Transcript

• If first welcome everyone to tonight's planning committee meeting. I know some have been before, but just for information to the public, there are some toilets straight outside. There is also a drinks machine if at any point you would like to have a drink. On my left we've got Helen Mitchell, Director of Corporate Customer Services. We have the Council's legal beadle, Kerry Frantz, who is the solicitor, and then to my right, Councillor Suber, who is the Vice Chair of Planning, and then we have Chris Whitmore, Director of Planning and, sorry. Sorry, sorry, Development Manager, Ansera Arben, what's your official title, sir? Senior Planning Officer, oh dear. (audience laughing) What's the selection of the nominated elected members of the Planning Committee? So we will start, first of all, by recording Apologies for Absence, please. Are there any Apologies?
• Councillor, sorry, I'll give you the Apologies tonight.
• Thank you. - Thank you. We've had Apologies from Councillor Lee's substitute Councillor Bates. Apologies from Councillor O'Brien and Councillor Whitehead. Thank you.
• Are there any further Apologies? No? Right, thank you. So we move now to the approval of minutes of the previous meeting. On the agenda, there are pages nine to 12. Before I ask someone to move, whether or not they are a correct record of what there and there on took place, do any members have anything they wish to raise from those minutes? The only thing for myself was in terms of the chair, on that night it was Councillor O'Brien. Do we not normally record who actually? So perhaps that could be inserted. Yeah. So, pages nine to 12, would any member at this point kind of move that those minutes back is up to? Thank you, Councillor Murphy. Does that find a second to Councillor Slack? All those in favour, please show? Any abstentions? Just one abstention. Thank you, members. Those minutes are carried then. So we turn now to section four of tonight's agenda. Public participation, we have a number of people tonight. Can I just ask Angela, is this the pertaining list that right, thank you. So the first person I'm going to call upon to speak to the Planning Committee is Mr. Luke Harwood on behalf of the Acorn Meadows Residence Group, and you have to speak against the application for the 33 dwelling houses, vehicle access, public open space, transportation, landscaping, and associated works on south of Murkistan Lane and east of Lutlane, Brailsford. And Lut, you've got three minutes. Due to time constraints, this statement will be delivered in three parts. So ladies, gentlemen, members of the committee, my name is Luke Harwood, and I serve as head of digital service as UK island for hire. However, this evening, I stand before you, not in my professional capacity, but as a representative of the Brailsford community. My family, much like others, relocated to the village in 2020, enticed by the tranquil rural lifestyle, synonymous with country living. We were captivated by the village's distinctive character, its verdant fields, diverse wildlife, quaint local shop, the village pub, and to the extent that I would say I often felt like I lived on holiday. Regrettably, this tranquility proved to be less enduring and anticipated. As we settled into our new environment, we discovered that recent developments in the village, including the very one we now reside in, have taken a toll on the once-beautiful or all haven. So unless otherwise stated, all quotes and excerpts are taken from sources available to the public on the Dobbish Dales planning website and can be made available at request. Before I proceed, I would like to draw your attention to excerpts of a letter from our very own member of Parliament for Dobbish Dales, Sarah Dines, dated the 4th of March 24th. What I must reiterate is what I'm on record as saying many times, including at a public meeting of Brailsford residents. Brailsford is full. I simply do not accept that there is a need for additional 33 houses in the village. This is still a rural location and the infrastructure cannot cope with further speculative housing. Recent resident research has revealed that there are currently 19 properties for sale in the village, including some from the Acorn Meadows Development with several listings having been re-listed, prices reduced. This data strongly suggests an oversaturation of available properties raising questions about the necessity and practicality of introducing additional housing units when the current market already presents a surplus. The 2016 assessment evaluated the landing question, identifying it within an area of high landscape sensitivity. The landscape assessment concluded that the capacity for development was limited. However, it was also noted that the capacity existed in the solemn part of the site situated away from the highest ground and in proximity to the existing development. The 2016 assessment deemed it appropriate to identify only 50% of the site is developable, suggesting that this portion had the potential for development while acknowledging the need for substantial screening vegetation on the northern boundary. The current question arises from the apparent shifting designation as the entirety of the landing is now considered 100% developable, raising concerns about the consistency and the justification for this change in assessment. And that is the end of my section.
• Thank you.
• Thank you very much, Luke. The next speaker is John Bridges, please. Again, on behalf of the Acorn Meadows Residence Group and in John Year to speak against the application. And John, you've got three minutes.
• Ladies, gentlemen, members of the committee, my name is Johnathan Bridges. I am a green keeper at Rails with Golf Course and a resident of Acorn Meadows. In continuation of the previous speaker, I would now like to bring your attention to several factors. Infrastructure. Despite the explicit conditions set in 2018 by DCC Highway's development control, the requirement for the provision of secure and accessible bicycle parking within the approved development has not been fulfilled. The condition aimed at promoting sustainable travel and fostering healthy communities mandates that no individual dwelling in the developments could be occupied until such cycling facilities were in place. With the storage area maintained for this purpose thereafter. The failure to comply with this stipulation is notably evidence in the DCC Highway's report dated 27 February 24, raising concerns about the lack of progress in implementing the necessary cycle parking facilities. As a consequence, this unfilled condition now extends to the new development, emphasizing the persistence of the issue despite the passage of time and the explicit requirements outlined in 2018. In addition, the road's. The village faces a critical transportation challenge with only two access routes. Firstly, the A52, a major full refer carrying substantial commuter traffic and heavy goods vehicles traversed through the village centre. The presence of narrow pavements along this road poses safety concerns as they are insufficient for safe pram navigation or side by side walking. Despite an offer from the parish council to conduct a meeting with highways on the pavement does matter, it was declined on safety grounds. The second route, Luke