Transcript

Right, so good evening everyone and welcome to the planning committee of Telford and Reeking Council. No fire alarms are expected and in the case of a fire the exit can be found in the chamber. Toilets are situated outside of the chamber near the lifts. This evening's meeting is held in public to ensure that all those involved or interested in the planning applications and process can see and hear how the decisions are made. It is important that the speakers are able to present their information without interruption and that the council members of the committee are able to hear and consider the material presented. Only those people who have been notified are able to speak and I would ask everyone else to remain quiet and just to note that if there are any disruptions I will stop the meeting so that any disruption can be curtailed. I would remind everyone that council meetings can be photographed or recorded and ask all participants to recognise the importance of the planning process. Finally, please could I ask that everybody silence or turn off their mobile phones and a note for the members, when indicated to speak, please press the right-hand button once and the green light will appear. Once the red light is showing, please begin to speak. Okay, thank you. Right, agenda item one is apologies for absence. Chair, we have apologies from Councillor Janice Jones and Councillor John Thompson is substitute and Councillor Amrik Jouar and Councillor Stephen Handley is substitute. Thank you. Any declarations of interest? No? Okay, thank you. Any deferred, withdrawn applications? None, Chair. Thank you. Any site visits? None, Chair. Right. We can go straight on to agenda item five, which are planning applications for determination. So, it will be 5.1 TWC 2023 0673, Landoff Hadley Castle Works, Hadley Telford, Shropshire. Okay, can I ask the officers to present the application? Thank you. Is that working? It's got red. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. So, this application was previously deferred by members on the 4th of September, 2024. The application itself seeks full planning permission for the erection of five industrial units, which would fall into the B2, B8, and EG3 use classes. Ancillary office space and the installation and erection of associated parking, gate houses, cycle shelters, attenuation pond, landscaping, and all associated engineering works, and highway works on the land off Hadley Castle Road in Hadley. Members previously deferred the application in order to allow further consultation to be undertaken and to allow further information in respect of highways and noise impacts to be provided. The application is being determined by members of the committee at the request of Hadley and Lee Gomery Parish Council. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. As you can see, we're hearing numbers to oppose this application tonight. There have been over 500 objections to this particular plan. We oppose this plan due to its size, scale, traffic, noise, and pollution. It will destroy residents' peaceful lives. We're not opposed to development, investment, jobs, pollution. We want to make Telford a more attractive place to live. It is this application that we oppose. I want to take you back to the 4th of September. You instructed proper consultation could be made. Consultation with the public is the most important thing amongst many comments that you made. You voted to defer, and this happened. From the 13th of September, we had three Zoom meetings, with Eileen and myself facing eight people from planning agents and applicants. We requested to be accompanied by two residents who are subject matter experts in this field. This was denied. I asked that the public sessions be held to meet residents. This was flatly refused. Just because the law says you don't have to, doesn't mean that you can't. If it can be done with the Watkinshaw SUE and Dawley School, why not us? We feel the refusal to speak to the residents was insulting. The committee instructed us to undertake meaningful consultation. From the limited discussions we have been allowed, there has been no meaningful change to the plans. Unit 1 has been moved a mere 10 to 15 metres further from residences. This is a cynical ruse to suggest to you that the applicant has responded to local concerns. It will have no effect on the visibility of the building and will have no perceptible effect on noise. This change is meaningless. They have flatly refused to turn the unit around to put the 24-7 loading bays away from residences with no explanation. Now, I want you all to look into your mind's eyes. Think about the peace and quiet and good night's sleep you all enjoy. The model for traffic is for 1,800 HGVs a day, plus many more cars, vans and buses, which will serve the units 24-7. This will have a huge effect on Queensway and Hadley Park Road. As you know, already log jammed. The units are of a size and scale that will dominate the local area. In particular, Unit 1, next to Unit 3 and Headingham Road, and Unit 4, the rear of Parkdale, these will be around... Phil, your three minutes are up. Okay. Can you just wind up? Okay. Okay, then. And what we say is, do you feel, smell, and you've lost your good night's sleep? I'll finish on this point. I'll say to you all