Decisions

Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.

Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.

Decisions published

31/08/2022 - TWC/2021/1179 - Land at Hadley Quarry, Hadley Road, Hadley, Telford, Shropshire ref: 181    Refused

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 31/08/2022 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 22/09/2022

Effective from: 31/08/2022

Decision:

This was a full application proposing the construction 186 dwellings, public open space, and a play area. Access would be from Hadley Road to the east, with pedestrian access proposed to the northwest corner of the site. The development was a mix of 2, 3, and 4 bedroom houses along with 2 bedroom bungalows. The applicant had agreed 25% affordable units.

 

The scheme was well designed and on the brownfield site of a former quarry. There was some tree loss associated with development; however, this would be mitigated by planting and usable public open space. There would also be an s106 agreement for tree replacement offsite. Other s106 improvements included highways, play areas, and schools.

 

An update to the plan had been received following the report’s publication. The applicant would provide each unit with an EV charge point.

 

Previous consent had been granted in 2011 but the scheme had not come forward.

 

Members posed a number of questions:

How close would the offsite play areas, benefiting from s106, be?

There was a play facility on site and the money offsite would be to facilities in the immediate area.

 

Why hadn’t the schools benefiting from s106 money been named?

They had not been named in this case as regulations did not require it. However, the money would be used within a 2 and 3-mile radius of the development.

 

Could the developer be asked to include solar panels?

While developers were encouraged to be energy efficient there was no policy requiring such measures to base a request on. Building regulations set out the energy efficiency required but this could be achieved in a number of ways.

 

Was there no space for trees on site?

To replace like-for-like was not possible, this was why there was a financial contribution to plant offsite. Smaller trees would be planted on site.

 

Upon being put to a vote, it was unanimously:

 

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission subject to the following:

 

A.        The following contributions to be agreed through a s.106 Agreement:

 

-           £65,100 (£350 per dwelling) towards improvements of nearby NEAP and play facilities;

-           £120,900 (£650 per dwelling) towards nearby sport and recreation facilities;

-           £879,364 Primary School Education Works within 2-mile radius;

-           £366,888 Secondary School Education Works within 3-mile radius;

-           £160,506.41 Strategic Highways Contribution;

-           £36,000 towards off site cycle/pedestrian route alongside Sommerfield Road;

-           £5,000 Travel Plan Monitoring;

-           £15,000 towards PRoW Works;

-           £225,420 towards off-site bio-diversity;

-           £56,800 Tree Replacement Standard

 

B.        Condition(s):

Time Limit - Full

Details of Materials

Landscape Design

Landscape Management (areas other than private gardens)

Highway Conditions (incl. (i) highway construction details works; (ii) parking and roads to be completed to each property prior to occupation; (iii) demolition/construction Management Plan; (iv) drainage solution for existing ditch adjacent Hadley Road; (v) provision of bus stops and (vi) submission of Travel Plan)

Highways details of pedestrian link to Waterloo Close

Drainage Conditions (incl. (i) Foul and Surface Water Scheme; (ii) Exceedance Routing and (iii) SUD’s Management)

Ecology Conditions (incl. (i) European protected species licence; (ii) bird and bat boxes; (iii) bio-diversity net gain plan; (iv) pre-commencement walkovers; (v) lighting plan; (vi) Work in accordance with protected species survey

Noise Survey Condition (work in accordance)

Tree Protection Implementation (in accordance with Arboricultural Method Statement)

Development in Accordance with Plans

Removal of PD rights for extensions to Plots 83-87

 

 

 


31/08/2022 - TWC/2022/0424 - Site of former Reynolds House/former Boyd House, Ironmasters Way/Boyd Close, Telford Town Centre, Telford, Shropshire ref: 180    Refused

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 31/08/2022 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 22/09/2022

Effective from: 31/08/2022

Decision:

The application sought full planning permission for enabling and engineering works comprising of ground remediation, reprofiling, demolition of the existing substation, and the diversion of existing utilities. The works were required in connection with the forthcoming ‘Station Quarter’ redevelopment.