Lane, not only hosts a proposed new developments but is also home to the village school. This road connects to processing premises for concrete sand and building materials resulting in the daily influx of HEVs and articulated lorries. The situation is compounded by hazardous parking near the school during peak morning and afternoon school and periods, creating a further challenge for the already congested Luke Lane. Both developments worsen existing traffic issues, necessitating careful consideration of the broader impact on the village's transportation infrastructure. Flooding. The recent surge in developments within Brails would have resulted in an alarming increase in flooding throughout the village, predominantly attributed to the proliferation of new residential roads and extensive hard surfaces. The inadequacy of the outdated sewage systems has become glaringly apparent, unable to cope with the substantial influx of water stemming from the expanded network of impermeable surfaces. The absence of necessary upgrades to the sewage infrastructure worsens the problem, leaving the village to suffer flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. Moreover, the adverse consequences of this are acutely felt within the current Acorn Meadows developments. Residents experience frequent flooding, impacting both communal green areas and private spaces. This recurring issue underscores the need for for a consideration of the potential impact before approving further developments in Brailsford. Thank you very much, John. Next speaker is Mr. Stephen Price, please. Again, on behalf of the Acorn Meadows residents group, and Stephen, I understand you're going to speak against the application. Members of the committee, my name is Steve Price. I'm a retired teacher and resident of Acorn Meadows. Firstly, may I quote from a representation received from the head teacher of Brailsford Primary School on the 12th of February. Quote, The school has been at full capacity for several years, and any additional house building in the local area would necessitate an extension to accommodate potential pupils. I expected that section 106 funds will be allocated for this purpose. However, when previous developments by Cameron Holmes, Miller Holmes and Avant took place adjacent to, opposite and close to the school, the plans to extend it were considered by the council, but were shelved due to lack of funds. Notably the most recent development by the very same Cameron Holmes, situated opposite the school, did not provide any section 106 funds for Brailsford School. I questioned the rationale behind this decision considering the school was already over capacity when Cameron initiated the construction of their first development." Moving on to wildlife issues. As residents of Acorn Meadows, our efforts to elevate the standard of our green spaces has spanned several years. Regrettably, we remain dissatisfied with the outcomes delivered by Cameron. Even the assessment provided by Derby Wildlife Trust on the 7th of March describes the condition of the green areas and the wildlife pond as poor. And further, it suggests that the existing land has been taken into account in the ecological calculations for the new development. Therefore, counting this land within the current application does not provide the additionality required in the BNG good practice principles. Furthermore, I'd like to draw on your attention to comments and observations raised by local resident, Mr. Rob Griffiths, who I've got three things here. One, he says that the proposed landscaping is minimal and looking at the dead trees on the original Cameron development suggests no longer term value. Secondly, species have been denuded from this area and it's likely partly due to the unsympathetic adjacent Cameron development. It seems ironic that this is now a source of their low diversity argument. Irrespective of this, there are promising signs of recovery with more diverse bird life species now returning to the field on which the new development is proposed. Thirdly, it appears that calculations of net biodiversity and landscaping include land already in use on the existing development, notably the attenuation pond and surrounding area. If this is the case, then clearly the calculations are incorrectly based. To conclude, this plan is just wrong. Please reflect on the many genuine objections made against it since we have only this chance to stop it. The heartfelt reasons everyone has given are in complete contrast to those of a profit seeking developer which uses affordable homes as its mantra. Thank you.
• Thank you, Stephen, for your contribution. So we turn now to Julia Woodhouse, please. Brailsford and Anderson, parish council to speak against the application and I think we met you yesterday on the site, is it, Julia?
• Yes.
• Good evening, Chairman. Good evening, members of the planning committee. Ladies and gentlemen, as a parish councilor and a resident of Acorn Meadows, I ask you to turn down this planning application on the following grounds. We in Brailsford are suffering from crumbling infrastructure. Many now have to go to Ashbourne for GP services because our surgery cannot cope. Our children are not guaranteed a place at the local primary school because the school is oversubscribed. I doubt that the proposal by the applicant to provide three extra key stage one places and four key stage two places at the primary school will be enough. Our surface and sewage drains are often overwhelmed. The sewage has to regularly be removed by a tanker as the treatment facility cannot cope with it. There is an increased significant flooding on over the A-52 due to the outdated pipe work and drains. More development means less land to absorb the water. If this development takes place, the effect on the residents of Braque Thorne Close will be unacceptable. They will experience increased traffic, noise and movement, both during construction and afterwards. The visual enjoyment of their outlook will be completely destroyed. Congestion will be increased at the junction to this site on Luke Lane, where lorry, school traffic and the speed of vehicles can make it very dangerous. On the 10th of May, 2000 and 23, there was a near fatal incident 30 yards from this junction involving a two ton container lorry and a speeding car normally missing ahead on collision. There is still no pedestrian crossing from Sycamore Way to the school. In the proposed development plan for this application, our wildlife pond and all the children's play equipment have been removed, and the recreational green space has been greatly reduced. This site lies outside the approved village development boundary and increases the sprawl of the village away from its traditional centre. According to the strategic housing land availability assessment document number 439, it considered appropriate to identify only 50% of this site developable based on the landscape assessment conclusions. And there's some capacity for development exists on the site within the southern part. The southern part has now been developed. Brailsford has had its fair share of development over the past years. Any further development would impact negatively on the quality of life of many Brailsford people. Julian, I have to interject now. Sorry, your time is up.
