory consultees through the course of this application and to a degree through a course of the previous application as detailed when the officers report. In respect of the update report that was circulated before, much government have confirmed their non-involvement within it so my recommendation for you guys at committee is one of conditional consent with a number of conditions. The conditions do relate to securing standard conditions in respect of the plans so the details of the units, the scale and that will be conditioned is removal of PD rights. As mentioned it will be secured for holiday accommodation. There's the highways conditions in respect to the provision of the passing base, external materials will be secured by condition and also on the heritage point of view when there's indoor details, external services, fencing, the NSW condition for lighting, the cessation of the holiday units that they can be removed, should they be no longer viable, landscaping, biodiverse enhancement condition and one with tree, hedgerow, translocation and replacement so again it's a recommendation of conditional consent. Photos. Here are a number of photos. This is looking towards the site, so I'm currently on the U24777, looking up towards the site to the top left one. This is within the highway extent. The top right one is just a bit closer to where the highway extent ends and you come into the restricted byway. Bottom left photo is looking down the highway network and the bottom right one is then turning up into popular drive for housing estates. Top left photo is that field gate at the end of popular drive leading into the application site so vehicles will be accessing the development site from this location. Bottom left, again another photo of the application site, bottom right photo is stood on the site looking down towards popular drive without field gate is. Here again I asked some more photos on the site. There was previously historically a building agricultural building on site which is no longer there. The building on top right is that book house with the late and back roots triple aside there. Again the top photos are just showing the site and the area of the proposed development and then the bottom photos are the other end of the application site with an existing field gate. So on the bottom right photo just to the rear you can see a field gate which is like the top side. The bottom photos show the restricted byway and this is the area where it's been indicated that access will not be gained through for the tourism use. Top left photo is just walking that byway back to that top field gate and again a couple more photos on site. The bottom left one I'm in the top corner of the application site with the restricted byway to the left of me and then you can see the grey's agricultural land falling away to the right down towards popular drive. That concludes my presentation and my recommendation for committee. I'll pass you back to the chair. Thank you very much Richard. I'll hand over now to members for discussion who wants to start us off. Councillor Adrian Jones please. Thank you Chair. Can I just have it clarified it seems to be all the access I think well one of the main points. Popular drive was that a tram track to the field originally for access to the field. It looks like it on the map or is it a new road? Yes so the top left photo there is the end of popular drive and the existing field gate access into the parcel of land and then to the top of it is the site. There is also another field access at the top. On the top as well so there are existing field accesses to the proposed development. So access to that field was always at popular drive for any agricultural purpose or whatever the land order wanted to do. There is this access. So the top left photo there that's the other that's like the top end corner of the site. There is an existing field access there as well. That's not so easy to use to the development you just explained there. You just talked about it. The top access wouldn't be suitable for the development. Sorry. Given the constraints of late and back roost up there and previous understanding of the through the history of the application it would be there's less preference of the use of of that access. It would be preferable to go through popular drive. You have got late and back roost like vehicle traffic lights and that is considered to try and keep that away from that area. So it would be preferable and confirmed by the agent. That access is provided through popular drive. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Council agent Jones. Anyone else? Councillor Kerina, can you wait please? I'm sorry. Just for a little bit of clarity. Where's Brookhouse tank and where's the steel barrier that Mr. Newby Wooten mentioned? Could you use your microphone please Richard? Yeah. So the top right photo there shows Brookhouse with the the yeah the red brick black door building that is that is Brookhouse there. The tank is in close proximity to that. I'm not exactly sure exactly from that photo where where it is located but it has gone through. Can I just sorry Richard the tank is is that red brick structure and the Brookhouse is the white house find? It's just that it's grade two listed isn't it the tank? Yeah. I'm the Sam the built out officer is online. I don't know if you want to provide more comments. Please go inside. Yeah. The tank is grade two listed. It's it's two story on the other side of the of the building and they've they've put together trisaw were consulted by and provided their setting assessment on the on the listed buildings and the planting scheme then came in as well. So it's acceptable in terms of how it's designed I think. I don't think it would harm the setting of that listed tank. And could I please ask about the steel barrier that Mr Ubi would have mentioned? Yes. So I noticed there is a couple of discrepancies from there and that's why a landscaping plan will be conditioned to ensure that yeah more accurate up-to-date plan is provided. However, the plan that has been provided in the indicative kind of location of of the additional planting and the measured pose is deemed to be acceptable in a wider extent. However, it is felt that further clarification and specific detail of those location and measures can be addressed through the landscaping condition. Is it shown on one of the photos, Richard? I think you could see it in the corner there. Yeah, it's it's a I've got a photo directly off the of the barrier on the top right, is that it? Sorry, it's got my. Oh yeah, got my committee thing. Oh yeah, top right photo. It's like a reinforcement of the of the bank So the zinc sheet in your your referring to there is it Richard? Sorry, the top right photo. You could see the sheet metal there with some yes, the reinforcement and then you've got further down, you've got metal support with some concrete panels. It's like a crash barrier or some sort, it looks like from here. Yeah, okay. Cancer, can cleaner, can you wait? Would you like to come back? Are you satisfied with the response you've been given? Have you dropped your hand? Okay. Cancer, Peter James, please. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Richard, for your delivery of the application. Could we go to the site plan and tell a breath, please? Oh that's it. I notice that there's three parking spaces there. Allowed, is it? Yep, that's being sold on through highways as well. So okay, I'm just thinking that each cabin has double rooms. So I'm thinking that at any time there could be two vehicles per cabin and there's only three bays there. So you could have up to six cars wanting to park for those cabins, couldn't you? If they were coming from different directions and sharing the cabin. I know highways are on the call and they have consulted on preparers that have seen the provisions. I think Edin or Stephen, Steve or Edin, are you available? Yes, thank you. Well, yeah, it's important to note that this extent of the application site is within a private land. So we really haven't got much jurisdiction to control available parking on the site. I mean, the site is large enough if the members have a look where the three parking spaces are allocated. Another lot of three parking spaces could be easily accommodated at the front or behind of those proposed parking bays. So obviously we can comment on that but having a look at the plans, I'm satisfied that the land is sufficient to provide for additional parking spaces if they are required. But it also includes that there be extra vehicles using the track as well in an out, isn't it? Yes, it is a private track leading to the site from the county highway. Do not. Does it still want to add anything? Yeah, I just think, I can see where the Councillor Peter is going but I think because the private land is so far away from a power highway, the chances of spillover are minute on this one. That's correct. It will not have any impact on a highway or our highway or the power highway really. So we can't control that. Yeah, I'm just looking at the parking spaces. Am I right, Ed, and to say that those parking spaces as proposed on the plan would be large enough looking at the mayor on the plan to accommodate two vehicles anyway. That's correct, yes. Okay. Can I just add, well, the right to where informative could be included so vehicles don't block or park on the right of way and it could be. Are you happy with the response, Councillor Peter, would you like further clarification? I think, like you're stating, I mean, I would have thought it would be