View the agenda and reports at https://democracy.derbyshiredales.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=144&MId=847
First welcome everyone to tonight’s planning committee meeting I know some have been before but uh 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 uh on my left we’ve got um Helen
Mitchell director of corporate customer services we have the council’s legal Beetle uh Carrie France who is the uh solicitor and then to my right councelor Sue berford who is the vice chair of planning and then we have Chris Whitmore director uh of planning and sorry sorry sorry development uh manager
And Sarah um AR what’s your official title sir senior planning officer oh [Laughter] dear was a selection of the nominated elected members of the planning committee so we will uh start first of all by recording apologies for absence please are there any apologies Burton sorry sorry I’ll give you the apologies
S you thank you we’ve had apologies from councelor Lee substitute councelor Bates apologies from councelor O’Brien and councelor Whitehead thank you are there any further apologies no right thank you so we move now to the approval of minutes of the previous uh meeting on the agenda
They’re Pages 9 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 uh for myself was uh in
Terms of the chair on that night it was councelor O’Brien do we not normally record who who actually so perhaps that could be inserted it yeah so um Pages 9 to 12 would any member at this point kindly move that uh those minutes back accepted thank you
Councelor Murphy does that find a second of counselor slack all those in favor 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 uh agenda uh public participation we have a number of uh people
Tonight um can I just ask Angela is this the pertaining list that right thank right thank you so the first person I’m going to call upon to uh speak to the planning committee is Mr Luke Harwood on behalf of the acorn Meadows residents group and you’re to speak against the
Application uh for the 33 dwelling houses vehicle access public open space drainage landscaping and Associated Works land south of merkon lane and uh east of loot Lane brailsford and um uh Luke you’ve got three minutes so due to time constraints this statement will be delivered in three
Parts so ladies and gentlemen members of the committee my name is Luke Harwood and I Ser as head of digital service Services UK and Island for haab 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 vill villagers distinctive character its verdant Fields diverse Wildlife qu 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 than anticipated as we settled into our new envir we discovered that recent developments in the village including the very one we now reside in have taken a toll on the once beautiful all Haven so otherwise unless otherwise stated all quotes and excerpts are taken
From sources available to the public on the darish adel’s 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 darish dales Sarah dines dated the 4th of March
24 what I must reiterate is what I on record 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 an 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 AO Med development with several listings having been relisted 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 southern part of the
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 as 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 entirity of the land is now considered 100% developable developable raising concerns about the consistency and the justification F this change in assessment and that is the end of my section thank you thank you very much Luke the uh next speaker is John Bridges
Please again on behalf of the acorn Meadows residence group and in uh John you’re to speak against the application and John you’ve got three minutes ladies gentlemen members of the committee my name is Jonathan Bridges I am a Greenkeeper at brailsford golf course and a resident of aor 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 highways 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 mandated that no individual dwelling in the development could be occupied until such cycling facilities were in place with the storage area maintained for this purpose thereafter the failure to comply with the stipulation is notably evident in the DCC highways report dated the
27th of 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 roads The Village faces a critical
Transportation challenge with only two access routes firstly the A52 a major fer carrying substantial commuter traffic and heavy Goods vehicles traversed through the Village Center 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 M to discuss this matter it was declined on safety grounds the second route luk 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 a daily influx of htvs and articulated lores the situation is compounded by hazardous parking near the school during Peak morning and afternoon School room periods creating a further challenge for the already congested luk Lane proposed development worsens existing traffic issues necessitation in
Careful consideration of the broader impact on The Village’s Transportation infrastructure flooding the recent Surge and developments within brawood has 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 necess the ABS sense 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 acor Meadows development residents experience frequent flooding impacting both communal green areas and private spaces this recurring issue underscores the need for further consideration of the potential impact before approving further developments in brailsford that concludes my thank you very much John
Next speaker is Mr Steven Price please again on behalf of The acor 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 acor 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 would 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 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 homes situated opposite the
School did not provide any section 106 funds for brailford 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 um as residents of AO 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 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 uh 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 AA 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 Steven for your contribution so we turn now to Jillian Woodhouse Pleasers uh braford and enderson Parish Council uh to speak against the
Application and I think we met you yesterday on the site was it J yes good evening chairman good evening members of the planning committee ladies and gentlemen as a parish counselor and a resident of AO 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 ashborne 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
Keystage one places and four keystage 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 increased significant flooding on over