• Thank you for listening. - Yep, thank you. Thank you very much. Finally, invite the applicant's agent, Mr Stuart Wells, please, to address the committee. And Stuart, you've got five minutes. Okay, thank you, Chair, and good evening members. My name is Stuart Wells, the agent for Cameron Holmes. This application seeks the delivery of 33 new homes as a logical extension and second phase to the existing Acorn Meadows development off-loop lane, which, as you know, has already been delivered by Cameron Holmes. In the next couple of weeks, I'm going to show you how to make sure that there's a very good way of doing it. The site is one of eight new sites that have been identified as being suitable for allocation by the Council's local plan working group in their March 2022 report to this Council. This application has been prepared in response to the recommendations of that report with the application coming forward now, given that there is a pressing need to address the current deficit in the Council's housing supply. So, I would like to give you a little bit of time in the Council's housing supply. In the same year, the Council's latest strategic housing and availability assessment, otherwise known as the Schlar, considered that the development of this site would be regarded as a logical extension of the recent housing scheme to the south, being Acorn Meadows. And to mitigate landscape impact, the housing development in the northern corner, referring to this site, should be Chamford tree belts re-established and planting increase to the eastern boundary. Therefore, the proposed development before you is designed with a Chamford landscape edge, re-establishment of tree belts and increased planting along the eastern and northern boundaries. As part of the Schlar assessment, the highway authority confirmed that a suitable access could be provided, and in subsequently reviewing this application, they raised no objection to the new access from Blackthaw and Close. The Schlar ultimately found that on balance, ensuring that appropriate landscape mitigation, highway and accessibility requirements are met, this site is considered to be developable. The site is therefore a prime candidate for development now, necessary to meet the current and pressing housing needs in the district. Reference is made to the previous application, which covered both this site in Acorn Meadows, and planning officers, sorry, are correct in their report that circumstances have now clearly changed since that 2016 application, and the inability to meet the district's housing need now carries weight. To be clear, the change in circumstances reflects the recent assessment in the Schlar, the recommendations by the local plan working group, and the fact that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. As per national planning policy, the presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore applies, meaning that the application should be granted planning permission unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. And in conducting this exercise, planning officers have found that there are no adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of this proposal. Officers have also found that the 33 dwellings on this site is an acceptable level of growth, having regard to the nature of Browsford and its services and facilities. This is a sustainable village, and this site represents the most logical extension of Browsford being the second phase of a recently completed scheme, which is of a proportionate scale to the rest of the village. It rounds off the edge of the village and does not change the settlement pattern nor does it set a precedent for further development to the north. Development to 33 dwellings on this site will also help to relieve the pressure to develop on other unsuitable sites in the village. The officers' recommendation to approve is subject to no objection from Derbyshire Wildlife Trust or the local flood authority, both of which have subsequently confirmed that they have no objection. The site lies within flood zone one, and a drainage scheme has been designed to ensure that there will be no surface water flooding on site or elsewhere. There will no impacts on trees or wildlife, and the development will result in a net increase in the number of trees, whilst delivering gains in habitats and hedgerows. Cameron are also committed to £138,000 contribution to additional places at Browsford Primary School, as well as affordable housing and a contribution towards improvements to play areas in Browsford. To conclude, the Council's own local plan working group has recommended this site for development, and in undertaking their assessment of the application, your planning officers have correctly found the proposed development to be wholly acceptable and appropriate for Browsford, and is necessary to address the current deficit in housing supply. Therefore, as per the recommendation of your officers, this application should be approved. Thank you.
• Thank you very much, Mr Wells. So I'll pass it over then to Chris, perhaps. First of all, you'll outline the application for members, and then after Chris has spoken to us, then it will be open for questions.
• Thank you, Chair. First of all, I'd just like to draw members' attention to the late representations that have been received in respect of this item. Members will note, the officer recommendation is one of approval, subject to authority to be delegated to either development manager or principal planning officer, to grant planning permission, subjects a receipt of no objections from both Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and the lead local flood authority. There are a number of late items of representation that have been received. Within those representations are comments from both Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and the lead local flood authority. Addressing the first item, we've had comments from Derbyshire Wildlife Trust. They had raised some concerns about potential double-counting, and one of the speakers that has addressed members this evening has mentioned that particular issue also. That has been clarified in the officer's response to that section, where revised assessment of overall net gain for the site has been undertaken, and that demonstrates that an 8.54% gain in habitat biodiversity will be delivered, and a 23.05% gain in hedgerow units. The second item of late representation relates to the comments from the lead local flood authority. Following clarification on how the Greenfield calculations had been reached for the, which have fed into the land drainage proposals for this site, the lead local flood authority are happy that the assessment is robust, and that the system is satisfactory from their perspective, so it's not caused flooding on site or in the local area. The proposals include provision for climate change and urban creep, and the attenuation based on site will be enlarged to accommodate additional surface flows from this development. You'll know that they've recommended a number of conditions, and if members are minded to approve the application this evening, it would be on the basis of the recommended conditions in the report, but also the conditions recommended by the lead local flood authority and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust, which are detailed in the late representation sheet. We then received comments from three local residents that members will need to read and have regard to, and also an open letter from Sarah Dine's MP, which members may just want a brief moment just to read in full.
• We'll take a few moments there, members, to do that, please. (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding) (audience applauding)
• Yeah, that's fine. I do want to invite Chris now to carry on with his presentation, please.
• Okay, so planning permission is sought this evening for the erection of 33 dwellings on this particular site. The site extends to 1.77 hectares in area. Members had the benefit yesterday of visiting the site to consider the impact of the development on the local environment. I think it's worth at this point just setting out the policy context. Members will note and officers realize that this site currently sits outside of the village envelope, or the defined settlement framework boundary in the adopted Derbyshdale's local plan. In the address by some of the speakers to members this evening, reference has been made to a strategic housing land availability assessment that was conducted in 2016. And that did consider the existing acorn meadows development and also land to the north, which forms part of this application. At that time, development on land to the north was considered to be encroaching and harmful in landscape terms. And that part of the application was emitted from an application that had been summited to Derbyshdale's district council around that time for those reasons. At this moment in time, the council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. And what that means is that we have a national policy, which is very much geared towards housing delivery. And what it states is that in circumstances where councils cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, there's essentially a tilt