marked that there's six vehicles could be parked there but to me it just looks like three vehicles so I'm just making that note, thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Angelé, Davis, please. Hi, so I was just wondering, so where the council road finishes and it goes to popular drive, who's responsible for maintaining that road? Ed, and Steve, do you want to come in on that one? It's outside the jurisdiction of a power sideways so it is a private matter. We're not sure what arrangements the existing residents got for the upkeep of that part of the of that private drive. It's the line still clearly stops with our highways as for the maintenance and upkeep so we're not sure, popular drive, what private legal arrangements are between the residents when they were buying the properties, how's that controlled? We go no insight of that unfortunately. Thank you. And my second question then, so Brook House is obviously an original, it's an old historic dwelling but from the photographs it looks like the other properties surrounding the area are more modern, newer properties. So would I be right in guessing that maybe once upon a time this was all agricultural land but these parcels along popular drive have been built on and made residential at some point? So like, I'm trying to work out, as Councillor Adrian said, once upon a time was popular drive, just an agricultural access road and it's become access to residential area because these properties have since been built. Popular drivers are more recent addition like last couple of decades. I think that answers my question. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor, Angela Davis, can you see the clear hall, please? Thank you, Chair, just to following on really looking at the access. So, popular drive is not part of the adopted highway, is that correct? It's not. So I'll just go back to the slide here. So the pink line, if you can see that on the left hand side along the dashed line, the pink line denotes the highway extent and it ceases just before that triangular junction. I'm going to show you your cursor on the screen there, Richard, so people at home. Can you see my cursor there? So that's where the highway authority have considered the proposed access to the site. The passing bays are provided within the highway extent but after that point it does become unrestricted by way. It said popular drive, there may be civil arrangements as to how that area is accessed and existing residents may have certain access rights along that by way. My follow-up question to that, thank you, is so the popular drive is not within the red edge and it's not blue either, so is it not owned by the applicant? So popular drive is a small house and say it's not owned by the applicant. There's an existing field access there. I presume they have right of access to their land through popular drive given that. So have they served notice on the owners of popular drive or this planning application that they're proposing a tourism development, not an agricultural, presumably must have historic agricultural rights of access but this is obviously would be for a new use. I believe that would be a civil matter that they would have to undertake outside a plan and... No, my question is have they served notice on the owners of popular drive as part of this planning application that they or have they declared that they own all the land? The land in which the application development relates to is under ownership of the applicants and a further blue line as shown on that plan. The access through popular drive, as I said, no notice has been served on there. The applicant may have existing rights of access through popular drive given the existing access arrangements that are there if there's any rights or requirements between parties it'd be a civil matter I believe that they would need to engage. I understand that. Where I'm going with this is I understand from the objective that there's concerns over using the restricted by way as a means of access and you've said in your presentation that the applicant and the agents indicated this is the preferred means of access but given that they don't own the access they can't necessarily control that and you haven't got a condition preventing them from taking an access from another route so I'm just wondering what safeguards or what assurances we can have that popular drive will be the means of access into the site and the controls that we can put in place to make sure that they're not using that that that longer restricted by way to gain access to the site and possibly disturbing the back roost with the coming to goings of up to six vehicles. Thank you. As confirmed the agent has stated that access will be through popular drive that is the preference. The power's highway extent ceases where I've indicated before I'm unable to control access after that point in plan in terms it wouldn't be reasonable or appropriate or I won't be able to condition sort of access through a particular route. Vehicle users of the restricted by way if they were to cause damage to that by way that would be a criminal offence. As I understand it I could be looked at in respect of the rights away department so locals are using it using the restricted by way blocking it that could be something that could be looked at by country site services. As shown on the previous photos there is existing field access to the top of the site which is being historically used going up around the so following around the restricted by way coming past park cottage and access in the sites to the east. Sorry I understand that I think what I'm getting at is given what the objective has said for the benefit of myself and other members in the community really is that whilst the indication is that they'll be using popular drive there is no mechanism here or no planning control to make sure that is what will happen is there. It's not American in force through the highway I'm sorry through the planning process I said the restricted by way come in south like looping around the bottom that is a tarmac to hard stand-in restricted by way by park cottage it does become more of a bottom right photo depicts what it's like and then further on it becomes quite muddy if vehicles did use it and cause damage to that route that's something that could be be looked at through separate legislation so you don't think you could put on condition preventing that use throughout it well it it's an existing agricultural access you've got a new development not from the existing rights that they've got for agricultural purposes there's no height like that the existing highway extent terminates um sorry to turn down my so the existing highway extent does does terminate whereas I can't through it's not powers highway so I can't control it it wouldn't be reasonable for me to restrict it I acknowledge what they're saying I have confirmed with the agent they have said it will be through popular drive the they layout and the design of the scheme has been set up to provide access through popular drive with the the continuation from the field gate at the end of popular drive with access to the proposed development um I have spoken to rights of way in respect of it so if vehicle users are using it and they do damage it that's something can be looked at but as I said it is set up and proposed to go through popular drive I can't put a condition on the consent to enforce that but um other legislative um processes would hopefully be able to ensure that no damage is caused by to be restricted by way um by the proposed development thank you very much uh cancer carefree germs please thank you John I'm just to follow on the point that cancer care is just made um is there a potential then that the development could be approved they will reconstruct the three lodges and then they can't actually access them because they haven't got the right to go through popular drive um do you want to bring Ed in for that one Richard are you happy to um yeah if he wants to try comment well obviously I can't comment on that it's it's a legal agreement that applicant needs to make with uh other residences so you know if if a Steve would like to to to come in as well but as uh you know from that point of view we we got no we got no control who owns that so we don't know who owns that so we don't get involved in that legal matters but if a Steve would like to add yeah sure good good morning members um from our point of view we can only comment on on on the traffic movements along the adopted highway network where it goes beyond that point it's really not a matter for us to comment upon um and and I think we need to get a little bit of context here that this development is is likely to generate sort of circus between sort of nine and twelve traffic movements per day um so we're not talking about large levels traffic but our concerns and our comments are all related to the adopted highway network when it gets beyond that point we're not we don't have jurisdiction over those areas I'd like to come back cancel Gareth yeah I was gonna have a follow-up question as well chair around the overall site plan as I noticed that the event was only on a quarter of the overall site that's on the blue line on you know yeah so do I yeah that when you add with the blue line on the one you add with the blue and rock red line on the next one is it don't you could then you can add other way no thanks no that's wrong so am I right that the development is within the red line and that includes a plan team so what's stopping the applicant coming back at