The A52 due to the outdated pipe work and drains more development means less land to AB absorb the water if this development takes place the effect on the residents of Blackthorn 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 in 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 2023 there was a near fatal incident 30 yards from this Junction involving a
Two-ton container Lorry and a speeding car narrowly missing a head-on collision there is still no pedestrian Crossing from Sycamore way to the school in the proposed development M 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 Center 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 landcape assessment conclusions and that 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 jilan I have to interject now sorry your time is up
Thank you for listening yep thank you thank you very much finally invite the applicants agent Mr Stuart Wells please to address the committee does he have five and Stuart you’ve got five minutes okay thank you chair uh and good evening members my name is Stuart Wells the agents for Cameron homes this
Application seeks the delivery of 33 new homes as a logical extension and second phase to the existing acor Meadows development of luk Lane which as you know has already been Del delivered by Cameron 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 in the same year the
Council’s latest strategic housing land availability assessment otherwise known as the schah 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 reestablished and planting increase to the eastern boundary therefore the proposed development before you is designed with a chamford land landscape edge reestablishment of tree belts and increased planting along the eastern and Northern boundaries as part of the schar 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 Blackthorn close the schar 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 references made to the previous application which covered both this site and acor Meadows and planning officers planning officers 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 scha the recommendations by the local plan working group and the fact that the council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land Supply as per National planning policy the presumption in favor of sustainable
Development therefore applies meaning that the application should 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 officers have
Also found that the 33 dwellings on this site is an acceptable level of growth having regard to the nature of braford and its services and Facilities this is a sustainable Village and this this site represents the most logical extension of brailsford 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 of 33 dwellings on this site will also help to relieve the
Pressure to develop on other unsuitable sites in the village the office’s recommendation to approve is subject to no objection from darbishire 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’ll be no surface water flooding on site or elsewhere there are 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 hedge row Cameron are also committed to £ 138,000 contribution to
Additional places at bwood primary school as well as affordable housing and a contribution towards improvements to play areas in brailsford 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 browfood 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 uh Chris perhaps
First of all you’ll uh outline the application for members and then after Chris has uh spoken to us then it will be open uh for questions thank you chair um first of all i’ just like to draw members attention to the late representations that have been received in respect of
This this item U members will note the officer recommendation is one of um approval subject to Authority delegated to either development manager or principal planning officer um to Grant planning permission subject to receipt of no objections from both darish Wildlife trust and the lead local flood
Authority um there are a number of um late items of of representation that have been received um within those representations are comments from both darish Wildlife trust and the lead local flood Authority um addressing the first item we’ve had comments from darish Wildlife trust they had raised some concerns
About potential double counting um and one of the speakers um that has addressed members this evening has mentioned that particular issue also um that has been clarified in the officer’s response to that that section where revised assessment of overall net gain um for the site has been undertaken and
That demonstrates that um an 8.54 per gain in habitat biodiversity will be delivered and a 23.5% gain in hedro units um the second item of late representation relates to the comments from the lead local flood Authority following um clarification on how the Greenfield calculations had been
Um reached for the which have fed into the land drainage proposals for this site the lead local flood Authority are happy that um the assessment is is robust um and that the system is satisfactory from their perspective so as to not cause flooding on site or in
The the local area um the proposals include provision for um climate change and urban creep and um the attenuation Bas on site will be enlarged to accommodate additional surface flows from from from this development um you’ll know that they’ve recommended a number of conditions and um 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 darbishire Wildlife trust which are detailed in the the late representation sheet we’ve then received comments from
Um three local residents that members will need to read and and have regard to and also um a letter an open letter from Sarah D MP which members may just want a brief moment just just to read in full we’ll take a few moments then members to do that please e e
Yeah that’s fine I’m going to invite Chris now to carry on with his presentation please okay so planning permission is sought this evening for um the erection of 33 dwellings on on this particular site the site extends to 1.77 hectares in area members had the benefit yesterday of
Visiting the site to um consider the impact of the development on on the local environment I think it’s worth at this point just setting out the the policy context members um will note and officers realize this site currently sits out of the outside of the village envelope or the defined settlement
Framework boundary in the adopted darish Dale’s local plan um in the address by some of the speakers um to members this evening reference has been made to um a strategic housing land availability assessment that was conducted in 2016 and that did consider um the existing acor Meadows um development and
Also land to the north which fors part of of this application at that time um development on lanter North was considered to be encroaching and and harmful in in landscape terms and um that part of the the application was emitted from um an application that had been submitted to darish Dale’s District
Council around that time for those reasons at this moment in time the council cannot demonstrate a 5year housing land Supply and what that means is that we we have um National policy which is very much geared towards housing delivery and what it states is that in circumstances where councils
Cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land Supply there’s essentially a tilt of balance in favor of development unless the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly IND demonstrably outweigh the benefits so the starting point here is a tilt of balance in favor of of development our own local plan includes Provisions um
For in circumstances where we can’t demonstrate 5year housing land L what that says is that the council um will consider sites on the edge of um more sustainable settlements so having regards to the the hierarchy the settlement hierarchy within our local plan the preferences for delivery of of
New development in Market towns so the most sustainable settlements in our district we’ve got three Market towns we’ve then got Dar which is a large service center and then we’ve got um larger villages with brailford being one of those Villages and is a teal tier three settlement in our a local plan so
There is provision in the local plan for um which allows for developments on the edge of tiers one to three settlements and braford is a tier three settlement in this case so we have to assess the application in in that context um as part of the local plan review this site
Was identified as being available for development and um as the last speaker correctly mentioned this site was deemed developable as part of that that process um we assessed a number of criteria with landscape being one of those criterias and it was assessed as being well it was
Given an Amber an Amber score in respective landscape so it’s recognized that there is a ridge line that crosses this site and the existing development as you approach bford from the northern from a Northerly Direction U members were noted yesterday when they were traveling to the site on the bus that
The existing development is visible in views it’s the first thing you see when you approach braford in that direction and clearly bringing development closer to the main road will will result in development being even more prominent in views however um the assessment of the landscape assessment work that was
Carried out recognized that whil there would be some impacts in the context of that existing development and that existing build form those impacts weren’t considered to be sufficiently harmful um to to for the development score um read or to be unacceptable in landscape terms and in officer’s opinion
That in itself wouldn’t be a significant and demonstrable reason to refuse planning permission um this evening um we have got a sustainable Urban drainage strategy for the site that does propose um sustainable Urban drainage um that does include provision for climate change and it also includes um provision
For for urban creep as well so it has got built within it sufficient capacity to deal with surface water from this development to not resulting in flooding of the the site or or the local area um we we Al we are aware that bford is a relatively small settlement it does have
Some servicing facilities it’s got a shop it’s got um A52 running through with links to um to to settlements more sustainable settlements and in the general um spatial approach to development brailford is seen as a de a village that can accommodate some growth and we feel that 33 dwellings is an
Acceptable level of growth in that in that context happy to take take questions at this stage can I just remind members it is questions not a debate please be concise and uh at this point question so councelor Hughes thank you chair um so couple of questions um the SCH refers to um
Housing for 20 20 buil houses not 33 can you comment on that and uh drainage and sewage um I think the the residents have pointed to a number of issues with drainage and sewage um in your have you are you aware Chris uh that the llfa has taken into account the evidence
Provided by residents about the in the poor quality of the sewage and drainage infrastructure in brawood and its inability already to cope with the existing requirement for drainage and sewage let alone new houses um and then about The Pedestrian Crossing to the school um is it would it be possible if
We approved this to add that to the list of requirements under the section6 agreement um and then turning to recreational Green Space and reduced children’s play equipment is that correct or is or does the because I think there was an inconsistency in the drawings um I recall from yesterday’s meeting
Um so I think that’s all I believe the school role is already covered so I I wasn’t going to bring that one up David can I just uh remark to members bear in mind you are only allowed to ask three questions at this point who said that
Yeah I didn’t I don’t know of that rule Helen are you able to I don’t I don’t I believe that I don’t I’ve never heard of that rule I I would like all my questions answered and nobody will answer those questions i’ would ask one of my colleagues to ask those questions
Because I I have got five reasonable questions I want them all answered D okay all answer going to be David please calm down and not try and shut you up right well on that basis I am so sorry David but please take the chair Sue take
Over I’m sorry but uh I’m as entitled as you are to get worked up and you’re doing me no favors David just to say that um CH is willing to ask I think question I am happy to answer the question Davids a lot toire um how you staying David how you stay
How you staying Council B no I’m sorry you going David is a grown up man and if if that’s the best it can do to a fellow colleague it’s time I wer Even in our gr right so um what I suggest we do then
Is um are you are you aware Chris of the first three questions and then if somebody else is prepared to ask the other two I I have written down the questions so I’ll try and answer them if that’s that’s okay okay yes that that’s what I propose that we
Do so you’ve got you’ve got the first three we if we answer those and then the next two uh councelor Murphy will officially put those forward can I sorry can I clarify the question so I’ve got um the 20 houses that was identified as part of the initial um schar work that’s
Been carried out we’ve got the drainage and the evidence that’s been presented by by the public and whether I’m satisfied that that’s you know that’s been considered by the the lead local flood Authority um the section whether a Crossing um could be introduced through Section one6 agreements and then you had
A question about the children’s play Space on the site whether that would be compromised by by this particular development and then whether you were aware the flood Authority had taken into consideration the evidence provided by residents in make coming to their decision okay okay y
So in terms of the um the first question and the as part of the the schar work that was undertaken a very simple exercise was carried out based on location of the site and applying a number of dwellings per hectarage um assessment of you know what 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 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 officers or me 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 with what’s been delivered on the adjacent site we