 

A query was raised regarding the traffic issues in the town centre and whether operating hours for the site could be adjusted to quieter times so that business would not suffer from disruption. The Planning Officer stated that the availability of construction workers limited operation hours. To work on Sundays and bank holidays would add to the cost of development. There was a high tech solution to mitigate the impacts of construction with an online booking-in system to alleviate traffic on the highway.

 

Members questioned that while there were dust mitigation measures mentioned in the report, there was no mention of mud. With winter coming up, what measures would be in place for mud?

Officers confirmed that there would be wheel wash facilities at the exit.

 

Upon being put to a vote, it was unanimously:

 

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Service Delivery Manager to grant full planning permission (with the authority to finalise any matter including conditions, legal agreement terms, or any later variations) subject to:

 

1)         The applicants/landowner entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Local Planning Authority (with terms to be agreed by the Development Management Service Delivery Manager) relating to the following:

 

a)         £104,500 towards Biodiversity Net Gain

2)         The following conditions and informatives:

a)         A04                 Time limit

b)        B057              Remediation Works

c)         B059Custom           Waste Management Plan

d)        B130              Trees – Protective Fencing

e)         C38                 Development in accordance with deposited plans

f)          C091              Development in accordance with Ecology Survey

g)        C091              Development in accordance with CEMP

h)        I06                               Memorandum of Understanding

i)          I17b                Coal Authority Development Low-Risk Area

j)          I32                               Fire Authority

k)         I40                  Conditions

l)          I41                  Reasons for grant of approval

m)       RANPPF1


31/08/2022 - TWC/2022/0340 - The Cleveland Arms, Cotwall Road, High Ercall, Telford, Shropshire, TF6 6AE ref: 179    Refused

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 31/08/2022 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 22/09/2022

Effective from: 31/08/2022

Decision:

The application was for the conversion of a public house into one dwelling. It had been referred to the Committee because of the number and nature of representations that had been received. It was recommended that the Committee refuse the application.

 

Councillor Kevin Connor, Parish Councillor, spoke against the application. The application was the latest in a series to change the use of the Cleveland Arms. There existed a strong public demand to reopen the public house and there was disappointment that offers to buy and view the property had failed. The applicant had acted obstructively but potential buyers remained interested.

 

Councillor Stephen Bentley, Ward Councillor, made a representation against the application stating full support for the officer’s recommendation. Councillor Bentley paid tribute to planning officer Karen Denmark, who had recently passed away. 

 

The Planning Officer discussed the application. The property was Use Class Sui Generis and had ceased trading as a public house in 2016. The adjacent car park and bowling green were not part of the use-change application. The property itself was in a state of disrepair with the proposed development consisting of a change of use from Sui Generis to C3 dwelling house. Section 7 of the Local Plan listed public houses as community facilities and changing use could not be supported unless an alternative facility was available. The applicant argued that the Village Hall, which operated a bar one day a week, was an equivalent facility. Officers, however, disagreed; the hall lacked the facilities of a public house. There had also been a failure to demonstrate a lack of need for the facility. Marketing documents for the property had been assessed and it was considered that the applicant had acted in poor faith and that offers made had been viable.

 

Members spoke of the need for the amenity in the rural setting of the locality, speaking of it as a community asset.

 

Upon being put to a vote, it was unanimously:

 

RESOLVED - that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

 

1)         The application has failed to demonstrate a lack of need for the community facility, failed to evidence a robust marketing campaign and failed to identify an equivalent or alternative community facility that provides a similar offer which meets the needs of residents. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of a community facility and is contrary to Local Policies SP4, COM1 and EC7 of the Telford & Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031 and provisions found under National Planning Policy Framework.


31/08/2022 - TWC/2022/0291 - Land rear of 135 & 137 Hadley Park Road, Hadley, Telford, Shropshire ref: 178    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 31/08/2022 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 22/09/2022

Effective from: 31/08/2022

Decision:

This was an outline planning application for the erection of one dwelling. The site comprised a parcel of land extending from Hadley Park Road between numbers 133 and 135 and incorporated a wider parcel of land between the rear gardens of number 135 and 137. Since the report had been published, an additional representation in support had been received.