the later date for more units yes the the sites of the cabins um an hour in a red line the blue line does denote the applicant's ownership extent there is additional plans in proposed within the blue line um which is which is conditional of all um predominantly the the additional tree plantin um for the screen between rock house and at the units um so it is acceptable to um condition that so the additional plantings within the blue line are not within the red line there's a bit of both to be honest there's this this petro um within the red line um yeah and bits between the um so negative and between units then you've got it yeah um additional plan team also within the the blue line so there is elements um over both which our condition there's part of the consent chair subject to that when you're ready I might be to propose to accept officers recommendations thank you very much uh cancel gothians um i'll bring Peter Morrison please yeah thank you i just i might be i'm thinking it could be me i think you could be sit myself can everybody in the room and i hear me this way yes i can hear that way it could well be my mistake that trying to unmute myself just really come risha can we go back to the blue and the reds just just that so what we've got is privately owned site there from the end of the public highway it all becomes privately owned what i've just been advised over here to just an enlam registry check around who owns the roads my understanding is it is uh the applicant that owns that northern poplar drive section just checking for a nod from there okay um obviously that's not um include or shown within the blue line here which would have helped probably um but it is a civil matter this uh matters of access rights for all those properties there i think richard struggling a little bit probably to answer it because of that because it's outside of our control it really is a matter between those owners around rights and so on okay there's no new roads planned either are there just double checking no so it's reusing existing roads and tracks that are already there on site so i don't know if that helps i think that's massively helpful there Peter to clarify that section of the road i think that answers cancer clears uh question from before uh satisfactory um can i answer debadards please oh yes sorry we're going off access i'm one of the um the building material one of the con concessions is that if they're not being used and they will be removed but i mean would that include the bases and the and the brickwork and the infrastructure to like the amenities and the fire wastage and sewerage as well or what is it just the building as well yeah so the condition is is is put on there um if they were found to be no longer viable um like remediation scheme would um would be expected it's really to reinstate um put back the land to its original condition so you don't have an unviable development and like deteriorates in units because nobody's using them and yeah basically for one of the parts so yeah it would be through details through a discharge to secure appropriate remediation of the site okay uh cancer agent Jones please oh thank you chair um my initial thoughts were i was concerned about the access through popular drive and i could see that could probably cause a lot of disputes with and it has caused objection but now Peter has clarified the situation on access i'm perfectly happy to second but gaff has proposed and we accept the officer's recommendation thank you thank you very much uh cancer agent Jones for the second meeting of a proposal um cancer clear hall please thank you chair just wanted to come back in now you've clarified um the issue on the access to pop uh the northern part of popular drive being in the applicants control on the land registry point of view on that basis um can we be fairly comfortable that if he has own if he does own it then he will use that um route in them therefore um would it be appropriate for us to condition that um that that should be the route for the new tourism development that's not that want then um impact on any existing agricultural access use rights to come from another fire another way but i'm just a bit concerned um that the potential for using the restricted by way would cause damage and possible disturbance to protected species um and from from a licensing point of view so i i think from a planning justification point of view um i'm happy to move uh i know he's moving second in front of the approval but subject to an additional additional condition to um make sure that the access comes via that route um rather than the restricted by way and possible disturbance to protected species and damage to the restricted by way from additional traffic moving i'll go to Richard and Peter um are we are we able to do that and start something in our gift today if members are minded to approve thank you for the question council i don't think we can do that um i think what we can do is encourage that probably by way of an informative on the application i know the applicants also probably listening at the moment too um there are other regulations that control some of those issues so it was any harm to protected species and so on or to the the by way there are other regulations that would be used to to control that so i think the best we we can do is probably encourage uh that the applicant does use that northern uh section of poplar dry okay you happy with uh councilor kler uh yes thank you okay brilliant um i'll just before we move on to councilor hu um other proposal and second uh happy that we include an informative to encourage uh if the committee was minded to approve this application to use the the current uh access to poplar drive can i go back to cancel Dorothy Jones and the second day of cancel agent Jones please yes Jim happy to propose okay i'm happy to second on that thank thank you very much okay uh cancel hu Williams please yeah thank you chair the original application was turned down due to highway concerns and there are two passing bays uh to be placed on the un2477 as mitigation can we have assurances from the highway that that those packing bays will mitigate the issue that previously prevented this application being passed a question Edin you're happy to answer that please uh yes thank you well the the previous application we've recommended the same conditions for the imposition of passing bays but sufficient details for for that application did not come forward during the original application and uh but they have now so we've uh we've just really ask a local planning authority to impose uh those conditions and we ask that's right that mitigation uh although by the provision of those passing bays it could mitigate additional traffic movements so it's important to know that we did not uh we did not object so on that application previously so we've requested those details didn't come forward application got refused by the LPA that mitigation has come now and we are satisfied now so i don't know does the steam like to also add anything more would you like to come in Steve to add anything additional to what Edin has said only just to say i suppose that our our approach and our response has been consistent our original concern was over this um relatively short i think it's 150 meters stretch of highway which is quite narrow uh we requested passing bays originally it appears that the applicant didn't demonstrate that they could be provided or they were willing to provide them during the original application but they have done so under this application uh and that addressed our original concerns and chair the cost of of providing those uh bays is down to the applicant yes it is the applicant will be responsible yeah do you have concerns over that cancer hue is it with the no i'm satisfied with the response thank you chat okay i have one hand up here i can't see you it is on my screen counselor i'm under jennep on the panelist um i have to leave in a minute for another meeting okay uh yeah we'll we'll come to the conclusion as quickly as we can uh cancer commander um just a question from myself trying to bottom out some of the concerns from the objector um the details in the pack um Richard just but just for clarification with the size scale and design we've got um uh 12.9 meters in length uh 6.1 meters in width and the height of to the of 2.97 and uh 5.45 to the ridge line is that correct and is that for all three cabins uh yes the the plans will also be included with condition two um the plans not even though not legible i don't think on the on the screen for everybody they have got the measurements um depicted on the plans as well so that's what will be expected to be built um and enforced um through any development there was a lot of concern written there with residents um are we happy that um we have time six covered off with regards to disabled access that was raised by the objector usually disabled access they're 10-12 or so yeah yeah the the there is a plan statement that's been included as part of the proposed development um demonstrating um the the policy considerations of the of the proposed development um there are access routes uh to the proposed development um and it would be expected to provide in cater for for anybody who wishes to um to use the units okay um are we satisfied from a highways point of view that uh the safety of pedestrians uh down that road uh are catered for uh i'll bring Ed in for that question please well yeah so obviously provision of the two passing uh places will uh aid uh any pedestrians to pull over