Feel it’s compatible with the um the site and its its environment but it’s very much a matter of of judgment um drainage um I’m not aware of any evidence as such being presented to um to officers obviously there’s a lot of um public comment 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 um so that information is is out there in terms of whether that constitutes evidence or not suppose that’s open to interpretation um but the the lead local flood Authority have looked at this this
Development objectively um so they’ve looked at the the sustainable Urban drainage strategy for the site and um they’ve looked um at that and have satisfied that it would function um in a manner that wouldn’t cause flooding on site or in the local area um seven TR water um
Inquiries will haven’t been made with seven TR water in terms of whether they can accommodate foul flows from the development and developers um or the water company are obliged to take fou flows from new development um if there’s capacity and if there isn’t capacity they have to upgrade their
Infrastructure accordingly um and often we find that the water companies they identify capacity um it’s very rare that you you know you’re 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 this particular application with regard to the the crossing point um if because we we’re effectively dealing with um alterations to the highway so we would have to have the authority from the a reason in planning terms to require that and the highway
Authorities agreement to forming a crossing point um across luk Lane to to access the school I think without that agreement whilst we could encourage it through a footnote or or potentially a condition which explores it to insist on it is not something that we could effectively deliver without the backing
Of the the local Highway Authority um children’s play Space um there is some equipment on the site which you’ll have seen yesterday um the intention is that that will remain in terms of new new place space on the development site the site is within a 10-minute walk of a um
A park um off the plane the intention is for commu sum to be paid um so that that the play provision equipment on that part can be upgraded um given the the close proximity of that facility to to the site okay so um Chris are you aware of
The next two questions that are going to be formally asked by oh right thank you I’ll refrain from answering those questions right um outside the settlement boundary uh this is uh we keep eroding the settlement boundary the uh I think the policy really is that outside the settle it should be
Affordable housing but uh some of this is Affordable but uh um it’s outside the settlement bound Chris has uh explained that to get the eyes in 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 of
Settlement boundary so yeah that’s the most question uh my next question is um regarding uh I spoke yesterday about it uh the Tre the streets are supposed to have a lot of tree tree lined but now the Tre are going on the outskirts of the development uh we need trees climate
Change we need lots and lots of trees so it’ be nice if we had Avenues of trees so I’m really not too happy about that being taken away uh school crossing is definitely needed oh I’m sorry sir that’s not a question sorry Council I really must insist that the questions we
Come debate later and you can thank you coun AR thanks chair um first questions about the the school places on AG to 138,000 in there working in a school myself school’s already over subscribed this is going to bring in more school places I don’t think the 100
Doing the mass 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 uh the new students in to it which is meaning there’s going to be an increase in um travel to school so is
That potentially an issue in terms of sustainable development if um the children in the village are not able to go to the Village School it’s going to encourage more Journeys so that’s the question about sustainability based on the school places issue um and then just something related to this idea of phase
One and phase two so the the agent dis referred to this development as phase two so so when the initial development was put forward was there always a plan in there that would be a phase two or is this phase two just something that now sort of trying to suggest it was always
Going to happen um and linked to that there’s suggestions from several of the speakers tonight that many of the commitments that the developers said they were going to do in Phase One haven’t been done properly in finished off properly so you know until that’s done until phase one as they’re putting
It has been finished is there 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 um the commu some developer
Contribution to be used to provide School places the County Council use a a model which basically calculates how much it would cost to um basically extend an existing facility to accommodate um pupil numbers um or you start well it’s based on per per pupil I’m assuming there must be um a
Number before that becomes you know a viable proposition um but in theory that contribution should be spent on providing that number of school places at that particular school and the exact mechanics of it I don’t want to you know mislead you in any way um unknown unfortunately but that in theory is how
How that that works the um just going back to some um some comments made early in the evening when the original development came forward um it may it may have been that there was deemed to be sufficient capacity in the school at that that time and we know from you know
All the developments that we’ve looked at that pupils on Roll um on the ne in the next 5 years for some reason is declining despite an increase in in in population in in The darish Dales district and we believe that to be um the demographics because there’s a a
Higher proportion of 50 plus residents that live live in the district um but we’re in a situation here where um there is a need a need for school places and the the school is at capacity hence why we need a a contribution in this particular case and that should be spent
On on the extension of that school to provide that those School places um in terms of phase whether we knew or whether people knew there would be a phase phase two I suppose that depends who you ask um yesterday at the site visit um residents um who will um be um who
Who who joined this particular site were very clear in that when they purchased their properties they were told that they wouldn’t be any future development on on this particular site it was always um identified as part of the original application that we we received that all
Of the site was to be developed um and it was with it was revised so that the northern part of the site was was taken out of the development um we can’t guarantee as part of the planning process that um developments won’t come forward at a future or sites won’t come