 

Councillor Stuart Parr, parish councillor, spoke against the application. The development was a garden development and this was against council policy and access two the property would be unsafe due to poor visibility existing to Hadley Park Road.

 

Dawne Telford, the applicant, spoke for the application. AC Development had acquired and renovated the derelict 135 and 137 Hadley Park Road cottages, bringing them back to use. The application on the land at the rear was in line with policy requirements and would bring derelict land back to use and provide affordable accommodation for local people.

 

The Planning Officer stated that highway safety and the principle of development were the main consideration of the application. All matters in the application were reserved. The illustrative block and elevation plan demonstrated that single storey development could be accommodated on the site and meet NDSS standards. Back-land development was often resisted but as the application would not affect the character of the area and did not affect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings, this was not seen as an issue.

 

Following the presentation, Members posed a number of questions:

8.7.1 in the report mentions a TPO, was the tree removed as part of the Park Court Development?

Confirmation of this had not been confirmed, however, this matter was not material to the application. There was sufficient space for replanting in the corner in question if needed.

 

Were there any concerns regarding things that had not been included in the submission?

No, but to progress the applicant would need to submit a reserved matters application on detailed matters.

 

On what grounds was back-land development usually resisted?

It was sometimes resisted on grounds of impact to the character of an area or inadequate separation distance. This was why an illustrative floor plan was requested. It had been provided and a single storey dwelling would not affect either character or separation.

 

There was a mention of Japanese knotweed in the report, had this been investigated?

An informative could be added in terms of any decision made.

 

Members also queried the visibility when exiting the property and the position of the bus stop. The Planning Officer advised that highways had considered the existing position and had not considered it detrimental given the fall-back position.

.

Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:

 

RESOLVED - that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission subject to the following:

 

a)         The following Condition(s) and Informative(s) (with authority to finalise Condition(s) to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager):

 

Condition(s):

 

Time Limit

Reserved Matters Time Limit

Reserved Matters

Construction Environmental Management Plan

Foul and Surface Water

Materials (details to be submitted)

Parking, Turning, Loading (to be submitted)

Access drive surface / bound material (to be submitted)

Nesting and Roosting Boxes

Scale of Development (single storey)

Illustrative Site Layout Plan (general principles)

Approved Plans

Highways License Informative

Nesting Wild birds Informative

Restriction to 1No. dwelling

Japanese Knotweed Informative


31/08/2022 - TWC/2022/0170 - Granville Landfill, Grange Lane, Redhill, Telford, Shropshire ref: 177    Refused

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 31/08/2022 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 22/09/2022

Effective from: 31/08/2022

Decision:

This was an application for the variation of conditions on planning consent for the Granville Landfill site. The proposed amendment would extend operations beyond the 31 December 2025 closure date stipulated in Condition 6 of the existing planning consent to 31 December 2030. A further variation of was proposed to Condition 13(b) of the planning consent. This would reduce the maximum amount of waste and soil material permitted per day from 1,500 tonnes to 1,350 tonnes.

 

The Democratic Services Officer read aloud a representation from Councillor Veronica Fletcher, neighbouring ward councillor. The objection raised a number of key points covering highway issues, noise and disturbance for residents, smells and fumes from the site, and a desire to see the landfill closed in line with Telford & Wrekin’s climate and recycling policies.

 

Councillor Lisa Dugmore, parish councillor, spoke against the application on environmental grounds and the impact of extension on residents. 

 

Councillor Adrian Lawrence, ward councillor, made representations against the application because of the impact of the site on residents and the environmental impact of landfilling.

 

Helen Howard, member of the public, made a representation objecting to the application. Specific objections were made to outside waste being brought in to the landfill when Telford and Wrekin performed well in terms of recycling.

 

Georgina Daintith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application citing the importance of the landfill operating to full capacity and the environmental benefits of the associated Landfill Tax benefits.