safely if oncoming traffic like like any road but it is important to note that that track really doesn't lead to any public facilities so it's it's like asking you know safety pedestrians on any country lane really okay those are only my questions a few notes i made uh the rest have been covered off from the the discussion i believe um can send them under janet do you want do you want to come just to you can't make a comment on the application but i can see your hand is raised is it just to let us know that you have to leave yes thank you chair i know i can't comment further but i just wanted to i didn't want to leave without um just saying that why i'd gone suddenly it's because i've got another meeting in two minutes no problem okay as i know i know other people wishing to contribute to the discussion it has been proposed and duly seconded to go along with officer's recommendation with the informative to encourage uh the applicant to use the the current access those members wishing to go along with that please indicate and the voters that appear in the chat momentarily thank you chair can i just come in there just to say that uh counselor edwin rodrick joined the meeting after counselor mandegender spoke to the committee so obviously he won't be able to vote on the application thank you for that clarification count there it is members it's in the in the chat there at 11 28 uh you click on it um vote in the usual manner as you wish you you you you you you you so chair all members of the committee other than counselor edwin have voted and 13 voted for the officer's recommendation zero against and zero abstentions that meets with the the officer's recommendation thank you members thank you to speakers today on the application um we'll move on there it's to um and thank you to officers present it as well uh very informed um we'll move on there to item number five on the agenda which is the delegated list are there any observations on that are you happy to receive them if you are happy to receive and could i have a proposal and seconder that we receive and please thank you very much counselor hue do i have a seconder please counselor drin roger thank you very much chair can i just say to congratulate the the planning officers because there's a significant number of applications have gone through there and i think now and again i think we should pat them on the back yes i think we did that a few meetings ago because we that that was observed that the arc getting through a large number of applications as i might have personally conveyed that to peter and um yeah thank you very much for all your hard work to the plan department we are hopefully seeing large amounts of economic development in the right places in power so that's great news okay um onto item number six which is development management performance update that came through of wire an update yesterday um peter you're going to take us through that so i'll hand over to you now peter to take us through your performance management update yeah apologies it was sent late it's an update on the quarterly performance data that we report as a planning service as a planning authority to Welsh government all planning authorities across Wales report a consistent manner to Welsh government every quarter it's it's a report for last year we're in the in obviously year 24 25 at the moment this is for the first three quarters of last year quarter four um hasn't been submitted yet i don't think we had the request from the Welsh government but that will be going in shortly that's why the last quarter the January to march this this last that we've just been through isn't reported i think the first table there really just shows the determination numbers uh that are you are you able to share that on your screen um if you if you're not if you can't we'll just use our our update decking through but if Richard's help i might be able to yeah if i go to zoom Richard go there share screen i'd be useful for uh members of the public watching let's start one yeah just double yeah it's come through yes we got there thank you okay so the first table is just it actually goes back into the last two quarters as well there which i've reported previously to planning committee so i've seen the grave figures all those that quarter three and quarter four previously so i'm behind probably in reporting quarters one two and three which are the blue lines um one thing to maybe note is we actually do far more work than actually shown in the table there those figures that we report to our government don't include certain application types so they don't include agricultural notifications for instance they don't include conservation area consent we've got lots of conservation areas so in addition to what's showing in those tables their limited decisions as well that officers working on things like trees interestingly aren't included either so you can see sort of over the quarters how numbers vary per quarter received it you can see the range there between quarters as well so the lowest quarter was that quarter one which would be april uh to june last year 294 were received highest was actually the quarter before um i don't think there's any obvious rhyme or reason why it does vary it just shows you the sort of volumes of work that officers are dealing with the second table which is the one below um shows really what we start each quarter with so at the start of this is now into uh eight April last year they started as a team we started the quarter with 524 applications and that varied by quarter so as as some come in and we make decisions on others the list is always going up and down and we got to quarter three there were 547 on our books um and you can see the numbers as same as the table above in terms of what's being received and what's being determined with draws it does vary um so you can see quarter by quarter number of withdrawn applications and those are applications that applicants and their agents agree to withdraw can't force anybody to withdraw an application it's when we go back to them if we're not satisfied about something um and that application may need quite a lot of work to remedy it through applicants withdraw they are able to resubmit without paying a second fee provided they do it within time scales they normally have 12 months uh it does vary slightly that one depending on uh the reason it was withdrawn for um average time to determine applications again um terms of what we report to Welsh government major applications and then all applications all applications include major applications so that is everything except i did give those exceptions just now it doesn't include all those exceptions um over that period we can see an improvement um i was pleased at 102 days at the end of December last year that's the best we've done for some time um within that data or within those application determinations there are lots of different types of application some will be quicker uh some will take longer um majors as you can see from the table generally take longer to determine um not maybe surprising given the nature of them majors tend to be bigger schemes bigger projects um like housing developments have over 10 or more um and they attract more uh attention more comment probably there's more issues to deal with the major applications so they on average take longer they'll say the 102 does include it's it's an average it is a mean average it does include majors within it okay lots and lots of examples there are no chair mention economic development trust now um what we do is we do permit a lot of things that support uh obviously the economy construction sector is important um i don't think i gave an example there yeah just one application that was granted in quarter three last year uh was here in uh fanderendald so it's the scheme of 69 dwellings that we granted um in in in the town and we'll see that one come forward shortly because i know they're trying to discharge richard you might have it trying to discharge conditions at the moment okay um within time period um that that's a percentage um performance measure um and and it includes time extensions agreed with applicants so if an application's not um uh has an issue with it that needs remedying or correcting what officers do is reach agreement uh for an extended time period to determine the application with the applicant come agent um and and those time periods then uh are used as part or included within that measure wealth government um measure there it's the highest category good is set at 80 percent as i've mentioned in the commentary below and we're exceeding that each quarter uh which is positive again okay major applications the same thing um all authorities being measured against those uh that also include degree time extensions that the applicant come agent would have granted with the officer um the the high category that was held by the Welsh government set there is 60 percent uh again that's being exceeded quarter by quarter so that's positive appeals um there's a good statistical one in here in right in the middle of that table um the the Welsh government uh highest category there is 66 percent but when you're dealing with two appeals ones dismissed and ones approved we're never going to get that to 66 percent um so that that's the one quarter where we didn't achieve uh that target the numbers in brackets underneath are the number of appeals that were dismissed okay so for instance in that quarter three October to December last year we received six appeal decisions um from from PDU planning environment