Forward for development at 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 um in policy terms that we have to respond to
And we have to assess this application on its merits um in in terms of the last question I’ve got here um the commitments of the the developer having visited the site yesterday the standard of landscaping generally was considered to be high reference has been made to
Trees that have um may have died some of the Landscaping might not have taken that might need to be Revisited and looked at um but the my general feeling was the standard of Landscaping on this development was was sufficiently high and I’m not aware of any breaches of planning conditions relating to
Landscaping on this particular site councelor dubs please uh thank you chair um Chris could I ask you a question about um in your report 7.44 4th Line um it’s about the hydr break control chamber is increased from 11 L sorry 16 l/s to 6.5 l/s is what it says and
Um you just sorry point me in the right in the on page my page 58 section 7.44 of the officer report the application process that surf it’s about surface water discharge my favorite topic oh yeah yeah yes I don’t believe that’s a typographical error because there um the
Plans include um a new Hydro break to reduce the flows um so there’ll be additional storage capacity and a new Hydro break to limit flows to that that level is 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 councelor bottle uh thank you chair and uh Chris I’ve got a bit of a question um have we got any out standing enforcement action against the phase one not I’m aware of great um the uh commenters from the from the community mentioned biodiversity net gain good
Practice I didn’t really catch what they were saying there I was wondering if you could explain that thank you yes it relates to the method of of calculating net gain and habitat units that have been created on site so in the late representation sheet I’ve tried to sort
Of cover that and so there is a revised calculation um and that demonstrates a net gain of 8 something per in a much higher percent for hedro unit units that would be created yeah yeah okay y I’ll have another go at that um I did have one final question um
I know this is probably a bit hopeful but if s Trent actually said we can’t take the surage would we still have to give planning app planning permission depends on what they said to us if they were to say to us cuz they still have an obligation to accommodate
File flows from from new development but if they said um in terms of our capital projects it’s going to take us 10 15 years to to do these works then if we were to Grant planning permission with um a lifespan of just three years then clearly that wouldn’t be um appropriate
Um so it would you know put a a halt on the development for a period of time until the infrastructure was was delivered but we’re not we’re not in that that scenario here four please one then we I’m going to I’m going to ask our um legal services manager um after we’
Had questions ask about trck no no please do please do she’s she’s going to just um speak to us when we’ve had all the questions right thank you so you you you can ask your question go on then is it relevant that uh seven Trent are Trucking sewage away from their local
Depot uh in 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 braford in the past I’m unable to comment on whether that you know is an acceptable way of disposing of foul foul waste I
Don’t know whether the existing treatment PL or whatever it is that they’re pumping the sewage from whether that’s part of that operation right I’ll save the word sustainability for the discussion counc Murphy please thanks chair um highways obviously there’s issues raised in Communications from the Paris Council
About highways issues uh I don’t see them addressed in the what’s been submitted by highways do we send these um objections and issues and concerns that parish councils and individuals have to highways for them to create an answer and send it back or do we depend on them going on to
The portal and having a look it is the latter and you’ve got to you’ve got to appreciate as well publicity and consultation is carried out at the same time with consulties and the public so the point the local Highway Authority have made comments they may not have
Read all of the you know the public comments at that point that’s slightly it’s not satisfactory in a sense is it for for individuals because they’ll think we’re ignoring their uh their concerns and whatever so they’d be better off sending their concerns direct to the highways Authority yes of often that does happen
Um but we have to trust um that competent Authority that they look at you know these these developments objectively and um we’ll identify any issues as they arise this is development of 33 houses um so I think that has to be assessed in in that context and that scale of development okay thanks
Chris Council m sorry thank you um Chris just 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 um covered in in the report officers felt that um the existing development it’s something that the government encourages now that um streets are treelined um we felt that in the context of this particular site um the existing
Development isn’t um characterized by Street lined um sorry tree tree line streets and also we wanted to create a strong settlement Edge so we wanted to focus those trees on the periphery of the S and create creating a bit of a wooded margin on the Northern the
Northern um corner of the site um to help filter views of the development if you approach The Village um so where Justified um Street trees do not have to be provided um in ORD 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 you could um if you wanted to if you felt that it was appropriate in this particular instance um raised another question solar panels yeah the I we you’ll know there is a
Condition to um secure measures to help mitigate the effects of adapted climate change is part of the the recommendation that’s before you um in terms of meeting more stringent building regul requirements I’d expect some form of microgeneration on the on the houses so I’d expect that some of them would have
Solar panels it’s just unfortunate that’s not being shown on you know the application details have being submitted to us that’s something certainly that would be encouraging as part of discharging that that condition but again can we require it by condition um if you felt that was absolutely
Necessary in planning terms I think I’d say it wouldn’t meet the tests 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 um the test for planning
Conditions I’d like to ask a couple of questions of a m main mainly for clarity really um 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 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 um removed from the northern part of the site was a bungalow um there has
Been some modifications and we’re happy that um although there’s some very minor encroachments into the root protection area with conditions that the health and um the impact on those trees will be minimal thank you and the second question um is um about housing basically and affordable homes I notice our director of housing