of balance in favour of development, unless the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. So the starting point here is a tilt of balance in favour of development. Our own local plan includes provisions in circumstances where we can't demonstrate five-year housing land supply. And what that says is that the council will consider sites on the edge of more sustainable settlements. So, in regards to the settlement hierarchy within our local plan, the preference is for delivery of new development in market towns. So the most sustainable settlements in our district, we've got three market towns. We've then got Dolly Dale, which is a large service centre. And then we've got larger villages with Braelsford being one of those villages and is a tier three settlement in our local plan. So there is provisioning the local plan for which allows for development on the edge of tiers one to three settlements. And Braelsford is a tier three settlement in this case. So we have to assess the application in that context. As part of the local plan review, this site was identified as being available for development. And as the last speaker correctly mentioned, this site was deemed developable as part of that process. We assessed a number of criteria with landscape being one of those criteria. And it was assessed as being at well given an amber score in respect of landscape. So it's recognised that there is a ridge line that crosses this site, and the existing development as you approach Braelsford from a northerly direction. Members will notice yesterday when they were travelling to the site on the bus that the existing development is visible in views. And it's the first thing you see when you approach Braelsford in that direction. And clearly bringing development closer to the main road will result in development being even more prominent in views. However, the assessment of the landscape assessment work that was carried out recognised that whilst there would be some impacts in the context of that existing development and that existing built form, those impacts weren't considered to be sufficiently harmful to the development score red or to be unacceptable in landscape terms. And in office's opinion, that in itself wouldn't be a significant and demonstrable reason to refuse planning permission this evening. We have got a sustainable urban drainage strategy for the site that does propose sustainable urban drainage that does include provision for climate change. And it also includes provision for urban creep as well. So it has got built within sufficient capacity to deal with surface water from this development to not resulting in flooding of the site or the local area. We are aware that Braelsford is a relatively small settlement. It does have some service and facilities. It's got a shop. It's got a 52 running through it with links to settlements, more sustainable settlements. And in the general spatial approach to development, Braelsford has seen as abilities that can accommodate some growth. And we feel that 33 dwellings is an acceptable level of growth in that context. Happy to take questions at this stage. Can I just remind members, it is questions, not a debate. Please be concise and at this point, questions. So Councillor Hughes. Thank you, Chair. So a couple of questions. The Shlau refers to housing for 20 built houses, not 33. Can you comment on that? And drainage and sewage. I think the residents have pointed to a number of issues with drainage and sewage. In your, are you aware, Chris, that the yellow that they has taken into account the evidence provided by residents about the poor quality of the sewage and drainage infrastructure in Braelsford and its inability already to cope with the existing requirement for drainage and sewage, let alone new houses. And then about the pedestrian crossing to the school, is it, would it be possible if we approve this to add that to the list of requirements under the Section 106 agreement? And then turning to recreational green space and reduce children's play equipment, is that correct or does it, because I think there was an inconsistency in the drawings, I recall from yesterday's meeting. So I think that's all, I believe the school role is already covered. So I wasn't going to bring that one up. David, can I just remark to members, bear in mind, you are only allowed to ask three questions at this point. I didn't, I don't know of that rule. Helen, are you able to? I don't, I believe, I've never heard of that rule. I would like all my questions answered. Nobody will answer those questions. I'd ask one of my colleagues to ask those questions, because I have got five reasonable questions. Yeah. I want them all answered, David, please come down and try to shoot you all. Right, well on that basis, I'm so sorry, David, but please take the chair, so take over, I'm sorry, but I'm as entitled as you are to get worked up and you're doing me no favors, David. I think, I am happy to answer the questions. Are you staying, David? Are you staying, are you staying council, though? No, I'm sorry. You go with it. David's a grown up man, and if it's the best you could do to a fellow colleague, it's time over, even in our group. Right, so what I'd suggest we do then, is are you aware Chris of the first three questions, and then if somebody else is prepared to ask the other two? I have written down the questions, so I'll try and answer them if that's okay. Yes, that's what I propose that we do. So you've got the first three, if we answer those, and then the next two, Councillor MURPHY will officially put those forward. Sorry, can I clarify the question? So I've got the 20 houses that was identified as part of the initial schlar work that's been carried out. We've got the drainage and the evidence that's been presented by the public, and whether I'm satisfied that that's been considered by the local flood authority. The section, whether crossing could be introduced through section one or six agreements, and then you had a question about the children's place space on the site, whether that would be compromised by this particular development. Whether you are aware the flood authority had taken into consideration, the evidence provided by residents in making a claim to their decision. So in terms of the first question, as part of the schlar work that was undertaken, a very simple exercise was carried out based on location of the site and applying a number of dwellings per hectareage assessment of what the available capacity might be on the development site. And we've got an application before us, so the developer in this particular case has looked at the site, the area, and they've looked at the character of the existing development, that this development would be closely associated with, and determined that this amount of development is appropriate to that site. And it's very much a matter of judgment in terms of whether offices or members in this particular case agree that it is an appropriate amount of development. As officers we feel that it is, it is commensurate with what's been delivered on the adjacent site, and we feel it's compatible with the site and its its environment, but it's very much a matter of judgment. Drainage. I'm not aware of any evidence as such being presented to officers. Obviously there's a lot of public comments and people have raised concerns about the drainage infrastructure. I think it's generally accepted by the community that it's creaking at best at the moment. So that information is out there in terms of whether that constitutes evidence or not, as well as that opens into interpretation. But the lead local authority have looked at this development objectively, so they've looked at the sustainable urban drainage strategy for the site, and they've looked at that and have satisfied that it would function in a manner that wouldn't cause flooding on site or in the local area. Dementrent water inquiries will have been made with Cementrent water in terms of whether they can accommodate file flows from the development. And developers or the water company are obliged to take file flows from new development if there's capacity. And if there isn't capacity, they have to do a great day infrastructure accordingly. And often we find that the water company is they identify capacity. It's very rare that if in a situation where a water company will say, no, we haven't got the capacity and we need to upgrade our infrastructure, that's not something that I'm aware of in respect of this particular application. With regard to the crossing point, because we're effectively dealing with alterations to the highway, so we would have to have the authority from a reason in planning terms to require that. And the high-wheel authorities agreement to form a crossing point across slu-claim to access the school. I think without that agreement, whilst we could encourage it through a footnote or potentially a condition which explores it, to insist on it, is not something that we could effectively deliver without the backing of the local high-wheel authority. Children's play space, there is some equipment on the site, which you'll have seen yesterday. The intention is that that will remain. In terms of new play space on the development site, the site is within a 