decision files five of which um were dismissed so they uh effectively we're in agreement with the decision that the authority gave okay so that's generally positive enforcement um we report on planning enforcement um that the two main measures are really around the number of it's you can split enforcement really into to investigation stage so once we receive a reported um enforcement case they're reported to us online German are just going to do a little bit more in a minute we've got our enforcement officers which will introduce um but that first stage um the measure is ready to try and report uh to try and investigate within 84 days um so we need to we do need to do that investigation general i want them to too much detail because general will go into that um over time i think what we're trying to do is get that figure uh make sure we meet targets for that investigation but that's a crucial one for us enforcement cases they have climbed a little bit over those quarters um i would be expecting to see them climb further as we go forward um because we've employed two enforcement officers who will introduce in a minute um average time is it's up and down as you can see from the bottom line in the table again i think that what we're seeing there is a backlog number of cases which we've had to pick up and i would expect that to improve going forward um and then finally just for information beneath the table i just set out the actually during that last quarter three so that's the October to December of last year in addition to the investigations there were 187 enforcement cases that all officers closed it's not just the two enforcement officers it's across the team they closed that that um number of cases that that's quite a lift on what they were doing in the previous quarters um of last year uh when 53 and 44 were closed so i think that sort of reflects probably the app that the team's been putting on putting in on up around enforcement um of that 187 uh workload that was closed those cases that were closed uh by far the largest amount of those would not there would not found to be a breach of plan consent or it was not found to be expedient in our planning speak and if we need to explain that maybe that's something Gemma can cover in a minute um only nine incin cases were closed as a result of whether authority took action or intervened different types of action uh the authority can take one is requesting a retrospective application so if that's then come in um which has then got consent in turn in time that would have resolved that case it may be that the authorities intervention ceased the use as well so whatever was in breach stopped happening and then that as a result of our intervention or action it was closed and that happened in nine of those cases last quarter okay um my plan chair welcome to receive any comments again my intention is to carry on reporting um going forward to the planning committee so you're aware of the work of the team and what we're doing and welcome any comments around this thank you chair thank you thank you Peter um I think we all agree that it's a very positive effort for the planning department and there's uh can say you touched on before there's a lot of hard work going on within the planning department and that's reflected in a comment that's been made in the chapter um by cancer um going forward um yeah I'll hand over note for discussion uh can I say Gareth E Jones please yeah thank you chair thank you Peter just one quick question which is the key performance indicate do you think for the planning for your service one is the overall determination time so that like 102 days for planning applications it's difficult to be precise because I think that's important but so is the percentage one um and I think determinations uh sorry um investigations of enforcement is important as well in trying to bring the number of make sure we're inside the 84 days those are probably the big ones they're all important to a degree there okay any other questions around the update on Peter Council Angela Davis please thank you I was just curious because you've brought in a lot of new systems for how um residents can get in touch with the planning department on various different things are you getting um people contact you is that working are you finding that useful are they finding it useful you're getting any feedback we we we haven't had a lot of probably feedback direct feedback we do have we leave a um a link at the bottom of all emails for feedback um the response to that hasn't been high so people might be hearing me say it now um but welcome any feedback direct feedback if anybody does have any concerns we've met agents planning agents we meet agents normally every six months sometimes more often and we've had discussions with with our planning agents operating across power how we improve applications coming in to us for instance yeah that that I think it's working I think we've introduced a system of single amendments planning applications we can let an applicant a bad application run and run and run which would then give us very long determination time frames we don't want to do that because whilst it's running the pile of applications is getting higher and higher so officers as well as all our consultees have been put under under strain and under pressure with a volume of work so I think but at the moment the feedback I'm getting from agents it's positive we've been talking to them about sort of the pre-application system as well I think that's key that front loading of applications the group it's probably hard for probably the DIY as I call it the the homemade applications because the system is just so complicated I think in terms of guidance we're about to do more guidance on enforcement I think that's that's important ecology is I think we're seeing things like ecology surveys missing from applications that that creates a problem I think we we we want to see applications improved in that area coming to us with the correct information so again that that's we're trying to sort of move together with everybody here in a positive way and I think all if you put all those measures together and actions that we're taking we should see the performance begin to get better over time. Just one thing I think we have also now got a duty officer like yes so we've promoted that for the website and I think we circulated that to all community councils as well we are getting quite a bit of volume of traffic through that which is brilliant to see and I've had feedback that that's getting out there people are using it and some cases have come to me and said it's been really worthwhile and they've had positive feedback from it so again that's that's perfect that's what we want so please if you have any residents or anything please encourage them to use it that's available every day we search the hours so they can pick up the phone and speak to an officer anytime. Yeah I think that's you know a big improvement because we've heard in this chamber haven't we how complaints are always that people can't get hold of the planner but it's kind of after the fact they put their application in and then want to talk to you etc. For me the one thing that I still haven't seen when you go on the website power is planning there's the form to apply and that kind of implies to people who don't know that oh I just fill that form in that's all I need to do I can do that and there's nothing in there that explains to the layman who knows nothing about planning that planning is a legal process and I wonder whether you could have some narrative to explain that in the way that you wouldn't go into court without a lawyer we all know that you'd expect a legal person to support you I think would it be beneficial to the planning department if everybody knew that actually this is a legal process it's not. Yeah we might we might need to look at the website and how it's put together we have prepared a planning guide as well that does that step by step process but it might not be close enough to where the application forms are on the website so we might need to just look at the design of it and maybe link the two and that's something that can be grown and built if it's not quite hitting the market it's missing something. Just have a look at the guide there's also an FAQ that we've done for planning that aren't trying to answer common questions those things can always be added to so if we've missed something which would really help let's know and we'll add to it. What would be quite helpful Peter touching on what Councillor Angel was saying there is obviously different parts of authority do these YouTube videos that go up on the website so perhaps you could do like a few planning officers going through what is involved with the planning application when you submit an application what's the process so then the layman you know at there could understand the process a little bit better I think that's where Councillor Angel is sort of in the direction now. Yes Chair if you pointed out those pitfalls so if the ecology report is something that is frequently missing to highlight that that is so you know wouldn't it be wonderful if your planning applications came in it's got all the information and there we are you know that's where you're aiming isn't it but anyway I applaud all the work you've yeah no there's always more we can do so I sort of welcome those types of suggestions and comments we can have a look at YouTube videos I know we've done them on the LDP side for candidate sites in the past maybe it's something