On page 21 um appears to be a little bit disappointed that some of the affordable homes don’t meet the nationally described space standards um am I am I correct in thinking that that’s not something that we could condition to to to uh for them to be up to these
Standards um I think 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 officer’s report but I just need to find the right section say so on page well on page 21 from the director of
Housing it’s covered in the office at the issues and Appraisal section but I can try and find the relevant section for you they are up to M St is that if if not all um the majority of them meet nationally described space standards yeah so I’ve asked this on several
Occasions I think in this planning committee so that’s not something that we can condition to to to bring them to all of them to the nationally described space standards the development is applied for in full um so the the dwelling houses are as set out on the the drawings that
We’ve we’ve um that we’ve received um so we’d have to assess or we’d have to make a decision based on the application as submitted um our local plan refers to housing mix as opposed to size of of properties and that’s something we might want to consider as part of the local
Plan review we consider the general mix of housing on this site to be in accordance with with policy my understanding is the all or the vast majority of houses U meet nationally described space standards regardless of of that so just to be clear the majority but not
All I need find a relevant section of the report I think before page 21 sorry I think you’re referring to the director of housing’s comments but I think it’s covered somewhere in the the officers might be actually setting the application out I remember writing it sorry paragraph 2.3 of the officer’s
Report that 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 all right yes okay thank you more questions from any members okay so um I’m now going to ask um Carrie France our Legal Services
Managers just just to explain um what the position is about the number of questions that we can ask good afternoon members um 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 the um that there
Was some reference to three questions and that I would look um I’d 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 a three questions but that does appear in section 14 which is specific reference to uh public participation so members you are welcome to ask as many questions as you require and that would have been communicated um
When when I’d had a moment to sort of re you know reread what what what the Constitution says so so thank you Carrie um we now move on to the debate um and before we start the debate do I have um a recommendation from from a
Member can we listen to the debate first before normally we we we start with a I think I’m correct we start with a recommendation in that case i’ I’d like to I’d like to move deferment um on the basis that the there is insufficient evidence in from the highways Authority and from
The lead local flood Authority and seven Trent that they have taken into consideration the local issues on this site as presented in evidence by the uh by the residents who are here tonight and in in representations provided uh and that we await the uh detailed understanding of the way in
Which the the um drainage system works and the sewage system um offsite can take what uh comes off off this particular site um in order to and a full evaluation of that from the lead local flood Authority and similarly with the object the issues that have been um add addressed by residents associated
With highways um and I I I’d like to move that as as our position thank you do I have a second for that c 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 councelor
Dobs um that’s a good point is if we’re for deferment it’s got to be relevant to deferment um 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 you know 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 it’s basically cut and pasted into 7.44 16 l/ second you can’t increase to 6.5 what it means is by 6 .5 so the total surface water that will be it will be attenuated to is the sum of those two
Which I can’t do in my head yes I can 22.5 um lers per second and this is worrying this is important stuff this is where the people’s Gardens get water logged or not and nobody’s noticing this is worrying thank you chair slack uh thank you chair uh we do
Need out it we all realize that we desperately need out but um some of this um defer I agree with the deferent really because we have a lot of issues to address such as drainage such as uh looking at same as Laura just said Tree Line in these
Streets and they getting more trees on the side plus a new new Crossing for the children there’s lots more to go into this to be added to this application and it I’m not against it but it needs uh uh renewing and doing properly and I don’t think it’s been done properly
There’s a lot more to go into this and needed so i i s support the deferral Council arer you should just speak yeah just proposal just a quick a quick comment really it’s just like a feeling of deja vu I think I’ve got huge sympathy for our officers because I
Think they’re doing everything correctly and interpreting all the rules and regulations correctly and we’re and we’re being asked to follow them um however we have very serious concerns again about the due diligence of um the people we’re supposed to be trusting to make these judgments and and that not being
Consistent with what our own eyes and our residents 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 um our officers and
Agencies such as the local uh flood agency so so with all that considered while I I do I think support the idea of a deferment on on that basis I’m not entirely sure it’s going to get us anywhere um but I think it gives us an opportunity to try and get it somewhere
So therefore I will support it councilor botle uh I’m still worried about the sustainability really of this if we’ve got people um busing their kids to a school in ashborne or um there’s it’s 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 counc B I’ve got to agree I think there’s so many unanswered questions here uh flooding issues on the A52 constantly flooded by the Rosen crown and this is this has only just happened since the new de velopments
Have been um put in place the infrastructure is broken I think we’re quite clear on that um over the development of the village I think brailford has had more than enough um development in the village um hgvs the traffic that’s coming down this this corner here is is
Ridiculous and the speed that they’re coming down we noticed that yesterday um I think it needs to be addressed I think they needs a speed limit right around the top corner of the north North Area probably 30 mil an hour even 20 mil an hour because you’re coming around to a
School um I I just think we’ve had braford 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 thank you uh so it has been moved and seconded for deferral can I take a vote