now, to councillors, planners, applicants, agents, would you want this in your back garden? Would your neighbours, your friends, your relatives, in your parishes, in your wards, would they allow you to put this in their back gardens, over their fences? We implore you, this is not safe for these rednesses. Okay, Phil. Please stop it. All right, thank you. Thank you. Can I ask for Councillor Eileen Killea, please? Thank you, Chair. I will cover a number of matters regarding this development and the reasons why we are asking you as a committee to reject the application. As a cooperative council, Telfin and Recon has built its reputation on being on the side of its residents. This development is not in line with our local plan regarding adverse impacts on nearby properties and prejudicing surrounding uses. But also, it's not in line with national planning policy around the need for effective engagement between applicants and communities, which, in spite of what's been said, has not happened, or that the decision should ensure that any new development is appropriate for the location, taking into account the likely effects of pollution on health and living conditions. And regarding things like land contamination, which have been done on paper exercises only, there's been no investigations done whatsoever. Telford and Recon Council are ambitious for our borough. Everyone wants jobs and investment that will elevate our place. Recently, we saw investment in the Quad, which is a transformational education and business facility right in the heart of Telford. And its purpose is to elevate careers, spark new careers, retain and upskill, develop local talent and secure great jobs. Will this development secure great jobs? Or will they be mainly low-paid, low-skilled jobs, which Telford has already got a 65% higher proportion of than the national average? So, companies already struggle to fill these lower-paid, low-skilled jobs. And lots of areas are coming in from surrounding areas like Wolverhampton to fill these types of positions at this time. ONS data shows that Telford is significantly underrepresented in the associate professional occupations, 47% below the national average. We need to be ambitious about the types of jobs that we are creating in our borough, so that we don't lose those new skills that are being created in the Quad. Our council vision to protect, care and invest in a better borough, it's on the wall over there. Every person lives well in their community. All neighbourhoods are a great place to live. And being a community-focused, innovative council. You are being asked to make a decision on things that are unknown. Who will be using these buildings? What will be the operating hours? We just don't know. What we do know about this development is that it's not the right development for this location. It would be brilliant next to a motorway, preventing traffic issues like those in my ward of Trenchlock, and along places like Hadley Park Road, which already struggle really terribly. And we know for a fact that these areas will be adversely affected by traffic. This decision will set a precedent for all future applications of this nature. And you will be opening the door to an application similar to this in your ward. Eileen, time's up, all right? Can I finish? Just my last one. If you approve this, you are risking putting your name to one of the worst decisions in Telfan Reakin history. Look around the room. Each of these people is asking you to protect and care for them. So please do the right thing and refuse this application. Thank you. I am a 25-year resident of the area threatened by this development and speak on behalf of the vast majority of residents. We are entirely supportive of investment in our community, genuine job creation and sustainable economic growth. However, there must be in partnership with the community and respectful to the local area and never at the expense of either. Redevelopment of the former Sankey buildings was always going to happen. However, this application is much more than that. It is a huge, in every sense, invasion on the green space buffer that has protected the residents and the local amenity from industrial noise and disturbance for decades. Furthermore, it introduces high-volume HDV traffic on an unprecedented basis, tens of meters from people's homes operating all day, every day. A relentless barrage of visual and noise disturbance that will significantly affect hundreds of people destroying their sanctuary and peaceful enjoyment of their homes. A peace that is so important it is protected by the Human Rights Act, statutory nuisance law and local plan policy BE1. Nobody anywhere should be forced to live with this 24-7 on their doorstep, as backed by the planning inspectorate's appeal decision on the similar Blakelands development in Milton Keynes. Post-build noise mitigation mechanisms were proposed by that applicant, under condition. However, the planning inspector was clear, and I quote, not satisfied that it is possible to draft such a mechanism with sufficient precision to comply with the statutory tests. There are only two effective means to control noise. Significant distance from the residents, which this plan doesn't have. Significant limits in operating hours that the applicant states is unworkable. It