we can do here again as an opportunity probably across Wales the 25 planning authorities across Wales between us but I'm sure we can all come up with something as well so that that one with me. Do you question from me before I go to Councillor Peter do you have access Peter detailed access to other planning authorities throughout Wales of their performance data and you know where the key points that you've highlighted today on the next report that you bring to us could we have maybe a comparison if that that data is available? It's as I say it's based on I think most of what I've given you is the quarterly reporting information to Welsh government I've probably put in in places one or two of the corporate performance measures I include which I can't offer those for other authorities but I can provide you a link to the Welsh government website which shows that quarterly return information to authorities. Welsh government claims it and then they publish it online it's on their website. I think we need to be shouting a bit more about the good work that you and your staff are doing in Paris. Okay Peter, Councillor Peter James please. Thank you Chair. I think really the officer has answered part of the question that I'm going to ask but about two years ago we were doing engagement to town and community councilors by phone calls on a monthly basis so I'm taking that the portal and I was taking that over so that's the way forward. Yes so the way forward now is for them to access that duty line officer what we were finding with the community council calls because obviously clerks perhaps have day jobs or for example what the time when officers were calling them we would typically get in very low perhaps pick up from those phone calls so yeah the duty officer is there so they can pick a time which is suitable for them hopefully now and they can speak to an officer then when's suitable for them. Okay so the duty line is the new way forward and the second part really is some of the training that has been put through for planning have been told to me by community councils and town councils that it was mind-blowing and they just could absorb everything so can I suggest that if they do train they be bite-sized so that we do get engagement from the actual town and community councils. It's difficult as it gets so complex but I'd like to progress with them actually taking on the training but and that was just far too much in one block. Yeah yeah there are um training of other sort of organizations out there that do training and target uh community councils planning aid whales does that for instance but certainly if we're doing anything uh we we we we we need to make sure it's appropriate for the audience so that that's fine as well to do something uh which is trying to sort dates out at the moment uh not this side of planning but the planning policy side of planning for community and town councils around the replacement local development plan because there will be a consultation on that at the back end of the summer. Okay any other questions uh Councillor Jake portfolio holder would you like to come in with a comment or are you happy with everything? No I'm I'm very happy with the the way that the conversation has has gone and there's some really positive remarks in response to what you've heard in relation to an ongoing and improving performance position both within planning and enforcement so now I've got nothing to add to Councillor Carl thank you for offering to bring me in there. No problem at all. Okay thank you for that Peter and we look forward to the next update uh the next few months I suppose probably after the summer recess would it be uh yeah that that's fine chair um I will report back obviously any I've got a report to wealth government shortly so I could do it an interim model we could wait for half year I'd have to do it again yeah it seems to be going in the right direction Peter so congratulations on that yeah great okay uh on to item number seven um enforcement update um I requested JAMA to bring um uh two enforcement officers to the chamber apologies a gentleman I can't be with you today um but members in the chamber I'm sure have set eyes on them and um I imagine that the majority of uh enforcement complaints from uh members would probably come from this committee um not saying that all of them would do but I would imagine the majority would do so I'll hand over now to JAMA to introduce uh the two um officers Kevin and Adam over to you JAMA. Thank you very much Chair so I will just give a brief update on some of what we've got into place um so this is almost as a result of that audit Wales findings report where one of those recommendations was to align resource to the enforcement process um so as a result of that we amended two positions within our structure and we are very lucky enough to recruit two enforcement planners as a result um I'll ask them just to switch on their camera very quickly so everyone at home can see him but first we have Kevin Jones I can't do that I'm afraid the chair of the button and it should go to you hopefully yeah I'm sorry and then we also have Adam Nixon. Hello everybody welcome both. So they are the new two new enforcement officers we have got within so I'm sure you'll get to know them very well as a result then kind of moving forward we as a team developed an enforcement action plan um and this action plan came up with four Ains uh I'll just quickly run through the Ains so they were to reduce the open plan enforcement caseload uh to embed the two new enforcement planning officers uh to improve the custom experience and meet uh with planning performance measures which I'll touch on a bit more later on. As a result then of getting these two new enforcement offices in place we initially looked to target that backlog we had and we do admit there was a backlog and as a result of COVID officers leaving it all had accumulation with what we had outstanding so as you heard from Pete in his performance we were able to close 180 I think he said in quite a short period of time there with the help from Kevin and Adam and that was their first responsibility when they first entered the position. I suppose as a result and kind of moving on from that stage we're now what I consider the second phase of that process so now we're looking to prioritise those new new cases coming into us and making sure that we're getting back and investigating them in a timely manner so what is a timely manner? So we are looking to get to 80% of all enforcement cases investigated within that 84 days now investigated means that the clock starts as soon as we receive a complaint and the clock then stops when the local planner and local plan authority have concluded that either A there's a no breach of planning control B that a breach has occurred but enforcement action is not expedient and I know Pete did touch on this, expediency we have to consider a lot of things I suppose harm is one of those words that kind of sums up what is expedient for us and if something's a trivial breach for example householders have permitted development rights perhaps this shed should have been four metres high and it's 4.2 we look then well has that caused a harm to properties amenity etc if there is no harm or impact on amenity then we'd say that's a trivial breach so that wouldn't be expedient for us to take further action so as the type of things we're looking at when we're looking at that expediency the third then would be a breach has occurred and enforcement action will be pursued so that's when that 84 day stop is when we get to one of those points if we were then to take further action then it's obviously outside that 84 days we have that further time to take more so as an example of what officers would usually do in that 84 days just to give you appreciation of sometimes it can be quite extensive the type of investigation officers have to do it will include history searches for the property so they'll be reviewing this plan in history conditions what's the baseline for the site they'll be undertaking site visits it may include meetings with owners or perhaps objectors to perhaps get further detail around what the concerns raised are it could also include consulting with consultees so for example today we've heard obviously about highways we might need their specialist input for them to help us or guide us with that investigations it can include the serving of planning contravention notices which is a tool for us to be able to get more information and that's kind of some of the points that we'd be investigating when we do a site visit it's not always a clear case that we enter site and we could go yes there's a breach it's clear so that communication with people is very key so that we can get a full history for the site and actually come to that determination so it can take as I'm sure you appreciate a few kind of processes discussions which all take time so that's that's where sometimes it may take longer than 84 days but predominantly we're hoping to get 80% within that timeframe 100 ideally but I appreciate it's not always possible so the press says now moving forward is that all new cases that we now receive are allocated to the enforcement officers Kevin and Adam then we'll pick up those and they will investigate from there I suppose for me what you guys and you as counselors can do is very important for us if you do have members of public approaching you which I'm sure you probably do on a daily basis my main thing would be direct them to our public website we have so much information