On that please all those in favor of a deferral thank you that would appear to be unan are are you happy that we’ve got uh reasonable for deferral we SE Clarity on moving on then to um application 5.2 which is 23 stroke 00223 that’s been withdrawn 5.3 application 24 stroke
0094 stroke full think Le story rear extension at five thought view ashborne darbishire for clarification this has been brought to committee because it is a member of our own staff whove put who’s put in this application [Laughter] um right it’s it’s a small um rear extension not about this application now the
Previous one no no we we 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 um the agent the applicant had to provide some clarity on on the measurements and the scale um happy to take any
Question thank you do we have any questions no okay we’ll move to the debate do we have a recommendation Council Bates okay do I have a second for that counselor dos okay anyone else wish to speak or 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 favor it appears to be unanimous thank you very which is 23 Stoke 01284 full change of use of two agricultural buildings to commercial use Class E B2 and B8 part retrospective at
Longford Hall Farm long Lane Longford darbishire is this yours chis Sarah’s yeah speaker oh s oh yes thank you chair and the committee for the opportunity to speak this evening as detailed within the officer report full planning permission is sought for the change of use of two agricultural
Buildings to two commercial uses at Longford Hall Farm the application applicant has ran longor farm for many years due to the modernizing of modern farming methods and Machinery the applicant needs to consolidate the farming activities within remaining agricultureal buildings at the site and also wishes to further find other income
Revenue new streams in order to um 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 fund the renovation of the listed Barn complex and to ensure the agriculture Enterprise is more resilient to a changing Market progress is being made in this regard following a successful completion
And occupation of the first phase of commercial change of use unit at the site funds have already been channeled into the repair of the gray two star Coach House and stable block as well as the grade two star Barn this scheme will assist in further repairs and the
Maintenance of the coach house as well as the grade two cowshed 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 continue operation of the farm there will be three within building one and a single unit within
Building two in order to fully close the building minor alterations to building two are also proposed these will provide pest protection and an improved level of security the buildings are utilitarian in character as is common with most Farms the proposed alterations to the agricultural buildings will have 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 improve and enhance the site’s character the change in modern farming methods also reduces the employment opportunities the change of use of these buildings to a commercial
Use will provide additional employment unities within the local area therefore the resulting public benefits are considered to be twofold they will provide rural employment opportunities and preserve Heritage assets for future Generations these proposals are therefore in accordance with local plan policies ec1 pd2 and S4 there are some other points of which
Clarify which warrant Clarity the application site is accessed via private road which currently serves the farm located off long Lane the local Highway Authority did not raise any objections to the application subject a visibility Improvement and the implementation of pass in 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 officer’s report public right of ways are subject to highways legislation and therefore it is not possible to attach a condition which can be enforced by a local plan Authority however the applicant out can and will seek to redirect this route to provide a walkable alternative to conclude the proposals
Will create opportunities of 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 plan and the framework it is considered the plan commission should be
Granted I therefore invite you to follow the advice of the officer and approve the application thank you thank you Mr H spot on for time so thank you for that Sarah this is yours please um I don’t really want to repeat it all but um obviously it’s a change of
Use um we have granted previously for other buildings on this site um really um 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 um that are currently on the
Building as a risk register to be repaired and obviously this will look to fund uh the repair Works um I’ll take any questions any questions then members I think councilor baites your hand was up first can I ask what what type of commercial unit we’re looking at retail or is it uh
Industrial no it’s B1 B2 and B8 so that’s um B1 is generally something that is acceptable within that wouldn’t have uh it’s lowlevel impact on residential amenity for example um B2 is General industrial um so it’s a flexible use between the two B8 is storage and distribution um in terms of B1 B2
General industrial if that were um proposed and we had an arumi come in we have conditioned some more things in terms of that um to ensure that noise and Etc is being you know mitigated can I come back on that uh the question was it um for the amount of
Traffic coming down the lane so that that’s fine by me thank you councilor Bon thank you chair um I don’t have a problem with the actual um suggest change of use uh but my question is are we not condoning um the blocking of a footpath by granting uh plan
Permission new planning permission uh when the actual building itself is is blocking the footpath and and therefore um it’s technically legal isn’t it um I’m just worried that there might be some comeback on us for that do you want to answer that Sarah um obviously the building exists
It’s already block blocking the foot path and what we’ve said is that it’s not within the remit of planning to uh prevent planning permission for that reason it is something that it’s you know it’s a legal matter with the highways Authority um all we can do is
Really what we’ve done is add an informative to flag it um that it Still Remains an issue to be addressed councilor slack my was similar question to Council of voles uh is it has the been diverted or is it acceptable to be diverted where it does
I’m not aware it has been diverted no buildings that is an issue that’s an ongoing issue yes oh dear any more questions from Members I said I mentioned a b B1 you that is no longer the case it’s it’s what’s called an e EU class um and we haven’t restricted anything
That so that’s an open EU euse class um so it they could come in with that B2 or B8 in these circumstances any more questions from Members yeah councilor malstrom sorry I’m I’m just I’m confused about the that it’s being um that we’re permitting now