is not possible to mitigate around a poor plan. This is a very poor plan. This committee previously called for the voices of the residents to be heard, their fears to be addressed. Despite repeated petitioning for direct consultation, this has not happened. The applicant's cynical and minimal alterations to the plans will have no effect on noise or visual dominance. The applicant is asking the members of this committee to put your political and this council's reputations behind a speculative application, based on assumptions and unsubstantiated claims. You are being asked to state to every resident that you are satisfied with the evidence that this will not disrupt our homes. There is no evidence. The applicant has completely failed to demonstrate no significant impact on residents. To summarise, this abhorrent, profit-centric, monstrous invasion on the skyline, the peace and the local amenity for hundreds of residents cannot be accepted. We respectfully request this committee upholds the council's high standards of community and amenity protection. Thank you, Mr. Clark. We refuse this application. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask for Mr. Samuel Clark, the applicant? Thank you. Thank you to the members and the committee chair for the opportunity to speak. This application was previously heard at planning committee in September, where it was deferred to allow for further engagement with the public and for further information in relation to noise, particularly noise and highways, impacts to be submitted. Since September, we've met with Councillor Millwood, Councillor Offland and more recently Councillor Calliart on three separate occasions with the case officer to discuss the application. During these meetings, we've listened to concerns and provided more information, including additional noise technical notes, additional highways technical notes, various viewpoints from CGI's from residential areas, and amended plans for Unit 1, which have been submitted as part of this revised application. We've also volunteered conditions to be attached to the plan and consent over and above what would be normally offered. This includes committing to a community liaison group, which will provide residents with a direct channel of communication between us as developer and future occupiers of the unit. This was something Councillor Gemma-Roughlin in particular was supportive of, having had positive experience of this working elsewhere in the borough. In terms of noise, our noise consultant has confirmed that the assessment undertaken has reviewed the worst case scenario. There would be a condition attached to the consent which requires each individual unit to submit a noise assessment prior to its occupation based on their proposed use, which will need to meet the parameters of overriding noise assessment, which Telford's environmental health officer has found to be acceptable. This will also include details relating to hours of operation. Both Telford's highways team and National Highways remain supportive of the planning application, which has been assessed on a worst case scenario. It is very likely the number of HDV units and car movements will be less than the scenario, and we have worked with the planning officers extensively on this aspect to provide alternative parking layouts based on the potential end users. A travel plan condition will be added to the planning permission for each unit, which is standard for a development of this scale, and which would be agreed with the local planning authority to shape elements such as shift pass-ins for workers, which would take into account and avoid peak times on the surrounding highway network. The site was allocated as a strategic employment site prior to Telford adopting their local plan in 2017, and consultation was undertaken by Telford and Recon Council at that time over the proposed land use. As a case officer has set out in her committee report, this planning application has been subject to four separate rounds of consultation, and we have engaged the local councillors and parish council over the last three months to respond to concerns and offer solutions where appropriate. As the government has now removed the ability to withdraw a planning application and have one free go at resubmitting, we are unable to resubmit planning applications for individual units due to the significant costs this would incur, and also time delay. We want to reiterate that this scheme is deliverable and will provide significant economic benefits to Telford, including skilled jobs for local people. We already have interest from local businesses looking to relocate their premises to Hadley Park, but without a planning consent secured, we can't confirm the end users. Okay. All right, Mr. Clarke, if you can sort of... Sorry, yeah. The Section 106 agreement will also secure significant financial contributions towards the bus stop, strategic network contributions, travel plan monitoring, heritage and biodiversity net gain. If this application is granted, MRE will have investment ready to bring this application forward. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Right. Can I open it up to the planning officers, please? Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Following the previous planning committee, the local planning authority have hosted three meetings with the developers, Councillor Phil Millwood of Hadley and Legomery Parish Council and Councillors Gemma Offland and Eileen Kavir as ward members, acting on behalf of their residents. The first two of these meetings allowed the proposal to be discussed with the parish council and ward member and afforded the opportunity to relay the concerns of residents. The third meeting focused on the draft list of conditions for the proposal such that the parish council and ward member could have an understanding of what information would be required to be submitted pursuant to these. Following the first meeting, the applicant submitted a number of amended plans and additional pieces of information in order to mitigate the concerns raised. These amendments included a reduction in floor area to unit one, noting that this has been reduced from 330,000 square feet to 300,000 square feet, an almost 10% reduction. The reduction in floor area has allowed an increase to the distance separations between this unit and the properties to the north. Minor amendments to the proposed elevations, overall site layout, have also been carried out and additional landscaping has also been incorporated around Turnip and Hadley locks. The submission of this information has triggered a re-consultation exercise whereby all adjoining properties and those who had previously commented on the proposal were notified. This is the fourth round of public consultation which was undertaken on the site. The objections received in response to this consultation exercise are outlined within paragraph 1.8 of the report to committee and within paragraph 2.1 of the further written update circulated. Officers can confirm that further objections have been received since the preparation of this update. However, officers are satisfied that the points raised within these responses are covered within the previous reports. In light of the four rounds of public consultation, advertisement of the application within the press and via a display of a site notice, officers are satisfied that the legal requirements outlined within Article 15 of the Development Management Procedure 2015 have been met in full. As members may recall, the site is considered to be located within a highly sustainable location and is located within the strategic employment area of Hadley Park. Policy SP1 of the Local Plan outlines that industrial uses such as those being proposed as part of this application are directed towards these designated areas. As such, officers raise no objection to the principle of development. In regard to scale and design, officers remain satisfied that the proposal can easily be accommodated on the site without appearing as a cramped form of development. In regards to the individual units, it is acknowledged that these will be large in form and height. However, officers would stress that these scale of buildings are to be expected within a designated strategic employment area and have been adequately justified by the applicant. It is highlighted that officers have recently approved an application on the BAE system site, which is 16 metres in height and is located to the west of Unit 3 and has been constructed in full. In respect of the occupancy of the buildings, the applicant is applying for a blanket of B2, B8 and EG3 uses, as the end occupiers have not been legally agreed. In light of this, it remains that officers have included conditions which require the applicant to submit details of the proposed occupiers. The use class they intend to operate under, a business model showing how they will operate from the site, parking levels to be provided for the unit, proposed shift patterns, and proposed working hours prior to occupation. Furthermore, prior to any unit being occupied, a noise report will need to be submitted to identify whether any further mitigation works are required to mitigate against noise pollution. In respect of the impact the proposal would have on the amenity of surrounding residential properties, the distance separations have been confirmed within paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7 of the current committee report. It remains that due to distance separations present, existing and proposed landscaping, appropriate scale and design, and the submitted shading assessments, which have demonstrated limited shading, that the proposal would not have a significantly detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbours. The applicant has also submitted a number of viewpoints since the previous committee, which demonstrates this point further. Excuse me, excuse me, can I hear the officers say their bit about this particular application, and I don't want any further interruption. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, Jeff. The council's built heritage specialist has objected to the proposal in respect of the impact that it would have upon the listed turnip and Hadley locks. However, it has been confirmed that this harm would be on the less than substantial scale. Officers have secured improvement works to the locks as part of the current application, which include the desilting and repointing of the locks, installation of viewing platforms, and the installation of interpretation boards. When weighing the public benefits that the scheme would secure, along with the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, such as the installation of significant landscaping funds around the locks, officers considered that the benefit of the proposal would outweigh the less than substantial harm caused by the proposal. There have been no technical objections from the council's highways, drainage, and ecology teams. Section 106 contributions have been requested in relation to highways and travel plan monitoring, and it has since been confirmed since the last committee meeting that the council's strategic transport team are currently undertaking modelling work and preparing preliminary drawings for improvements to the surrounding highway corridor, including Hadley Park Roundabout, which are due to be completed in approximately March 2025. These works will take account of any increased demand, which arises from this proposal, and will seek to improve the capacity of the highway network. The requested Section 106 contribution in respect of the strategic highway network will be used to fund these works. Biodiversity net gain does not apply to the current application, as this was submitted before the mandatory 10% gain was brought into legislation. The applicants are proposing off-site mitigation in respect of reaching neutral BNG loss in compliance with policy NE1, due to the number of units required to offset the proposal. On balance, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with national and local planning policy, and the recommendation remains as per the committee report. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. Can I now open it up to the members? Councillor Peter Scott, thank you. Thank you, Chair. It's a very difficult one for us, this, purely because we can see that there's a lot of people that don't wish this to go forward. Yet we sit here, and we are bound by material planning conditions. We have to apply, and also the legal requirements of this. Emotionally, we can't get involved. This is very, very difficult, because I can really see both sides on this. A couple of questions, though, really, to Mark, if I may. First of all, the, I think it's, I mean, one of the difficulties we've got is the fact that we don't know the end users, in which case we don't know what we're talking about. When we talk about noise, there may not even be any. It's very difficult for us. However, the 24-7 loading bays, in, I think it's Unit 1, people here feel they should be turned even further. Why is that not possible? And the other thing is, I was the one who asked for a deferment, because I felt at the time there's not been enough discussion with residents. Do you feel that there has been sufficient discussion with residents? I can see here, in the plan itself, in the application, that there have been changes, and they appear to be good changes. When I mentioned, I'm hearing the opposite. So it leaves me in a position where I'm not sure where I'm going with this. So I could do with knowing, first of all, if you, if you feel there's been enough sufficient discussion since September, and if you could just help us out on this loading bay issue, please. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Scott. In terms of the, the public consultation, yes, I am, I am satisfied that, that sufficient consultation has taken place. Certainly, in, in, in respect of, the applicant has been, has attended all of those meetings. The applicant is clear in terms of, what needs to come forward on the site for it to be, kind of, a viable scheme. Having taken on board the comments that were raised, in particular, within the first meeting, whilst it's been noted that, by, I think, a number of speakers, the 10% reduction in the size of unit one is, is almost a, a kind of, meaningless gesture. It, it is 30,000 square feet. It is just under a 10% reduction in the, in the size of the building. I would consider that to be quite meaningful and significant. Um, but you kind of, you, you, you, you could have an endless, kind of, um, number of public engagement meetings, but it gets to the point where they don't serve that, um, a meaningful purpose. The applicant has made it clear that what's in front of us now, what has been submitted, that they are keen for a decision to be made on that. That is, that is, as far as they are, um, kind of, prepared to go in terms of the application to, to meet their business needs. So, any further engagement with the, um, kind of, resident parish council, ward councillor after that, I, I can't see that it would, uh, result in meaningful change to, to the application. Uh, what we did have in terms of the, the third meeting with the parish council and the ward council was to run through conditions once we'd kind of got to that kind of final position of the applicant, just to involve them in so far as the meaning behind those conditions, how those conditions were set to kind of allay a number of the concerns raised by the ward councillor, the parish council, and local residents. So, I am satisfied that sufficient consultation has gone, has gone in order for us to kind of make a decision, um, on the application. In respect of the, the other point that you, you made, Council Scott, which was, I think, regarding the, um, orientation of the