there on our enforcement page and we have an online complaint form which is very easy to use and it has an interactive map should we call it where people can drag the screen and and drop a cursor exactly where they think that breaches for us as officers that is fantastic it takes the guesswork out of where exactly the breaches and they then pick that up and see exactly so if you do have members of the public first of all if you could guide them to that website if they need any help building out that form perhaps if you could assist them or or direct them to the duty officer line they'd be able to assist them with filling out that form but that really does help Kevin and Adam with their investigations it's getting enough information up front so they're not going to perhaps a field in landger and dodge shall we say and they have to do a search themselves so there's more information as possible moving forward we're continued to reduce the backlog we're not by any means where I want to be at the moment it is a process and we're definitely getting there so we're continued to reduce that backlog workload we have got workloads still with planning officers so whilst they're not now allocated anything new they initially obviously were so there's still is that remaining workload with them and we're looking to work them out of that workload so what they should have is very minimal moving forward we are continuing training so we want to invest in in our two officers so we are providing them with all the training opportunities as possible I think the last training you did was end of last year and they went on pace training which is police kind of investigation side sort of things so we will continue and that is something that that won't just happen and stop it'll be continuous things so we are looking for further training ongoing and then also pending very shortly it's interesting you're speaking about the website we are looking to I've drafted a enforcement FAQ kind of page and that will be going live very shortly um but listening to you it's very useful actually I think something more interactive which we can get people more involved a video etc yes that's definitely something I'll be looking to to definitely investigate for our website we want something so people can have all that information to hand um so that's a very brief overview but this is kind of sets out the action plan and those steps we're currently following so welcome any questions thank you thank you Gemma obviously for me very positive to have two dedicated enforcement officers within the planning department um Councillor Adrian Jones please oh thank you chair my question is about time scale you mentioned 84 days you you get to a point where there's been a breach that's at the end of it is it and I can give you good samples but you know there's breaches that don't get enforced so where does where's the goal from after 84 days from why aren't things getting resolved yeah so we do have then I think it's 115th of days is what what governments say to take further action it is a timely process I appreciate that and that's something we're trying to improve on so a lot of the training we're doing is getting officers more up to speed with enforcement notice how to serve them effectively and that process it is a difficult one because the planning process does talk about negotiation it's not all about us punishing a person shall we say it is about working so sometimes negotiations perhaps might take a lot of that time up as well and I appreciate this is probably where communication is very important and this is something I want to improve on because for members of public whilst we might be doing those negotiations working to certain timeframes they're not known that and to them it probably just looks like we're not doing anything we're twiddling in firms and that's not what we want so communication is key here but typically in the background if there is a breach we'll first look to try and resolve that negotiate is the way that perhaps they can make it acceptable or is it that they just have to cease that or remove it from the land so there will be initially that time frame before then process processing to enforcement notice thank you thank you cancer agents earns cancer garothy germs please yeah just quickly before I ask my question can I just say I have worked alongside Adam around an issue and it's been really he's been really great around what is quite a significant breach of planet planing rules can I just ask one question I assume the 84 days is calendar days and not work days is it 14 weeks or is it it's days so 84 days thank you thank you very much cancer garothy germs cancer peter james please thank you chair my question is um the planning enforcement I think i was told that it goes through peter if you if you want to get in touch with enforcement is that right or did i get more information in if if somebody wants to report an alleged planning breach the best way to do that is to go on to the website that james just describes and find the report form which collects the right information example that jama gave if we just say somebody says there's a field in chlandryndoll they won't know where to go so we really want those forms are reported confidentially in confidence um so we need to know they're legitimate and who's who's made them because we might need to go back and ask for further clarification on something that's how we'd like enforcement cases reported to us so i don't want everybody ringing me up because that's why i wouldn't get any of the work done but it was through to you and the second part is um i've got an access situation that's been on a town council agenda for nearly over two years and it's somewhere along the line need some sort of enforcement on it so i'm going to actually get the client to actually go through that portal and reissue it through because we're not getting anywhere with it i'll speak to you afterwards if you want to start by then thank you chan okay thank you kensa pete um yeah courage everyone to use that interactive system i've used it personally and it is really really good you can have jama says you can drop that pin right on where the the issue is uh kensa you Williams please yeah just briefly uh chair i i think it's such a positive move to have the enforcement officers of the years that have been on planning we've had reports of this that the other so this is an extremely positive mood and i've already touched at conversations and action with one of the remembered which one it was it was if you don't have that means you're gonna like it was very positive so it's an observation chair very welcome thank you thank you very much can see you uh for a positive everyone uh kensa Angela Davis please yeah thank you chair i think my comments have already been made to say really positive move here i've actually just googled the forms really easy um obviously i didn't try the online bit but i've had a look at the form simple easy well done yeah good uh kensa jig portfolio holder please sorry and it's just to pick up on the confident confidentiality of some of these things i've had residents uh personally who are still disinclined uh to make a formal enforcement complaint in their own name themselves um through the system uh and it's perfectly legitimate for us indeed it's written in the in the notes around this for us as counselors i know it feels a little bit insensitive because it might feel like you're taking sides within your own ward to uh to log an enforcement complaint but it is quite appropriate for us to do so because it removes them the issue properly gets discussed and it saves as uh counselor peter was saying us chasing officers round with emails no we we get in we use the appropriate form it gets in the system uh and uh it gets uh duly investigated so as members i think we can be quite proactive and helpful in in this process too and if you take that away from this meeting that being really positive indeed thank you very much counselor jake any other comments nope okay well thank you jenna thank you kevin thank you adam we'll move on there that's okay with everyone to the final part of the meeting which is the taxi licensing section where we're looking at animal licensing uh item number eight declarations of interest do we have any declarations of interest on the final item today please nope okay we can proceed okay the final item is uh to do with fees and to take us through the recommendation on those fees is gavin jones over to you gavin thank you jia good afternoon members um it's that time of year again where we need to review the licensing fees um i don't know if you want me to share the screen or whether you're all just happy to access the the report in front of yourselves whichever is easier for you guys i think it might be useful just for members at home watching who maybe who could be affected by this uh gavin if you just share the screen i'd be great i'll try it just be with me then please if you can then we'll we'll go by vehicle got something coming through it you can just confirm it's the actual report somewhere in dual screens we haven't got anything just yet we've got gavin jones is down to share screen double-click to enter the full screen mode it may be because i'm running my camera my computer doesn't like to run the camera and back up as well if you if you're having difficulties there gavin we'll just go both variable um right us through the report we've got it in front of us in the parks anyway so apologies you're doing work okay right so the report for the committee