 

The Planning Officer informed Members that there was a need to extend the life of the site to allow the current operator to complete and fill the landfill. This was the most efficient use of the site and would allow the remediation plan to be carried out as already approved. The site and its restoration were strictly controlled by the Environment Agency and actions relating to the site required their approval. Members had previously questioned the two-year closure of the site in 2016; this was not down to the current operator.

 

The site had not been filled due to reduced input in the five years prior and would require a five-year extension to fill the site. If capacity was reached earlier then restoration could begin sooner.

 

Members had questioned taking waste from other areas national guidance clearly stated that authorities should work jointly on waste management.

 

Part of the site had already been restored and all efforts would be made to restore the site to its natural surroundings. Recommendations in the independent report from WSP stated that should a revised scheme be required there could be a number of issues, including gas leakage, water seepage, and slippage. Closing early could lead to an unfeasible scheme.

 

Another concern raised related to methane. WSP had analysed waste returns data and concluded the site did not receive a high proportion of organic waste and produced low levels of methane and other greenhouse gases. The site itself had considerable methane monitoring on site and operated methane extraction.

 

During the debate a number of issues were raised by Members. Members expressed reservations about extension because of the impact on residents, stating that extending the sites life would lead to further disruptions from traffic, noise, and smells. The possible impact of fires at the site was also raised.

 

Another issue raised by Members was environmental. A number of Members objected to the extension stating that it was contrary the Borough’s climate change goals and that high recycling rates in the Borough combined with the importing of waste from other authorities made extension inequitable.

 

Members also queried the need for the extension of the site’s lifespan. There were two main strands to this argument. One was that the site, based upon capacity figures, appeared likely to be at full capacity within the remaining three years of its current conditions and therefore extending was unnecessary and, perhaps, de-incentivising. The second argument was that there would be nothing stopping a further extension beyond 2030 and that this would be unacceptable.

 

On being put to the vote it was, by a majority

 

RESOLVED – that delegated authority not be granted to the Service Delivery Manager to grant the variation of conditions 6 and 13(b) of application W2006/0232.

 

On being put to a vote it was, by a majority

 

RESOLVED – that the application be refused on the grounds of the impacts approval would have on the residential amenity of residents and future residents.


27/07/2022 - TWC/2022/0162 - Former Dairy Crest Ltd (Phase 3), Crudgington, Telford, Shropshire ref: 176    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 27/07/2022 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 22/09/2022

Effective from: 27/07/2022

Decision:

This application was for the erection of 55no. dwellings with associated amenity space and car parking with the formation of new roundabout to the existing cross roads  on the former Dairy Crest Ltd (phase 3), Crudgington, Telford, Shropshire.

 

This application was before Planning Committee as it required a S106 Agreement.

 

Councillor G Cook left the meeting.

 

The Planning Officer informed Members that this application was for full planning permission on an agricultural field which fell between the former Dairy Crest site and the A442 and proposed to facilitate a four arm roundabout to replace the existing Crudgington crossroads.  This was a much sought after improvement to the highway by the local community, due to it being an accident hotspot.

 

Councillor S Bentley, Ward Councillor, spoke in favour of the application and the importance of public engagement on this application and the opportunity for him to explain, on balance, why he was in favour of the recommendation despite it being contrary to policy.  The strategic junction had and continued to have minor shunts, accidents with injury, road closures and fatalities.  This was exacerbated by the increase in traffic and the size of the vehicles, agricultural vehicles and speed of traffic.   It would have been preferable if funding for the installation of the roundabout could have been obtained in other ways with affordable housing being set aside for families with local connection.  There was a demonstrated need for safety improvements for all users of this junction including cyclists and pedestrians which would be complimented by the pedestrian crossing which had now been installed and was operational.  It was hoped that this would also help reduce the speed of vehicles.  He requested that a central refuge be installed on the pedestrian crossing and that if adjustments to the S106 were sought that the junction improvements were not compromised in any way.