building of unit one, that was discussed and that has been discussed with the applicant, um, following the, the previous committee. Um, in terms of the, um, the, um, the, as a result of the reduction of the building unit one by 30,000 square feet, that has resulted in an increase in the separation distance between the closest part of the, um, of the, of the building and properties to the north. Um, that now stands at almost a hundred metre separation between the building. That, it's 98.9 metres, I think we get it as the closest, oh no, so 114, sorry, 114.5 metres. That is significant and it is also with the, um, the landscaping buffer, uh, between those properties, um, on the Silicon Way as well. Um, and I think to the, um, to the west, you've also, on the other side, kind of, of the watercourse, you've got a separation of 103 metres, but that is also, um, separated by significant landscaping for which members who visited the site back in September would have seen for themselves, which on the other side of the watercourse is proposed to be retained in full. Um, so in terms of, um, if you were to actually rotate that building, um, in order to fit it on the site, it's likely that that separation distance, um, between the closest part and those residential properties would actually reduce, so it would have a greater visual impact. Thank you. Thank you. No, that's good. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Um, can I ask for Thomas Jank, please? Thank you, Chair. Um, first of all, I just want to say, um, um, this plan application's obviously got a great amount of detail in there, and I just want to thank the officers for all the detail, going back and forth, this can't be easy, very emotionally heightened application as it is. Um, I do have concerns that have been echoed around from speakers and councillors with regards to noise, um, and how reserve planning, um, it's difficult for a, a, a, a committee member to know reserve planning as opposed to, um, outline planning whether or not we're offering a blank check into some which we don't know what's going into these units. Uh, on a case-by-case basis, uh, and I can understand the concerns behind that, um, we don't know, so it's difficult to say whether or not it's to the benefit of the local residents to live nearby, um, specifically speaking. Um, and, um, potentially detrimental developments going in, um, because we just don't, simply don't know, um, and so that's a, that's a concern I have, really. Um, I think the technicalities that have been raised have been pretty well covered off, uh, significant S106 money coming in to deal with a lot of those issues. But, noise is, is, is a complaint I'm hearing, uh, you know, from members of the public and, and, and through, uh, members on this committee. I just want to know how we can, you know, ensure what's actually going into these units isn't going to be of a detrimental impact to residential immunity when we simply just don't know at this point what is exactly going into those units. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Um, yep, want to reply? Ah, yeah. Um, again, thank you for your comment. Um, in terms of noise, yes, I agree in terms of the spectrum, we can't have those exact details, it's just not there. Um, so what the council, what we've done, um, is try to, um, word an appropriate condition, which, um, I, I'm happy to read the condition out, um, to members. This is only kind of a draft wording of the condition, um, just for, for members to be aware of. So, uh, prior to the occupation of any individual unit on the site, including subsequent occupiers, a noise assessment, which considers the operations of the proposed tenant for the unit, shall be submitted to and approved, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any mitigation measures recommended within the submitted noise assessment shall be carried out in full, prior to the first occupation of any individual unit, and that, and retained in perpetuity. So that's, that's what we're kind of proposing, but we're also going further than that, um, is the applicant has agreed to undertake, um, an additional pair of, um, noise surveys, um, prior to, um, the, well, within, once they've been occupied, uh, to ensure that kind of compliance with those details as well. So, again, this is where we're kind of looking at how we can, maybe, how we've gone above and beyond, maybe, from what we ordinarily would. Sure. Thank you. And, in terms of the wording of that condition as well, that has been agreed by, uh, by the applicant. Brilliant. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Uh, can I just, uh, don't bring up a place? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Uh, yeah, so, I mean, a lot of work has been done on this, which is very, very good. There are, there are a few concerns that I still have. I mean, just, uh, following on from, uh, what Councillor Yank has just said, uh, as the end user has not been identified for any of the units, well, then noise and impact assessments are really a bit of a finger in the air job. Uh, uh, they're all pure guesswork. And, uh, because nobody even knows the, the hours of operation and, uh, you know, take the point about the, uh, the wording of the, uh, of the condition. But it is a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted, really, because... Because once, once the, uh, uh, the tenant or, uh, is it, is actually in the building, well, then really you're just trying to get around it to make sure that the tenant stays there. So it, it will be too late by then. Uh, I mean, as far as the, the highways impact for those of us that do use, uh, the highways in that area, we all know that it's, uh, complete nightmare at peak times. And, uh, we're told... We are told that, uh, improvements are due to be completed in March, 2025. So I'd be interested to know what, what improvements are currently being made on there, because I'm not, I don't remember seeing anything. Uh, we know that money isn't, isn't, uh, a problem because, uh, without the highways contribution from this application, uh, the council already holds about half a million pounds for strategic highways improvements in this particular area. So really there's no excuse for the, the work should have been done before we get to considering an application. Uh, in, in the updated report we're told that the original application report was inaccurate. Well, how do we know that this one's accurate? Because I thought... I am a bit concerned because when the first detail of this particular planning meeting was put actually on the website, there was a picture of an indicative view of building one, and I think it was from Yew Tree Meadow, but I'm not 100% on that. And when I came to look at it again later this week, that picture had been taken down, and I was quite concerned about that. Unfortunately, I couldn't print off a copy of it at the time, but I remember thinking, I'm going to have to print that one up, but it is actually missing from that, and that had a picture of the corner of building one above the bushes between building one and whichever road it was. It could have been Yew Tree Meadow, I'm not 100% on that, but I am 100% certain. There was a photograph there, and that is definitely not in the pack today. I mean, with building one being at 70 foot high, it would have been probably better for residents, or more acceptable for residents, if the height had been reduced by 10%, not the actual footprint. Now then, I do think that due to the significant impact of this development, I mean, usually, you know, sort of industrial buildings in an industrial area, I'm usually not too bothered about, but obviously, you know, it is going to have a significant impact, not only on residents, but everybody who uses the highways around there, and the surrounding infrastructure. And really, I'm a bit surprised that this is a full planning application. It should really be an outline one, so that when we actually do know who are going to be the tenants, are they going to be a 24-7 distribution hub? Is it going to have refrigeration units running all the time? You know, we just don't know. And this application, if it's passed as a full planning application, we won't have any input into that again. So... APPLAUSE So if it could be changed to an outline application, I'd be far more likely to support it. But at the moment, I'm still to be persuaded that that would be the best course of action. Thank you, Chair. APPLAUSE Do you want to come in to... Yeah? If I could, yeah. Yeah. If I could, yeah, thank you. Just picking up on the point regarding the highways matters, I don't... No, I don't want to sit here and tell everybody in this room that there aren't issues along that route at the moment. There is. It's obvious. That whole route, though, between Trenchlock Interchange, or the up to the Leagonby Roundabout, at the moment, is the first phase of what is known as the Northern Arc Route Study. And there has been an incredible amount of modelling work that has been going on recently. I have sat in some of those meetings, even though it is looked after by a different team to me. And I can tell you that there's a significant amount of progress that's been made on the capacity improvements that route along there. Councillor Doug Moore made reference to the March next year date. That is the date for when we're expecting to have the detailed design drawings ready for this. So that's what's being worked towards at the moment. I'm not aware of any scheme delivery or any parts of the scheme delivery before that date. And if the wording is a little bit possibly ambiguous in the report, then that isn't quite right. But my understanding is that in the report, it hasn't pointed towards that there's going to be scheme delivery by March 2025. Yeah, sorry, Chair. 