10-minute walk of a park off the plane. The intention is for a commuter sum to be paid so that the play provision or equipment on that park can be upgraded, given the close proximity of that facility to the site. Okay, so, Chris, are you aware of the next two questions that are going to be formally asked by you? Oh, right, I'm sorry Councillor SUCK, I think you and that. I thank you, I'll refrain from answering those questions. Right, outside the settlement boundary, this is, we keep eroding the settlement boundary. I think the policy really is that outside the settlement boundary should be affordable housing, but some of this is affordable, but it's outside the settlement boundary. Chris is explaining that to get the housing numbers we need, we've got to start and go outside the settlement boundary, so I don't know if that's it's a question, it's outside the settlement boundary, so yeah, that's the first question. The next question is regarding, I spoke yesterday about it, the streets are supposed to have a lot of tree tree lined, but now the trees are going on the outskirts of the development. We need trees, climate change, we need lots and lots of trees, so it'd be nice if we had every use of trees, so I'm really not too happy about that being taken away. School crossing is definitely needed, oh, sorry, sorry, sorry Councillor CLAP, I really must insist that questions, we can't debate late on you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Chair. First question is about the school places, I know it's the 138,000 in there, working at a school myself, school's already oversubscribed, this is going to bring in more school places, I don't think the 138,000 I can't see being enough to build an extension, so I'm assuming the school is not going to be able to take the new students into it, which is meaning there's going to be an increase in travel to school, so is that potentially an issue in terms of sustainable development if the children in the village are not able to go to the village school and it's going to encourage more journeys, so that's a question about sustainability based on the school places issue, and then just something related to this idea of phase one and phase two, so that the agent just referred to this development as phase two, so when the initial development was put forward, was there always a plan in there that it would be a phase two, or is this phase two just something that I'm trying to suggest it was always going to happen, and the link to that, there's suggestions from several speakers tonight that many of the commitments that the developers said they were going to do in phase one, haven't been done properly and finished off properly, so until that's done, until phase one as they're put in it has been finished, is there a case for us to say at least we can defer this until at least we're satisfied that phase one has been completed to the standard, they said they would, I think that's three questions. Answering the first question about the community somewhat developed contribution to be used to provide school places, the council use a model which basically calculates how much it would cost to basically extend an existing facility to accommodate pupil numbers, start well it's based on per pupil, I'm assuming there must be a number before that becomes a viable proposition, but in theory that contribution should be spent on providing that number of school places at that particular school, the exact mechanics of it, I don't want to mislead you in any way, it were known unfortunately, but that in theory is how that works. Just going back to some comments I made earlier in the evening, when the original development came forward, it may have been that there was deemed to be sufficient capacity in the school at that time, and we know from all the developments that we've looked at that pupils on roll in the next five years for some reason is declining despite an increase in population in the Dalber-Stales District, and we believe that to be the demographics because there's a higher proportion of 50 plus residents that live in the district, but we're in a situation here where there is a need for school places and the school is at capacity hence why we need a contribution in this particular case and that should be spent on the extension of that school to provide those school places. In terms of phase, whether we knew or whether people knew there would be a phase two I suppose, that depends who you ask, yesterday at the site visit, residents who were enjoying this particular site were very clear in that when they purchased their properties, they were told that there wouldn't be any future development on this particular site. It was always identified as part of the original application that we received, that all of the site was to be developed, and it was revised so that the northern part of the site was taken out of the development. We can't guarantee as part of the planning process that developments won't come forward at a future or sites won't come forward for development, so a future date, I think that's what's happened here in that a moment in time only part of the development or part of the site was considered suitable for development. We're in a different scenario here in policy terms that we have to respond to and we have to assess this application on its merits. In terms of the last question, I've got the commitments of the developer. Having visited the site yesterday, the standard of landscaping generally was considered to be high, references being made to trees that have may have died, some of the landscaping might not have taken, that might need to be revisited and looked at, but my general feeling was the standard of landscaping on this development was sufficiently high and I'm not aware of any breaches of planning conditions relating to landscaping on this particular site. Councillor DUMBS, please. Thank you, Chair. Chris could I ask you a question about in your report 7.44 line. It's about the hydro break. Control Chamber is increased from 16 litres per second to 6.5 litres per second. It's what it says. You just, sorry, point me in the right note. It's on page 58, section 7.44 of the officer report, the application process that it's about surface water discharge, my favourite topic. Yes, I don't believe that's a typographical error because the plans include a new hydro break to reduce the flows. So there'll be additional storage capacity and a new hydro break to limit flows to that level, was my understanding. Yeah, I think actually if you look at the report, sorry, I'll do it in debate, but I think there's a different explanation. Okay, thank you. Councillor Bothell. Thank you, Chair. And Chris, I've got a bit of a question. Have we got any outstanding enforcement action against the phase 1? Not by I'm aware of. Great. The commenters from the community mentioned biodiversity, net gain, good practice. I didn't really catch what they were saying now, it was only if you could explain that. Thank you. Yes, it relates to the method of calculating net gain and habitat units that have been created on site. So in the late representation, I've tried to sort of cover that. And so there is a revised calculation and that demonstrates a net gain of 8. something percent and a much higher percentage for a hedgerow unit units that would be created. Yeah, yeah, okay. I'll have another go at that. I did have one final question. I know this is probably about hopeful, but if Simon Trent actually said we can't take the surge, would we still have to give planning permission? And on what they said to us, if they were to say to us, because they still have an obligation to accommodate foul flows from new development, but if they said in terms of our capital projects, it's going to take us 10, 15 years to do these works, then if we were to grant planning permission with a lifespan of just three years, then clearly that wouldn't be appropriate. So it would, you know, put a halt on the development for a period of time until the infrastructure was delivered. But we're not in that scenario here. Four, please. One minute. I'm going to ask our legal services manager after we've had questions. No, no, please do, please do. She's got, she's gone to just speak to us when we've had all the questions. Right, thank you. So you, you can ask your question. Is it relevant that seven Trent are trucking sewage away from their local depot? And because their infrastructure isn't up to what they said they were going to do previously, or what they said they were going to take away in Brisbane in the past. I'm unable to comment on whether that is an acceptable way of disposing of foul waste. I don't know whether the existing treatment plan or whatever it is that they're pumping this sewage from, whether that's part of that operation. Right, I'll save for the word sustainability for the discussion. Councillor MURPHY, please. Thanks, Chair. Highways. Obviously, there's issues raised in communications from the Paris Council, but highways issues. I don't see them addressed in what's been submitted by highways. Do we send these objections and issues and concerns that Paris Councils and individuals have to highways for them to create an answer and send it back? Do we depend on them going on to