 

Mr A Sheldon, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application and acknowledged that under normal circumstances this application would not have gained the support of the Officers but due to the exceptional circumstances and the significant public benefit of the construction of the roundabout and the approval of the Parish Council it was considered, on balance, acceptable.  A viability assessment had been undertaken and it was not possible to provide both affordable housing on site as well as the education contribution of £450k due to the cost of providing the roundabout.  The contribution would provide additional classroom spaces and the Primary School were in support of the application.  The development would be of high quality design with a mix of housing types and sizes.  He asked that Members approve the application which would bring about a resolution to the long standing dangerous junction arrangements.

 

The Planning Officer informed Members that this application brought a significant community gain.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees.  Extensive negotiations had taken place and the application was supported by the Parish Council.  There was an over provision of five parking spaces and all properties would have EV charging points which has been confirmed by the Applicant and would be conditioned.  The design had been amended during the course of the application, particularly to the A442 streetscene in respect of house types and the landscaping.  The viability had been independently assessed with the cost of the roundabout and the re-location of utilities being around £2m.  The viability assessment concluded that some contributions could be provided and it was considered by Officers that more appropriate to provide education contributions on this scheme due to the capacity of the local primary school and secondary education.  The scheme would therefore not provide any affordable housing although two additional pieces of outdoor gym equipment would be installed on the play space from the earlier phases and this had been agreed with the Healthy Spaces Officer.  Whilst the scheme was contrary to policy, the significant benefits which had been sought by the local community and the Parish Council for many years on balance it was the Officer’s view that the application should be supported.

 

During the debate some Members felt that the roundabout was a long overdue, was supported by the Ward and Parish Councillors and it was whole heartedly supported due to safety concerns and EV charging points were welcomed.  Some concerns were raised in relation to flooding and the representations from neighbours and the capacity of the local schools.  Other Members raised concerns regarding the lack of solar panels.  Concerns were also raised in relation to the application being used to fund the cost of the roundabout instead of the highway authority and this had an impact on the local affordable housing need.  It was asked that the emergency exit and access to the A442 be conditioned as set out in the report.

 

The Planning Officer confirmed that the contribution towards education had been assessed on the standard formula for the primary school new class base together with a 5% buffer for future growth of the local community.

 

Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:

 

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Service Delivery Manager to grant full planning permission (with the authority to finalise any matter including conditions, legal agreement terms, or any later variations) subject to:

 

a) the applicants entering into a S106 agreement to incorporate:

 

i) Financial contribution of £286,711.00 towards primary school

   expansion at Crudgington Primary School;

 

ii) Financial contribution of £131,452.00 towards secondary school

               expansions in the North Telford Planning Area;

 

iii) Financial contribution of £46,854.00 towards secondary school

                transportation;

 

iv) Installation of two pieces of outdoor gym equipment at the

                existing ‘Former Dairy crest’ LEAP, and;

 

v) S106 Monitoring Fee of £9,300.34.

 

b) the conditions within the report (with authority to finalise conditions   

    and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development

    Management Service Delivery Manager).

 

Wards affected: Arleston; College; Dawley and Aqueduct;


01/06/2022 - TWC/2022/0170 Granville Landfill, Grange Lane, Redhill, Telford, Shropshire ref: 174    Item Deferred

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 01/06/2022 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 22/09/2022

Effective from: 01/06/2022

Decision:

This application was for the variation of Conditions 6 and 13 of planning permission W2006/0232 (Extension to existing landfill site by deepening and raising contour profile by about 2m and restoration of the site with variation to conditions 7.13 and 20 of planning consent Ref: MW/94/0424/WR) to allow the disposal of permitted wastes within the landfill area to continue until 31 December 2030 and to reduce the permitted daily limit of waste to 1350 tonnes at Granville Landfill, Grange Lane, Redhill, Telford, Shropshire.

 

This application was before Planning committee at the request of Donnington and Muxton Parish Council and Councillor V Fletcher, Ward Councillor.

 

Additional representations had been received which noted a series of observations in relation to no local need, successful local recycling with zero going to landfill, clarification was sort where the waste was from, the permit on the site and its closure for a period of time, loss of value to local houses, the need to focus on incineration and the pyramid system and it was against the Human Rights Act 1998.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the loss of value to local houses were not a material planning consideration and there was no evidence to support this.  Landfill remained an important part of the hierarchy when no other option was available and it was considered there was still a need for this to continue.