2.7, it does say that they, which are due to be completed in approximately March 2025. Yeah, I think that's the design to be completed. Oh, right, I didn't say that. Yeah, right. So, sorry. So that's the design to be completed by then. But I would like to say to the officer, I'm still good on me promise that if I do ever win the Euro Millions, I'll give you the bloody money to make. We have talked about that. Councillor Dogma and myself have talked about that on many occasions before, and I will take you up on your offer. So you reference other money as well that's been secured for that route of half a million pounds. There's also lots and lots of other money that's been secured for that route as well. So this development is an additional amount to that, and I understand from a strategic transport team that we are at the point of looking to deliver a full scheme through there, possibly within the next two years. If I can give a little bit more detail to that as well in terms of what the current situation is, and obviously if you live around that area and the people that are here tonight as well, we'll know that the problems around that roundabout and that part of the network predominantly occur due to a bottleneck, a backup through to Ligonby roundabout, and that is what is specifically being looked at in terms of where the road can be jewelled, where there can be junction improvements, dare I say, signalised in places. But the whole length we looked at what's under called a UTMC, an Urban Traffic Management Control Scheme, where we look at the transit of vehicles from one end of the network to the other for that section to ensure that the movement of vehicles is maximised. So things are happening. I can confirm that. Thank you. To clarify about some of the other issues, in terms of the inaccuracies within the previous report, they were updated at the committee itself, and it was predominantly regarding the separation distances from the residential properties, and the amended figures are actually significantly greater than what was originally reported in the report, so significant betterment. In respect of the visuals on the website, you referenced the visual particularly from the north of Unit 1. That does remain on the site, on the Council's website. It is labelled as from Maple, which is the road further along. So in terms of... It is still available on the website as of a few moments ago when we checked. Thank you. Yeah, no, it definitely wasn't that picture, because the picture that was originally on there had the corner bit. You could see that above the trees. In terms of everything that we've had has gone on the website. We haven't removed anything from the website at all. We'll have to disagree on that. Right, Councillor Arnold England, please. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Councillor Doug Moore has made some excellent points, which has prompted me to comment. First of all, I'd like to say that we need to acknowledge that the residents are opposed to this planning application. I've heard comments and read the reports. The night-time noise, what I'm picking up is we don't really know. The excess traffic that will be caused by this, there may be possible improvements in the next few years. The loss of environment is happening. And the visual intrusion, again, that's been debated and discussed just now. And that will affect residents and the value of their property. So a lot of the comments and information is vague, futuristic, on balance. I did like the idea of outline planning permission. I don't know if it's possible to revert to that. But on balance, I find this very, very difficult to accept. Thank you. Do you want to come in there, Mark? In terms of the outline planning permission, I think was the kind of new issue raised there. What's before members today is a full planning application. So that is what has been sought from the applicants for this committee to make a decision regarding. In terms of any alternative application for an outline, that would require a whole new application, a new fee, new engagement, and a subsequent reserve matters at a later stage. But what is in front of us for which we have to make a decision is full planning permission. Thank you. Councillor John Thompson, please. In a few weeks... In a few weeks' time, in a few weeks' time, we'll all be receiving Christmas presents. We don't know what's inside. We don't know what the height is. That's very similar to this application. I'm all in favour of extra employment. You know, people are desperate for jobs these days. I'm also concerned of the amount of extra traffic on trench lock. Trench lock is really, really dangerous at times, creating problems onto the trench road, which isn't built in the 1900s and can't cope. The complete area needs to be looked into and improvements. It's all right to say the road's going to be improved in the future, but it needs to be done now. And also, not everybody has the privilege of a car. We need better areas for walking, and it's pleasing that now there is a bus service, but all this needs to be looked into before we can say a positive note for the application. Thank you. APPLAUSE Right, thank you. Are there any other questions, comments from the committee? OK. No? Right. If that's the case, I can put the recommendation to the vote. So... It needs to be seconded. Oh, it's seconded, yeah. So I'll... Can we have a proposer for the recommendation to grant full planning permission to grant full planning permission on this particular application? OK. OK. Nobody? OK. OK. Seconder? Oh, I'll second it then. OK. Right. Can we... those that are for the recommendation to grant full planning permission, including the conditions, legal agreement terms, and any variations subject to Section 106 agreements? Can I put your hand up for... those that are against? OK. Those that are against? Right. Abstentions? In that case, it's... it's carried that... So... There we go. Excuse me. Right. OK. As... As the... Anyway, that to end the meeting. OK. Thank you, everybody, for turning up. OK. Cheers. Thank you.