the portal and having a look? It is the latter, and you've got to appreciate as well, publicity and consultation is carried out at the same time with the consultees and the public. So at the point, the local highway authority have made comments. They may not have read all of the public comments at that point. That's slightly, it's not satisfactory in a sense is it for individuals because they'll think we're ignoring their concerns and whatever. So they'll be better off sending their concerns direct to the highways authority. Yes, often that does happen, but we have to trust that competence authority that they look at these developments objectively and will identify any issues as they arise. This is the balance of 33 houses, so that has to be assessed in that context and that scale of development. Okay, thank you, Chris. Councilor Milford, I'm sorry. Thank you. Chris, just very quickly, are we allowed to condition the planting of trees along the streets as well as around the boundary? And are we allowed to condition solar panels, which seem to be missing and I don't really understand why all new developments don't have solar panels on? Yes, the issue of street trees is covered in the report. Officers felt that the existing development is something that the government encourages now that streets are tree-lined. We felt that in the context of this particular site, the existing development isn't characterized by street-lined streets. And also we wanted to create a strong settlement edge, so we wanted to focus those trees on the periphery of the side and creating a bit of a wooded margin on the northern corner of the side to help filter views of the developments if you approach the village. So where justified, street trees do not have to be provided in accordance with national policy, and we feel that there is appropriate justification here. You might disagree with that. Well, that was my question. Are we allowed to condition that if we want to? You could. If you wanted to, you felt that it was appropriate in this particular instance. You raised another question, solar panels. You'll note there is a condition to secure measures to help mitigate the effects of adaptive climate change as part of the recommendation that's before you. In terms of meeting more stringent building regulation requirements, I'd expect some form of micro-generation on the houses, so I'd expect that some of them would have solar panels. It's unfortunate that's not being shown on the application details that we submitted to us, but that's something certainly that we'd be encouraging as part of discharging that condition. But again, can we require it by condition? If you felt there was absolutely necessary in planning terms, I think I'd say it wouldn't meet the test. The test for conditions, I think we can explore what's possible and secure the maximum possible with the developer, but to insist on it is probably a step too far in terms of meeting the condition, the test for planning conditions. I'd like to ask a couple of questions of them, mainly for clarity really. I noticed in the report from our tree officer who's looked at the plans and suggested that the site layout be redesigned to provide a significant buffer to protect these trees that have got TPOs. Has that been done? That's the first question then. Do you want to answer that one first? Yes, there has been some amendments to this application, so one of the dwellings has been removed from the northern part of the site, or was a bungalow. There has been some modifications, and we're happy that although there's some very minor encroachments into the root protection area with conditions that the health and the impact on those trees will be minimal. Thank you. The second question is about housing, basically, and affordable homes. I notice our director of housing on page 21 appears to be a little bit disappointed that some of the affordable homes don't meet the nationally described space standards. Am I correct in thinking that that's not something that we can condition for them to be up to these standards? I think a lot of, if not all, of the dwellings do meet the space, and I'm sure this is covered somewhere in the offices report, but I just need to find the right section. So it's a long page, well, on page 21 from the director of housing. It's covered in the issues in appraisal section, but I can try and find relevant section for you. They are up to... My understanding is that if not all, the majority of them meet nationally described space standards. So I've asked this on several occasions, I think, in this planning committee, so that's not something that we can condition to bring them to, all of them to, the nationally described space standards. The development is applied for in full, so the dwelling houses are set out on the drawings that we've received. So we'd have to assess, or we'd have to make a decision based on the application as submitted. Our local plan refers to housing mix as opposed to size of properties, and that's something we might want to consider as part of the local plan review, but we consider the general mix of housing on this site to be in accordance with policy. My understanding is that all or the vast majority of these houses meet nationally described space standards regardless of that. So just to be clear, the majority, but not all. I need to find a relevant section of the report, I think, before coming back to you. I think you're referring to the director of housing comments, but I think it's covered somewhere in the officers' report. You might be actually setting application now. I remember right. Sorry, paragraph 2.3 of the officers' report. So all properties meet internal floor space standards set out in the nationally described space standards. Paragraph 2.3. That's different to what I'm reading on page 21. Is that right? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. No questions from any members. Okay, so I'm now going to ask Kerry France, our legal services manager, just to explain what the position is about, the number of questions that we can ask. Good afternoon, members. The chair did ask me about how many, was there a limit on how many questions a member can ask? And I did make reference that there was some reference to three questions and that I would look further into that. And upon reading part four of our rules of procedures, there is reference and the wording says that, At any one meeting, no person may submit more than three questions and no more than one question may be asked on behalf of one organization. So there is reference to three questions. But that does appear in section 14, which is specific reference to public participation. So members, you are welcome to ask as many questions as you require and that would have been communicated when I'd had a moment to sort of reread what the constitution says. Kerry, We now move on to the debate and before we start the debate, do I have a recommendation from a member? Can we listen to the debate first before we start with, I think I'm correct, we start with the recommendation. In that case, I'd like to move deferment. On the basis that there is insufficient evidence from the highway's authority and from the lead local flood authority and seven trend, they have taken into consideration the local issues on this site as presented in evidence by the residents who are here tonight and in representations provided and that we await the detailed understanding of the way in which the drainage system works and the sewage system off site can take what comes off this particular site in order to and a full evaluation of that from the lead local flood authority and similarly with the issues that have been addressed by residents associated with highways I'd like to move that as our position. Do you have a seconder for that? Can't. Any more comments on that or is anybody prepared to or I can then go to the vote? Did you want to make a comment Councillor Dabbs? That's a good point. If we're deferment, it's got to be relevant to deferment. Yes, I think we don't have enough information. I think the response from the lead local flood authority is almost a classic of its kind. It not only arrived late but it's almost completely generic. These are simply the rules that you have to follow when you dispose of surface water and it doesn't really help the situation. I noticed too and that was what I was getting at in my question that there's a repeated error which is always a bit worrying. It's actually from the drainage report and it's basically cut and pasted into 7.44, 16 liters per second. You can't increase to 6.5. What it means is by 6.5. So the total surface water that it will be attenuated to is some of those two which I can't do in my head. Yes, I can. 22.5 liters per second and this is worrying. This is important stuff. This is whether people's gardens get waterlogged or not and nobody's noticing this is worrying. Thank you, Chair. The slack. Thank you, Chair. We do need housing. We all realise that we desperately need housing. But some of this, I agree with the deferr really because with a lot of issues to address such as drainage, which is looking at the same as more. It just said tree lining these trees and they're getting more trees on the site plus the new crossing