today is with regards to the revised fees for the animal licensing establishments which we hope to them well we were going to commence from the first of april um they've been set out in an appendix one to my report on what i've included in the report as well is a comparison of licensing income received last financial year to what is projected to be received this financial year so this year based on the new licensing fees you'll note from that table that the projected income is slightly lower and that's due to the yearly fluctuations in the normal premises that we have and the income as you can see from the table is only going to be reduced by 54 pounds will be in well hello they do fluctuate as we go through the year so by way of background um the animal license fees are required to be reviewed annually and the proposed fees that we're putting for to you at the moment are in line with the local government association guidance on the same the revised license fees they determined you detail in all the aspects of the licensed regime with the appropriate officer costings having been obtained from our accountants this year the account has advised that the newly calculated hourly rate for officers inclusive of all associated on costs is lower than the current inflationary rate and that's as a result of savings that's been made on the services overhead costs so the licensing costs that we're putting forward at the moment include the cost of processing of an individual license that would include the actual officer time from application stage through to the actual issuing of a license either initial or a renewed license it separates the license of process into the three categories in line with the guidance namely the application cost the granting cost and the renewal cost it also includes the cost of the administration of the licensing regime locally including any training and equipment costs administrative cost inspection and traveling costs any associated veterinary costs are excluded from the license fees as these are invoiced directly to the licensee and recovered in full so for reference it's always useful to have an idea of what other authorities are charging and those charges are detailed in appendix two what you have to take account of is that it's difficult to make direct comparisons between authorities because the fees they calculate will be specific to their own local staffing costs and on costs but you will see from the table that powers although not the cheapest it's by far not the most expensive and the other thing to note is some of the authorities on this still have not addressed their full cost recovery issues and those are the ones which are charging extortionately low rates really all the licensees have been consulted with regards to proposed fees and that was done on the third of January by either email or post and they were given an opportunity to comment on the same by the 19th of January. I've attached the report a copy the consultation letter so appendix three if you wish to look at it. I had no formal responses to the consultation only three acknowledgments within that time scale and since that time I've not had any other other responses in relation to it. I've then detailed the types of licenses and the legislation that we we have to legislate license under which is the animal welfare breeding the dog's regulations the animal boarding establishments act the riding establishments act the animal welfare licensing of activities involving animals which is basically pet shops as it stands at the moment dangerous water animals and finally zoo licensing. So the local government association open for business which is the actual guidance which covers this states that a council should understand the full breadth issues that should be considered when it's set in their license fees in order to to meet the legal obligations and providing issues, assurances to local businesses. It's an accepted principle in relation to those schemes that those who benefit from the scheme i.e. the license holders should cover the cost to it and it locally said fees of vital means of ensuring both at full cost can be recovered by each and every council and producing the risk of subsidy from local taxpayers and the businesses do not pay more than they should do so it's all about being fear and transparent. So my advice is that the fees need to be reviewed periodically which we are doing now that those fees should recover our costs in full which they do and they include all the appropriate on costs that we need to consider. The fees that are no proposing are detailed in appendix one I'm confident they are cost neutral as far as possible to the local authority and I would therefore recommend the members to approve those fees. As far as resource implications if the fees are adopted then we would see based on the figures remain the same as it will last year we would have seen an increase of £333 in license and income however because of the fluctuations that as I said previously is only in effect £54 as it stands at the time in writing my report and the fees are not that applicable and they have been through the head of finance and she is happy to well her statement is that the fees are being reviewed in line with the guidance and ensures of covering your costs that the reducing can be managed by the service within their existing budget so that she's happy to support the proposal as far as any legal implications are concerned. The public protection solicitor has said that the report appears to be in line with the approach recommended by the local government association and she therefore supports it and the head of legal services the modern officer has stated that I note the legal comment and support the recommendation. It's also been through data protection and the big data protection officers commenting that the proposal has no new data protection issues that need to be addressed. I have not received any comments from any local members in relation to the licensing and on that basis I would respectfully ask the members to consider it and hopefully approve the proposed fees. Thank you very much Chair. Thank you very much Gary. Over to members for discussion first indicated like to comment on this is Councillor Gareth E Jones please. Yeah thank you Gavin thank you Chair. Just one question in your paper you've given the out-turn figures for 2324 are they the actual out-turn figures and if they are what was the actual estimate this time last year for 2324? Well just give an indication Gavin whether it's an increase is are the actuals above or below what the estimate was last year? They're very close to be honest with fluctuation it varies some licenses will be more others will be less it varies throughout the year so but they are pretty close with about the 100 mark normally. Thank you I'm happy to propose we accept Chair. Okay thank you very much Councillor Gareth E Jones. Do I have a seconder or is there further comment needed? Councillor Dab Edward please. Councillor interjecting. Thank you very much Councillor Dab Edward for that. Don't think there's anyone else indicating they would like to contribute to further discussion or clarification so I'll put to members to the vote and it has been proposed and duly seconded to accept the recommendation from the licensing officer which is that the proposed fees set out in Appendix 1 to the report to be approved and implemented with effect from the 1st of April 2024 so members wishing to do that please indicate in the usual manner that will come about now in the chapter I'm sure. There we go it's their members for you to click on 1223. Vote as you wish. There we go. So Chair 12 members are in the meeting have remained in the meeting 12 voted for zero against and zero abstentions. That is in line with the recommendation it has been approved I should say unanimously by the committee so that concludes today's meeting and just could we have the date of the next meeting please. Carol before we do Councillor Edwin Roderick please. Thank you Chair just a brief question to govern actually. Is individual dog holders the private pets do they have to be licensed now? Dog because you know we're seeing a lot of issues at this moment regarding dogs whether they're the dangerous kind or then shall we say left at roadside people and neglecting them etc etc. It's starting to cause for concern actually these the the extra dogs are about the place and as if they're not needed no more obviously a lot of them were bought during the COVID saga but that's the question I was asking do individual pet dog owners up to pay your license fee? An answer to your question no there's three parts that question in effect there's if you're referring to those that are breeding dogs. No no okay yeah no we don't actually enforce animal welfare companion animal welfare either unless it's one of licensed or licenseable establishment so any reports that we get that we relate to normal members of publics dogs we would automatically refer to a third-party sector normally they are species and ask them to deal with it. Okay thank you. You're welcome. Thank you very much. Could we have a date to the next meeting please Carol? Yes Chair so the next meeting is on Wednesday the 15th of May and that's because there's the council annual meeting on the Thursday the 16th. Okay thank you very much. Just to leave me to thank our speakers today also officers who presented you members in the chamber members of whom watching public at home watching and the press so I therefore close this meeting thank you all. You You