Are we permitting B1 B2 and B8 or or are we permitting something else um the use class order had changed so it’s not a b B1 use class doesn’t exist anymore it became an euse class that’s what I’m referring to um just just um to provide some clarity on
That so an e commmercial use classification includes a wide range of um uses that you you would expect to see or compatible with um a local Center so it could include shops um financial services and um and light industrial uses um 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 E commmercial use class then the industrial B2 use and ba8 storage and distribution use so it covers an awful lot can I ask a followup question chair
Thank you yeah uh so does that mean if we allow this that the application is effectively amended to an euse 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
Development it does say um for use for e-commercial use and B2 and B8 so that would be the um effective what we given permission for that will be reflected into the the description of development so my concern is just that that the consultation hasn’t been done
On the basis that this might turn into a retail facility I think the description development for my hasn’t changed I think it’s always been e because at the time of submission B1 used classification didn’t exist so it have always been advertised with its current description which is Class E and B2 and
And B8 from my understanding Sarah may be able to Prov some clarity there sorry it does say it within the report B War um but obviously this the being CL destion it’s class yeah that’s what I’m saying there it do we do refer to be one 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 um the description of development is euse class and that is correct and that’s how it’s being advertised okay are you happy with that councilor melstrom yes just as long as it’s been
Um put consultation on the proper basis yeah okay any more questions then we’ll move to the debate it has been recommended for approval subject to the conditions stated in the report do I have a recommendation Council slack um I’d move it chair um but I am
Concerned about the foot buff and I do hope we can get clarification on that shortly so is just ask you another I’m now come back on with question Chris but is a farmer willing to uh see the foot buffing it is an offense to um obstruct public
Foot so it come it depends on whether it’s going to be dealt with under the highway act or the planning act but it becomes an enforcement matter that will have to be it will be enforced be addressed yes yes so I’ll move it you do
I have a second I think that was you councelor Archard you wish to speak yeah just happy to Second and do share the concern about the foot path hope that that can get resolved but broadly want to help um our Farmers to be able to diversify and keep their businesses
Going and provide locally employment uh for the economy so therefore happy to support this and second this do I have anybody else want wishing to speak no uh councelor dobs yes I’m just slightly worried about the contribution from the um from doish County Council on P rights
Away um who um 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 uh we can’t condition this seems to be a bit of a catch 22 from a planning perspective um it’s
Whether officers feel that um 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 that the build it’s the building that encroaches um or is situated on top of the the legal
Alignment of that public right of way so I don’t think the remedy is um conditioning this application um because it doesn’t um relate specifically to the building it relates to its use um that that’s why as officers we feel that this this should be dealt with either through
Provisions of the highway act or if it’s related to an earlier planning application through the the planning act it’s something we’ll need to pursue separately thank you um in other words their recommendation is actually technically incorrect for this circumstance in my opinion yes yeah thank you thank
You anybody else wish to speak no in that case then it has been moved and seconded for approval subject to the conditions stated in the report could we go to the vote please all those in favor and against and abstentions that’s been carried with one abstention thank you we now move on to
Item six which is the appeals progress report on page 7 73 uh Christi speak to that um there’s one further update there’s a don’t know if it’s listed on that that current Table with there’s a tree appeal we don’t have many tree appeals um 65 lime tree Road
Um that decision came through this week and that appeal was was dismissed that’s the only update on that to make any comments councelor Hughes chair um just a question Chris um is this there seem 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 um we refuse an awful lot of applications we do really try and we are really hard on on design and members you know hold applicants to um to account in wide range of different matters so you do find an authority used
An awful lot of applications but our appeal record is also very good so it indicates the quality of decision- making is is high at darish stes at this moment in time could I just ask Tris um we seem to be wait waiting an awful long
Time for some of these um appeals to be processed um is is this is the amount of time that we that we’re waiting is that normal it very much depends on the appeal um a couple of months ago the plan inspectorate wrote to um local planning authorities to say that there
Was a 4-month delay in um registering new new appeals um however we had the um the land lot two development land off weon road appeal where the appeal was lodged and very quickly we had a start letter an agreement to a public inquiry so very much depends on the the type of
Of application and um the circumstances surrounding the decision I think at this moment in time quick question Chris um the a lot of tree applications of got clearing Ash dieback but uh I’ve noticed in the applications very often they had over trees ring that surrounding area so um
We need to retain good trees don’t we really you know we don’t want Ash buback to be a excuse for clearing over trees so I think we’ve got to be diligent on that the tree officer got to be diligent on that yes we’re very lucky as a district
Council to have a very competent tree officer who um you know is very proactive in terms of identifying issues looking secure replacement trees and also protecting trees of of high immunity value across the district we do issue a lot of new tree preservation orders yeah CU we seen a lot of Open
Spaces now I di I can’t wait you know it’s it’s distressing really thank you so I’m happy to move this report can I have for seconder please thank you councelor Hughes I’m going to take um we’ll go to the vote all those in favor thank you the planning committee thank you all
For coming um it’s been a slightly difficult meeting um but we we we we we’ve uh I think we’ve achieved what we what we needed to achieve so thank you all and thank you to uh Perry and um Angela for their help and of course to Chris and Sarah thank you