for the children. There's lots more to go into this to be added to this application and I'm not against it but it needs newing and doing properly and I don't think it's been doing properly. It's a lot more to go into this and need it. So I'm first support the deferral. Councillor Rachael, you should just think. Just a quick comment really. It's just like feeling a déjà vu. I think you've got a huge sympathy for our offices because I think they're doing everything correctly and interpreting all the rules and regulations correctly and we're being asked to follow them. However, we have very serious concerns again about the due diligence of the people we're supposed to be trusting to make these judgements and that not being consistent with what our own eyes and our resident's eyes are seeing on the ground, which puts us as committee members in a really difficult position because we on the one hand have to protect the interests of our residents. On the other hand, we have to respect the expertise of our offices and agencies such as the local flood agency. So with all that considered, while I do, I think support the idea of a deferment on that basis, I'm not entirely sure it's going to get us anywhere but I think it gives us an opportunity to try and get it somewhere so therefore I'll support it. Councillor BUTTL. I'm still worried about the sustainability really of this if we've got people busing their kids to a school in Ashbourne or doesn't. It just doesn't feel like it's a properly joined up application so I'd be very very pleased to see it brought back with a few more trees and a bit more of a plan. Thank you. Councillor BEATS. I've got to agree. I think there's so many unanswered questions here, flooding issues on the A52, constantly flooded by the rows and crown and this has only just happened since the new developments have been put in place. The infrastructure is broken. I think we're quite clear on that. Over the development of the village, I think Braelsford has had more than enough development in the village. HDVs, the traffic that's coming down this corner here is ridiculous and the speed that they're coming down. We noticed that yesterday. I think it needs to be addressed. I think the needs of speed limit right around the top corner of the north area, probably 30 miles an hour, even 20 miles an hour, because you've been around to a school. I just think we've had, Braelsford just had the brunt of this at the moment and I think this is just too much for it and that's just my opinion. Councillor interjecting. So it has been moved and seconded for deferral. Can I take a vote on that, please? All those in favour of a deferral? Councillor interjecting. Thank you. That would perch be unanimous. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Are you happy that we've got reasonable reasons to deferral? Councillor interjecting. Okay. Moving on then to application 5.2, which is 23-0-0-2-3, that's been withdrawn. 5.3, application 24-stroke 0-0-0-9-4-stroke 4, single-story rear extension at 5-4-u-ashbourne Derbyshire 4, clarification. This has been brought to committee because it is a member of our own staff who's put in this application. Right, it's a small rear extension. Not about this application now. No, we've finished that item. Okay, it's just a single-story rear extension. There's just a late rep about how much it measures because the agent or the applicant had to provide some clarity on the measurements in the scale. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Do we have any questions? No. Okay, we'll move to the debate. Do we have a recommendation, Councillor Bates? Okay, do we have a second of that? Councillor Dobs? Okay, anyone else wish to speak? Well, does anybody wish to speak on this one? So, I'll move to the vote then. It has been moved and seconded for approval. Can I have a show of hands, please? Those in favour? That appears to be unanimous. Thank you very much. Which is 23-stroke 0-1-2-8-4-4-4. Change of use of two agricultural buildings to commercial use, Class E-B-2 and B-8. Part retrospective at Longford Hall Farm, Long Lane, Longford Derbyshire. This is yours, Chris. It's Sarah's. Yeah. Thank you, Chair and the Committee for the opportunity to speak this evening. As detailed within the Office of Reports, full planning permission is sought for the change of use of two agricultural buildings to two commercial uses at Longford Hall Farm. The applicant has ran a Longford Hall Farm for many years due to the modernizing of modern farming methods and machinery the applicant needs to consolidate the farm activities within the remaining agricultural buildings at the site and also wishes to further find other income revenue streams in order to ensure the long-term viability of the farm. As it stands, one of the units is used for storage and the other is an empty cow shed. There are sufficient agriculture buildings on the farm to ensure that the storage needs are met and the farm can and will continue to operate. The proposal is for the next step in farm diversification schemes to form the renovation of the listed barn complex and to ensure the agricultural enterprise is more resilient to a changing market. Progress is being made in this regard for a successful completion and occupation of the first phase of commercial change of use units at the site. Forms have already been channeled into the repair of the Grade 2 Star Coach House and stable walk as well as the Grade 2 Star barn. This scheme will assist in further repairs and the maintenance of the coach house as well as the Grade 2 cow shed. This proposal is for the creation of up to four commercial units within the existing agricultural buildings which will no longer be required for the continued operation of the farm. There will be three within Building 1 and a single unit within Building 2. In order to fully enclose the building, minor alterations to Building 2 are also proposed. These will provide pest protection and an improved level of security. The buildings are utilitarian in character as is commonly in these forms. The proposed alterations to the agricultural buildings offer a neutral impact on the overall character of the area. Their conversion to commercial use will clearly be a benefit to the nearby listed buildings and therefore directly improving enhance the site's character. The change in modern farm methods also reduces the employment opportunities. The change of use of these buildings to a commercial use will provide additional employment opportunities within the local area. Therefore the resulting public benefits are considered to be two-fold. They will provide rural employment opportunities and preserve heritage assets for future generations. These proposals are therefore in accordance with local palm poles is EC1, PD2, and S4. There are some other points of which one clarity. The application site is accessed by a private road which currently serves the farm located off Long Lane. The local highway authority did not raise any objections to the application, subjective visibility improvements, and the implementation of passing places. The suggested conditions detailed in the office of committee report are considered to be acceptable and the applicant is agreeable to the proposed conditions. The comments raised in relation to Longford public footpath 3 are also acknowledged. The buildings in question currently obstruct the footpath, having been built a long time before the applicant took control of the farm. As detailed in the office's report, public right-of-way is a subject to highways legislation and therefore is not possible to attach a condition which can be enforced by a local palm authority. However, the applicant can and will seek to redirect this route to provide a walkable alternative. To conclude, the proposals will create opportunities for rural employment generation, the revenue from which will be used to restore the heritage assets that are located throughout Longford Hall farm. In regards to all these matters raised and when assessed against the policies of the local palm and the framework, it is considered the planning commission should be granted. I therefore invite you to follow the advice of the officer and approve the application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr High. Spot on for time. So thank you for that. Sarah, this is yours, please. I don't really want to repeat at all, but obviously it's a change of use. We have granted previously for other buildings on this site. It's acceptable in the countryside through farm diversification and in this particular circumstance, we are wanting to encourage the grade two listed buildings, some of which are grade two star that are currently on the building as a risk register to be repaired and obviously this will look to fund the repair works. I'll take any questions. Any questions, then, members? I think Councilor Bates, your hand was up first. Can I ask, what type of commercial unit we're looking at? Retail or is it industrial? No, it's B1, B2 and B8. So that's, B1 is generally something that is acceptable within, that wouldn't have, it's low level impact on residential amenity, for example. B2 is general industrial. So it's a flexible use between the two, B8 is storage and distribution. In terms of