 

Councillor A Lawrence, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the impact on the new residential area, it was land rise and not land fill, inappropriate location and an eyesore, loss of value to local properties and the expectation that the permit would be coming to an end and the land reverted back to a nature reserve, continual requests for extensions and the impact on the local environment.

 

Councillor V Fletcher, adjoining Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and raised concerns that this application went against policies within the Telford Local Plan, the need for the site, traffic flow along the access route, nearby construction site and vehicular traffic movements, the request for a 5 year extension but the site had only been closed for 2 years, impact on local residents, the lack of an impact assessment, noise and disturbance, smells, fumes and vermin on the site.

 

Ms H Howard, a member of the public, spoke against the application and raise concerns that this application went against policy and she felt it was detrimental to the local area, the lack of established need within Telford and Wrekin, the impact of land raise, the site was an eyesore, the contouring of the site, the operation should have ceased in 2021 and reverted back to the Granville Country Park, the extension was not viable, landfill should be a last resort and this was a blight on the landscape with no local need.

 

Ms G Daintith, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application and explained that as the site was closed for two years the annual tonnage would need to increase.  The site was not expected to reach capacity and it would close in 2025, the site was a strategic resource, the northern area of the site had been restored, there were no technical objections to the site and the variations did not impact on the permitted permission on landfill activities.  There would be no additional traffic on the highway network and it was a recognised waste facility.  The site operated under an Environment Agency permit and controls were in place in relation to noise and odour and the application was compliant with policies.

 

The Planning Officer explained to Members that there were clear and valid reasons for the operation to continue for a further five years and if the extension was refused the operator could not comply with the conditions on the existing site.  There was no impact on future or existing residents ad there were no changes or increase to the types of waste on the site which had already been approved and the operation was controlled by the Environment Agency and this was not for Members consideration.  There were no material changes to the application and approval would allow for satisfactory completion of the site.

 

During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding odours from the site and impact on local residents and the highway network.  Other Members raised concerns regarding the majority of waste was brought in from outside of the Borough and if this was a strategic resource for the local area, the additional height and the impact on the contours of the site, the climate change emergency and the impact on the Council’s omissions targets.  Further concerns were raised regarding the raising of the profile, the proximity to local housing developments and the lack of benefit to the local area.  It was asked if the timescale could be reduced down from five years if requested and why the site hand been closed, what had caused the delay, where the waste had been taken during its closure, should Telford and Wrekin be taking on waste from other local councils, would the site ever meet the figures if the waste sinks down and would there be a need for further extensions on the site.

 

The Planning Officer confirmed that the surrounding residential areas had been identified for a significant period of time within the local plan and officers were mindful that these could come forward whilst the site was still in operation.  It was difficult to confirm where the waste came from and how it was processed as this came through a waste transfer station in Welshpool but waste was from the borough as well as other authorities and that there was still a need for landfill and the site at Granville was meeting that demand.   A full restoration of the site would be undertaken but there was presently and undersupply of waste to the site and the application did not seek to increase the height or contouring but that the wording of the condition was in reference to the original application in 2006 and the site could be monitored in order to review the contour.  With regard to extensions of time to the site, each application would be considered on its own merits.

 

The Legal Advisor advised Members that the site was bound by the decision that was made in 2006 in relation to the contouring and the height of the site and this could not be exceeded or it would be a breach of conditions.  The site was subject to a restoration and contouring plan.  The use of landfill was still valid and some weight had to be given to that and with regard to the impact on residents, this would have been taken into consideration and weighed up appropriately.   Members could reduce the timescale if they felt this appropriate.

 

Following the debate it was moved and seconded that the application be deferred in order that officers could undertake discussions with the applicant in relation to these concerns. 

 

Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:

 

RESOLVED – that the application be deferred in order that officers could undertake discussions with the applicant in relation to where the waste came from and how it was processed, how long would the loading take place and would it sink down, would it have reached the limit by 2030, would it be like that a further extension would be requested in 2025, whey did they not operate for a two year term and where was the waste taken.