B1, B2, general industrial, if that were proposed and we had an occupy come in, we have conditioned some more things in terms of that to ensure that noise, et cetera, is being mitigated. Can I come back on that? The question was, for the amount of traffic coming down the lane, so that's fine. Councilor Boynton. Thank you, Chair. I don't have a problem with actual suggested change of use. But my question is, are we not condoning the blocking of a footpath by granting a plan of permission, a new planning permission, when the actual building itself is blocking the footpath, and therefore it's technically legal, isn't it? I'm just worried that there might be some comeback on us for that. Do you want to answer that, Sarah? Obviously, the building exists, it's already blocking the footpath and what we've said is that it's not within the remit of planning to prevent planning permission for that reason. It is something that it's a legal matter with the Highways Authority. All we can do is really, what we've done is add an informative to flag it, that it still remains an issue to be addressed. Councilor Slack. Mine was a similar question to Council, aren't you? Is it less than the path of being diverted or is it acceptable to be diverted where it does? I'm not aware it has been diverted now. So that is an issue. That's an ongoing issue. Yes. Any more questions from members? Yeah, I said I mentioned a B1 use that is no longer at the case, it's what's called an EUs class. And we haven't restricted anything, that's an open EUs class. So they could come in with that, B2 or B8 in these circumstances. Any more questions from members? Yeah, Councillor Nallstrom. Sorry, I'm confused about the use that it's been that we're permitting now. Are we permitting B1, B2 and B8 or are we permitting something else? The use class order had changed, so it's not a B1 use class, doesn't exist anymore. It became an EUs class. That's what I'm referring to. Just providing clarity on that. So an E commercial use classification includes a wide range of uses that you would expect to see or compatible with a local centre. So it could include shops, financial services and light industrial uses, office type uses. B2 is a general industrial use, and then you've got B8 storage and distribution use. So you've got a wide variety of uses within the commercial use class, then the general industrial B2 use and B8 storage and distribution use. So it covers an awful lot. Can I ask a follow-up question, Chair? Thank you. So does that mean if we allow this, that the application is effectively amended to an EUs class, which means they could use it for retail? I think the description of development does include the E. I've just had a quick look at description of the argument. It does say for use for e-commercial use and B2 and B8. So that would be the effects of all we've given permission for, and that would be reflected in the the description of development. So my concern is just that the consultation hasn't been done on the basis that this might turn into a retail facility. I think the description development from my understanding hasn't changed, so I think it's always been E, because at the time of submission, B1 use classification didn't exist. So I've always been advertised with its current description, which is class E and B2 and B8, from my understanding. Sarah, maybe I'll just provide some clarity there. Sorry, it does say it within the report B1, but obviously, it's class, that's what I'm saying. We do refer to B1, which is maybe where I've got it from, and that's what was in my speech, but that isn't correct. That's why I came back on it. The description of development is EUs class, and that is correct, and that's how it's been advertised. You're happy with that, Councillor Mldstrom? Yes, just as long as it's been put to consultation on the proper basis. Any more questions then? We'll move to the debate. It has been recommended for approval, subject to the conditions stated in the report. We'll have a recommendation, Councillor Slack. I'd move, which I am concerned about the football, and I do what we can get clarification on that shortly. I'm now going back and we question, Chris. Is your farmer willing to see the football fair? It is an offence to obstruct a public football. It depends on whether it's going to be dealt with on the Highway Act or the Planning Act, but it becomes an enforced matter that we'll have to do. You will be enforced. You're addressed, yes, I'll move it. Do I have a second? I think that was you, Councillor, aren't you, wish to speak? Yeah, just happy to second and do share the concern about the football. Hopefully I can get resolved, but broadly we want to help our farmers to be able to diversify and keep their businesses going and provide local employment for the economy, so therefore happy to support this in secondness. Do I have anybody else wishing to speak? No, Councillor Dodds. I'm just slightly worried about the contribution from the Scottish Candy Council on PROW right away, who make the point about the condition. They seem to suggest they want us to condition. Sarah, you're telling us that we can't condition, and they're saying that we must object if we can't condition. This seems to be a bit of a catch-22. From a planning perspective, it's whether officers feel that there is a remedy here through this submission of this application, and this application involves the change of use of the building, so the building itself is lawful, and the building that encroaches or is situated on top of the legal alignment of that public right-of-way, so I don't think the remedy is conditioning this application, because it doesn't relate specifically to the building, it relates to its use. That's why, as officers, we feel that this should be dealt with either through provisions of the Highway Act, or if it's related to an earlier planning application through the planning act, it's something we'll need to pursue separately. Thank you. In other words, their recommendation is actually technically incorrect for this circumstance. In my opinion, yes. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? No, in that case, then it has been moved and seconded for approval, subject to the condition stated in the report. Could we go to the vault, please, all those in favour? Against and abstentions. That's been carried with one abstention. Thank you. Item six, which is the appeals progress report on page 73. Chris, do you speak to that? There's one further update. I don't know if it's listed on that current table, but there's a tree appeal. We don't have many tree appeals. 65 line tree road, and that decision came through this week, and that appeal was dismissed. That's the only update on that. Should you make any comments? Councillor HU. Chair, just a question, Chris. There seems to be quite a lot of appeals. Is this extraordinary, or is it as a matter of course, do you think? It's a good question. As an authority, we refuse an awful lot of applications. We do really try, and we are really hard on design, and members hold applicants to account in a wide range of different matters. So, you do find it's an authority to refuse an awful lot of applications, but our appeal record is also very good. So, it indicates that the quality of decision making is high at doge-tales at this moment in time. Could I just ask, Chris, we seem to be waiting an awful long time for some of these appeals to be processed? Is the amount of time that we're waiting, is that normal? It very much depends on the appeal. A couple of months ago, the planning spectra road to local planning authorities to say that there was a four-month delay in registering new appeals. However, we had the lot two development land off Weister Road appeal, where the appeal was lodged, and very quickly we had a start letter and agreement to a public inquiry. So, it very much depends on the type of application and the circumstances surrounding the decision, I think, at this moment in time. Good question, Chris. There's a lot of tree applications, I've got a clear answer to that, but I've noticed in the applications very often, they add over trees, that's a random area. So, we need to retain good trees, don't we, really? You know, we don't want as much back to be an excuse for cleaning over trees. So, I think we've got to be diligent on the tree office, we've got to be diligent on that. Yes, we're very lucky, as a district council, to have a very competent tree officer, who, you know, is very proactive in terms of identifying issues, looking to secure replacement trees, and also protecting trees of higher meanity value across the district. We do issue a lot of new tree preservation orders. Yes, because we see in a lot of open spaces now, I can't wait. You know, it's distressing, really. Thank you. So, I'm happy to move this report. Can I have a seconder, please? Thank you, Councillor Hughes, I'm going to take. We'll go to the vote, all those in favour. Thank you. The Planning Commission, thank you all for coming. It's been a slightly difficult meeting, but I think we've achieved what we needed to achieve. So, thank you all, and thank you to work Harry and Angela for their help. And, of course, to Chris and Sarah, thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]